Open Discussion Page

Most comment policies for the blog are in effect on this page as well. However, we will not monitor the length of comments (unless some wise guy plays a game), the direction of the discussions or the relevance of the discussions. The Deebs may or may not participate in the discussion, depending on busyness of the current posts. In other words, go for it. This page is subject to change as we work out the inevitable issues.

Please note that the usual restrictions on personal attacks and other rude behavior still apply here.

Update: 660 comments in 3 weeks. Not bad. Since infinite is a bad idea in how big a page can be on a web site I’m changing things so comments are split into pages of 500 per page. Nothing is gone. Just click on the link for older comments. (GBTC)

Comments

Open Discussion Page — 6,803 Comments

  1. @ Nancy:
    I didn’t view it as inaccurate; it seemed to me to be true of many in the Anglican Communion, while not true of others. Anglicanism is very diverse.

    Your kids’ church sounds pretty high to me – what Englishmpeople refer to as “spiky,” from all the pointy things in much Gothic/Gothic Revival church architecture. It also sounds like you feel good about being there, so hey – go for it!

  2. By the way THC, have a look at this compendium from the Rorate Caeli and Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy blogs of statements by the ecumenical patriarch on the remaining obstacles to reunion:

    http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2014/12/01/patriarch-bartholomew-union-rome/

    This in my mind summarizes where we are. There is a long road ahead, but critically, unlike in the eleventh century, we are talking, instead of hurling anathemas at each other; indeed you could even say there is an aspect of love present in the dialogue.

  3. @ THC:
    “The god Pan”? Could you please provide some links so that we can see where this idea comes from? It sounds to me like there is some misunderstznding or confusion of something else with Pan.

    Btw, Pan is a Greek demigod, so even though the name might mean “bread” in Latin, that isn’t an accurate representation of Greek mythologymor language.

  4. @ Ken:
    What were this teacher’s sources for their claims? It sounds like the whole “generational curses” deal to me, which comes directly from the late Derek Prince and sedms dubious at best. I used to know some of his former associates, and they certainly weren’t shy about presenting it as fact.

  5. dee wrote:

    As you know, Protestants believe it was Peter’s confession that the church was built on.

    Another idea among some protestants is that both the confession and the person of Peter were meant by the “keys” and “build my church” comment, but they do not believe in apostolic succession in the same way that the RCC does, and they do not understand having “the keys” in the same way that the RCC does. Which is to say, they believe in ordination but not like the RCC does, they have a different idea about priesthood (along the “all believers” idea) but do not deny that Jesus passed on to Peter a leadership role during his lifetime. I do not know what any particular denom thinks along this line, but I have heard this line of thinking rather frequently over the years.

    The whole thing gets iffy for me any way you look at it since Jesus himself is described as the cornerstone. I feel like we all may be missing some important clue here in trying to bring all this together.

  6. dee wrote:

    THC wrote:
    It was Peter, who was singularly given the keys of the kingdom. None of the other apostles were given the keys. That is important. The Church was to be built on Peter.
    As you know, Protestants believe it was Peter’s confession that the church was built on.

    I understand that’s what Protestants say this is about. Unfortunately, nothing in the text indicates that it is Peter’s confession or his faith.

    Jesus spoke in Aramaic, which was later translated and written into Greek, “Thou are Cephas (rock) and upon this Cephas (rock) I will build my church.”

    Name changes are significant in the Bible and Simon Bar Jonah’s name was changed to Peter (Cephas), rock. Mary’s name was also changed to “Full of Grace.” Saul’s name was changed to Paul.

    Peter clearly was the final arbiter at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. The early Church fathers consistently wrote that the successors of Peter is where the Church’s authority resides.

    Who am I to question Jesus? Should I believe those who, 500 years (Oriental split), 1000 years (Eastern split), 1,500 years (Protestant split) later say otherwise? I believe Jesus set up his church on Peter exactly because there will be disagreements and there needs to be a final arbiter on teachings of faith and morals.

  7. @ William G.:
    There might be some Orthodox Jews who would pray such “prayers” – sadly, consonant with a couple of the psalms (like the one where people who smash the skulls of Babylonian babies are commended). But I’m willing to bet that few would adhere to it. Of course, imprecatory prayers became a thing in certain circles after Pres. Obama was elected, so…

    I cannot imagine that any Conservative or Reform rabnis would hold with imprecatory “prayers.” Fwiw – and i know it is cknfusing – the proper term is Reform, not “Reformed.”

    And while i am sure the monks believe thst Satan is very active among people onmretreat, i do mot accept that at face value.

  8. @ Nancy:
    I have always puzzled over that passage – it probably doesn’t mean what many think it means (Catholics and Protestants alike), any more than Jesus’ emphatic “Get thee behind me, Satan!” retort to Peter. Though in that case, i doubt that anyone believes Jesus was saying thst Peter was Satan.

    Sigh… sometimes interpretation makes me want to tear my hair out. And sometimes Scripture itself makes me want to do that – like all the Provetbs passages about evil married women lying in wsit to sefuce young men. The text doesn’t present anything close to an equivalent, in that there’s nothing about men who seduce or rspe young women. But then, it reflects its time, and for all that Wisdom is personified as a woman, women didn’t exactly enjoy high docial status at the time.

  9. numo wrote:

    Frankly, i have known Jewish people who were closer to God than many baptized xtians. God sees peoples’ hearts, which is more than any of us humans can do.

    Amen to that Numes. When I was a kid I had a fishin’ buddy, Danny Lehman was his name. We used to fish for Lake Michigan perch off the breakwater. Danny’s gramma made the best gefilte fish from scratch with what we caught. To this day I still get a jar of the stuff from the supermarket now and again, but it’s nowhere near as good as the stuff Danny’s gramma used to make.

  10. THC wrote:

    Who am I to question Jesus?

    And you think that we are questioning Jesus?

    Just as you have chosen to believe what you *know* to be true, other men and women, just as smart and devout as you, read it differently. That is why I respect people on different sides of the fence. I know that I am not the smartest theologian in history. I believe that there will be people from different sides of this issue in heaven and brownie points will be given to those who loved and served others and gave grace to those of differing persuasions.

    In the end, Jesus saves.

  11. @ THC:
    Where is this name change for Mary found? It seems to me that she had the same name in the Gospels and in Acts. Jesus = Yehoshua (Joshua).

    I think you are confusing changes in pronunciation, spelling and language(s), for the most part, Saul/Paul being the exception. Afaik Cephas = Peter. It is a form of the same name in two digferent languages.

  12. @ Nancy:
    Our liturgy (in my synod, the ELCA) hasn’t really changed per se. More like some of the wording was rewritten slightly in the 70s, to reflect contemporary usage. At the same time, it became almost identical in wording to the podt-Vatican II Mass, i think mainly because it’s an excellent template in tetms of modern, idiomatic English, and also because there is *very* little difference between a typical Lutheran service and a typical Mass. We’ve got the Gloria, the Kyrie, responsorial readings and lots more.

    I should add thst there is no dinglr, overarching association of Lutheran churches, either in the US or abroad. This reflects theological differences to some degree, but is mainly a result of different groups of Luthersn immigrants coming to the US at different times, settling in manyndifferentmplaces – and speaking different languages. The Anglican Communion has always had a common language, while Lutherans came here speakjng a whole passel of them – German, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Finnish, Latvian, Estonian and so on. As a side note, i am descended from some of the earliest immigrants to the colony of Pennsylvania. The 1st groups of Luthersn immigrants to the colonies were German and Swedish. Much later – mid-19th c. firward – more Germans settled in the US, and thst’s when a lot of Midwestern Lutherans came. Ditto for the Lutheran immigrants from Scandinavia and the Baltic states.

  13. @ numo:

    The 19th clause in the prayer in question is found in some Conservative siddurim. At any rate, my point is that Christians should avoid saying that prayer. There is also the very serious question of the Kabbalah, which did heavily influence all of the commonly used Rabinnical liturgies.

    I have admiration for the piety and devotion of Jews, particularly those groups, such as the Haredim, who are unpopular with contemporary society due to their objection to participating in a great deal of it. There success in living in the world without being a part of it should be regarded as inspirational to Christians.

    I do want to emphasize my main point: Christians should not, in my opinion, participate in non Christian worship to the extent that it is prioritized over attending Christian services. What is more, one could argue that such participation should consist chiefly of observation and/or loving support. The Jesuit position in the Chinese Rites Controversy has in general struck me as establishing an outer marker of external participation.

    In particular I should stress that Christians who are looking for a solution to some problem or to add something to their sprituality should not become so,called,”spiritual tourists” hopping from one religious tradition to another. I am also, as it should be obvious, opposed to the “blending” of Christian religious services with those of other religions. This does not mean that I am opposed to all interfaith services; rather, just to those services where a Christian minister seeks to incorporate aspects of non Christian religion in a service, for whatever reason.

  14. dee wrote:

    And you think that we are questioning Jesus?

    Not at all. Since I believe that the Pope is the successor to Peter, I am saying this to myself- who am I to question what Jesus has revealed?

    dee wrote:

    I believe that there will be people from different sides of this issue in heaven

    Do you think I do not agree with that as well? I don’t believe there will be a theology test to get into heaven. What’s important is how you live your life with the understanding that you have been given, whether you be Catholic, Baptist, Episcopalian, Buddhist, or even Atheist.

    I believe that all religions have elements of truth. I personally also believe the fullness of truth is only found in the Catholic Church, and that’s also what the Catholic Church also teaches. I also believe that many people, Catholics and former Catholics alike, do not really know what the Catholic Church teaches.

    There is something called the “New Evangelism” which is all about teaching Catholics about their faith. Since Vatican II, up until 15 years ago or so, there’s been a dearth of solid Catholic teaching in parishes. It’s changing though. Many people who went through Catholic religious education 30 years ago weren’t properly catechized.

  15. numo wrote:

    Where is this name change for Mary found?

    Luke 1:28, Gabriel didn’t call her by her birth name Mary, instead he called her kecharitomene (“Full of grace”). This new name indicates a life status change for Mary.

  16. By the way, fwiw, my liturgical library contains a fair amount of Judaica. I don’t read Hebrew which is a stumbling block, but I have English translations of Orthodox and Karaite siddurim and the Samaritan Defter (prayer book).

    I am on the lookout for English translations of the Romaniote and Syrian siddurim, and also better translations of the Yemeni siddur.

    The Jewish liturgical services are of extreme interest to me because I believe that Judaism and Samaritanism together with Christianity have a monopoly on authentic scriptural inspiration, and the worship services of Christianity are clearly derived from Jewish prayer. For that matter I am a huge supporter of the idea of Messianic Judaism and have been contemplating developing liturgical books for the use of Jewish comverts to Orthodox Christianity by splicing the rites of the Karaites, who reject the Kabbalah, with the Assyrian Church of the East, which essentially reads the Old Testament lectionary of the Babylonian Jews at the start of each mass (Qurbana Qadisha or Raza in East Syriac).

    In the case of the Samaritan Defter, the terminology used in the services was heavily borrowed from Islam during the most recent liturgical reformation around the time the Samaritans switched from Aramaic to Arabic as their vernacular tongue. It’s quite an interesting liturgical service, rich and full of Biblical quotations.

    My belief is lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi. From that basis, all virtue propagated by a religion it seems to follow,should flow,from its rituals, and any error should also be manifest therein. However worship is in its externals a product of culture, and it seems to me to follow from “there is neither Greek nor Jew” that at present, the cultures of all nationalities are of equal value to God. Therefore Chrisitian worship can and should incorporate those aspects of foreign cultures that were present in the religion of the people that do not clash with Christian teaching. For this reason I am thoroughly unbothered by the fact that the main Christian festivals were promoted as alternatives to cortesponding Pagan holidays, for example, Candlemas vs. Lupercalia.

  17. @ THC:
    I think you are the 1st Catholic I’ve heard make this claim, and i am no stranger to Catholicism and Roman Catholic people. So, sources and links, please?

    I have always understood Gabriel’s words to be a salutation plus statement about her, and have never – in either Catholic nor Protestant commentaries on Luke – come across this understanding (the one you mention). I think it’s necessary to have a far greater knowledge of koine Greek than either of us possess to be able to make a clear statement validating what you’re saying.

    Mary = Mariam or Maryam) in Aramaic and Arabic = Miriam, which means she was named after the prophetess Miriam, sister of Moses and Aaron. All 3 members of the holy family are named for people who were key participants in God’s redemption of the Hebrew people. Not only that, Luke’s gospel has Mary prophesying (or fairer to say, declaiming a prophetic psalm of her own making) just a tad further on. Coincidence or skillful juxtaposition? I believe the latter, since the 1st couple of chapters are almost play-like, moving from scene to scene, not thrown together all anyhow.

    Fwiw.

  18. @ THC:
    But nobody ever calls her that as a given name. Which is not the case with, say, Paul, or Jacob/Israel, or…

  19. numo wrote:

    I have always understood Gabriel’s words to be a salutation plus statement about her

    But he didn’t say “Hail, Mary, full of grace.” He said, “Hail, full of grace.” She was addressed by a messenger from God as “Full of Grace.” Not insignificant because scripture doesn’t make mistakes. She was called “Full of grace”, not as a title, but as who she was. While not the only proof, certainly a strong indication of Mary’s immaculate conception.

  20. @ Nancy:
    Err, the text of the NT is in koine Greek. It was the lingua franca of the time. There are a handful of Aramaic words, like “Talitha cumi,” which is also in Luke.

  21. @ THC:

    The elephant in the room you’re jumping over with this Mariological segue remains liturgical. How can communion be restored until the widespread liturgical abuse in the Latin Rite is corrected?

    Also, in my mind the New Evangelization has been in many respects a futile gesture given the loss of theological meaning by the liturgical reforms? When I say I believe in lex credendi, lex orandi, I mean it, and with a few adjustments to the propers to delete feasts and commemorations of anti-Orthodox persons canonized by Rome, you can use the old Tridentine mass as an Orthodox service, and indeed some do (the Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate). On the other hand the Novus Ordo is something else entirely. As the font of the liturgical deformation across much of Western Christendom by way of Protestant liturgies revised in imitation of it, it in my mind both suggests a level of Papal influence in excess of what you suggest, and a lack of assured theological competence on the part of the Roman pontiff which seems to undercut the claim of Petrine authority.

  22. @ THC:
    Thanks for the reference – it is appreciated. Still, it doesn’t seem that there was a literal change from one given name to another, which is what i have been trying to determine.

  23. By the way, I do want to touch on St. John Chrysostom, one of the Three Holy Hierarchs who are regarded as holy for, among other things, their work for the poor. Adversos Iudaeos is a work directed against Jews who were actively proselytizing Christians in Antioch. This is,highly anomalous, because Jews do not as a rule proselytize; they accept proselytes only after discouraging them thrice in the Rabinnical tradition. So we have somewhat of a quandary.

    Scholarly consensus is that either the Jews in question were actually “Judaizing Christians” or the Christian population of Antioch was regarded as ethnically Hebrew by the Jews, which would suggest a reasonable cause for,what seems a departure from Jewish norms that are apparent even in the Old Teatament. If this is the case, it raises the possibility that St. John Chrysostom himself was at least in part ethnically Jewish.

    It should be stressed also that the polemical nature of his comments is de rigeur for the timeframe, and Jewish commentators on Christianity wrote polemics of a similar character. You will find them tame compared to the vitriol that drips off the pages of the Panarion of St. Epiphanius of Salamis.

    That later generations twisted St. John Chrysostoms words against him and used them to justify acts of anti-Semitism cannot be blamed on the saint. We cannot know how people,will respond to our remarks until we have uttered them. Considering that Chrysoatom wrote the liturgy my church uses most of the time I do regard the view that he is in some way the architect of Christian anti-Semitism to be frustrating, especially when you can find far more anti-Semitic characters as early as Marcion and the Gnostics, some of whom were virulently anti-Semitic; it is worth noting that the Nazis used Marcion as the building block for their so-called Positive Christianity, and not Chrysostom. What is more, Chrysostom nowhere calls for violence against the Jews; indeed, the polemicists of the early church hurled all available insults at their opponents while never calling for their lynching,,and Ambrose of Milan, who was rather fierce himself, interceded to try to save the life of the Spanish Gnostic Priscillian. Compare this with later figures, such as Thomas Aquinas, who endorsed the burning of heretics (such as the Cathari, who coincidentally were also Spanish Gnostics) on the assumption that heresy was a worse crime than murder. I don’t know of a single figure in the first five centuries of Christianity who advocated violence against the Jewish population. The earliest case we have of any systemic persecurion is the Byzantine war with the Samaritans at the end of the sixth century.

  24. @ numo:

    That is not the point. The point is how do we know what was actually said and what has been lost in translation because obviously the language is more likely to be that of the author, not of the angel. (That statement is consistent with what you have said. At some point we also have to ask how do we know that anything at all was said, and for that people start quoting the explanations of the early fathers as proof positive that it was possible (possible) that Luke had this information. So questions arise especially when it comes to Luke who ventured farther from Mark than did Matthew and who had almost all the the birth narrative and its accompanying ideas in comparison with the other gospels.

    At the same time, one has to ask why the early fathers felt it necessary to furnish explanations in the first place, and the answer is that the writings (Luke we are talking) can be easily picked apart in some areas without some sorts of explanations. So in the end if we believe this, it is either by ignoring the questions or else by believing this or that “tradition” based on this or that early father furnishing explanations as to how this knowledge could have come to Luke.

    But protestants do not “believe” all the traditions of the early fathers. By now in this line of thinking, the space has narrowed down to where we cannot go much further, and for me all of this still remains a problem. So to function we have to draw a line or lines somewhere, and the fact that the Greek is at best a translation and at “worst” an approximation, because going from one language to another is like that, how do we know. And then some folks come along and say that Luke made it up (with/without inspiration as an explanation) and since other scripture writers did not take up the cause, so to speak, this may just be fable.

    So the answer to my question about Gabriel speaking Greek to a Jewish peasant girl is, overwhelming probability he did not, and therein we start down a difficult path.

  25. @ numo:
    The Greek does not support THC’s claims. The word is a passive participle. Mary is not the source of grace, she is the object of grace, “the recipient of grace, not the repository of grace”. (To quote your friend Philip Ryken’s

  26. Nancy wrote:

    But protestants do not “believe” all the traditions of the early fathers. By now in this line of thinking, the space has narrowed down to where we cannot go much further, and for me all of this still remains a problem. So to function we have to draw a line or lines somewhere, and the fact that the Greek is at best a translation and at “worst” an approximation

    None of the canonical Gospels was written in Aramaic, especially not Luke, as the author, according to tradition, was either entirely Greek or a Hellenic Jew. The Alexandrian School has since the time of Origen favored an allegorical interpretation of those parts of scripture that do not lend themselves to histiorico-critical exegesis, although in the case of Luke ch. 1 it,seems more probable that this was reportage in light of both the traditions of the early church and the relationship between this text and the rest of the canonical Gospels.

  27. @ William G.:
    I think you have not read his words carefully. Synagogues being places where the devil and demons are in charge, etc., etc., etc.

    Th EO whitewash him and try to explain away his words, but he wrote what he wrote and it is every bit as bad as Luther at his worst.

  28. @ Nancy:
    I figured you were implying the line of thought that you’ve just written about (and with which i agree). But i wasn’t 100% sure, do i defaulted to saying something that you already knew. Ah well! 🙂

  29. numo wrote:

    What were this teacher’s sources for their claims? It sounds like the whole “generational curses” deal to me, which comes directly from the late Derek Prince and seems dubious at best

    The bible teacher I had in mind was Roger Price who led a charismatic fellowship in the UK and sadly died in his early 40’s of cancer in the late 80’s. He had a great way of bringing the bible to life and I greatly benefited from his ministry, though I didn’t and don’t necessarily agree with all his interpretations. (Divorce and re-marriage is one where I now think he was significantly wrong.)

    He did a bible study on ‘Can a Christian have a demon?’ From memory he claimed ‘infiltration’ rather than possession was possible, due to i) occult involvement, ii) sin that was persisted in (the works of the flesh), and iii) occult involvement and sin of ancestors, based the sins of the fathers doctrine in the OT. I no longer agree with this last point, though he almost certainly didn’t get it from Derek Prince, being a strong opponent of shepherding and discipleship movement as practiced by the Fort Lauderdale crowd. I wouldn’t totally write off the possibility of some on-going influence from immediate previous generations, but I’m pretty sceptical about this now when it comes to anything demonic. Bob DeWaay of CIC fame dismantled this teaching very effectively, and he is not the only one to do so that I have read.

    Price’s comment that demons sometimes cling to the souls of those born out of wedlock struck me if only because modern society thinks there is no such thing as sin, let alone demons, and that it can ditch the biblical sex ethic with impunity. He didn’t make a great issue of it, I assume it was something he had come across in experience and so used it as an example. In fairness I should add Roger strongly emphasised not using experience to determine doctrine, particularly in this area.

    I suspect Derek Prince went way beyond anything the bible would allow, and this cannot be legitimised simply by appealing to experiences.

    From things you have writtten here, I believe you too were somewhat charismatic in your mis-spent youth, like yours truly, and I wonder if like me you left it largely behind because it drifted into super-spirituality and gnosticism, of which deliverance ministry would be a good example, though not the only one.

  30. Ken wrote:

    Price’s comment that demons sometimes cling to the souls of those born out of wedlock

    which seems, in your own words, to go way beyond anything that the Bible would allow.

  31. @ Ken:

    I believe you too were somewhat charismatic in your mis-spent youth

    For over 30 years, actually. So, mostly not during my youth, but beginning then, yes.

  32. Firstly, mea culpa on the Cathars; I was confused by the Spanish origins of St Dominic and his ministry against them (which was in his lifetime nonviolent and rather praiseworthy in comparison with the horrors of the Albigensian crusade).

    Secondly, regarding St. John Chrysostom, there are several factors that make his case different from that of Luther, including the Jewish ethnicity of a large number of Antiochian Christians, the standards of inter religious discourse of the time, and the lack of a historical subjugation of Jews by Christians in that era. If one is to declare Chrysostom the Archiantisemitos, then what are we to make of St. Epiphanius of Salamis? Or of the Gnostics and Marcionists? In Luthers case the nature of his obscene rancour exceeds anything written by Chrysostom and is further exaggerated by the disgusting images contributed to the works by Lucas Cranach the Elder.

    Thirdly, the consensus patrum seems to be that a Christian who dabbles in the occult or apostasizes actually can become posessed, but that posession is not hereditary. It is interesting to note the exorcisms contained in all ancient baptismal liturgies. If one who accepts infant baptism in general follows the principle of liturgical theology, it seems preposterous to say an infant could remain under the control of a demon after baptism.

    The ancients defined demon posession as a state whereby the demon has direct control of the victim and their faculties and can manipulate them without their knowledge or consent. Thus the victim is not morally culpable for sins committed while posessed. Thus it is a very specific state and not the sort of general dreaded condition touted by Charismatics.

    I personally take a stand both against the errors of the Charismatic Movement and the form of Protestant Rationalism which discounts all supernatural activity in the world, as neither of these views are consistent with the ancient church or personal experience. One cannot stress enough how subtle Divine or diabolical actions actually tend to be in most cases, and to thirst for the former or the latter is spiritually dangerous. Most demonic acts if viewed dispassionately can be classed as mere annoyances, reflecting the pathetic nature of their perpetrators, whereas the acts of God and the Angels are manifest primarily in the exercise of virtue by human beings and in the beauty of creation.

  33. @ numo:
    “The synagogues of the Jews are the home of idolatry and devils” is inexcusable. And he said it, and things like it, many times over.

    I can find no excuse for Luther and in that, i am typical of many Lutherans. Perhaps the Orthodox need to deal with this directly rather than making such efforts to brush it off. Personally, i think that anti-semitism in the RO church in Russia owes some of its supposed justification to Chrysostom’s virulent efforts at demonizing both Judaism and Jewish people.

    /end discussion (on my part)

  34. Thinking about St. Whoever of the fathers and about whichever reformer and about anti-semitism, or for that matter thinking about the current issues with anti-semitism and anti-catholicism and anti-islam, I think that a middle position must be found and maintained. It is not reasonable to say that someone, for instance, must never disagree with the other group’s position or action in a certain issue lest one be accused of anti-ism. That pretty much looks like trying to intimidate people into silence. Nor is it alright to rail and accuse and try to incite anger or worse against groups of people in the way that anti-ism does. Nor is it alright to just justify anything anybody ever did because they were, after all, a saint or a father or a reformer.

    I don’t know how to establish and maintain a middle position exactly, because there are those who, the minute somebody disagrees with them, start proclaiming themselves to be the victims of anti-ism. Does this mean that one should let oneself be intimidated into utter silence on any and all issues? On the other hand there are those who would use any excuse to try to vilify certain other groups of people and who would grab any opportunity or information to justify that behavior in themselves. So does this become a reason to be utterly and always silent so as to not get that bunch riled up?

    I don’t think that utter silence is the way to go, maybe because that sets the bar too high or maybe because I think that truth must be pursued even if it is messy and even if we disagree. But anti-ism can be a real problem.

  35. @ Nancy:
    My point is that i think it best forme to drop that discussion, not for others. Sometimes when people are at loggerheads, it is wise to do that – even if only for a brief time, to give all involved a chance to regroup and focus on other topics for a while. Pereonally, i know that i need to chill out some, which is why i ended my part in the discussion of anti-semitism re. a particular person for a time.

    It is impossible for things to go gorward when internet discussions are focused mainly on trying hard to convince other parties that you are right and the are wrong – and i clearly am at fault here. It is an extremely difficult subject for me, and i freely admit it. Because the cruel words in question are still having a negative impact on real people – and some of those people are friends.

  36. @ numo:

    I totally agree with the wisdom of knowing when it is best to do what. I agree with you on that all the way. I just wanted to take the opportunity to discuss the issue because it is something that seems to be more and more of an issue the way things are going in the larger world right now.

  37. Let’s move then into an adjacent territory:

    I believe it to be necessary to draw a distinction between legitimate religious criticism and hate speech. In our society, it is necessary that religious leaders remain able to dispute with one another on the definition of truth. I include in this category the leaders of the New Atheism, which like many of the hopelessly small communist parties like the Hoxhaists and Trotskyists functions in a religious capacity in a manner similiar to the Cult of Reason of the French Revolution. At the same time it is vital in contemporary dialogue for religious leaders to not resort to the incitement to violence.

    One lamentable aspect of the reformation era was the extreme desensitization to religious violence that is evident in all classes of Reformation era Western Europe. I attribute this desensitization to the Crusades and the Inquisition. It troubles me that the conscience of John Calvin was untroubled by his luring of Servetus to his demise. The degree of sectarian violence exceeded that of other times and places considerably. Now we are in an unpleasant situation wherein the borders of the civilized world can be demarcated primarily by the tolerance of the population of each country for religious violence.

  38. @ numo:

    Just want to say that I appreciate your comments about Chrysostom. William has a great affection for the ECF, and it is probably difficult to hear the things we might say about them. The early church was very, very messy ethnically and theologically, and I think it is a mistake to think that the ECF were somehow immune to bad ideas or to fail to recognize that those bad ideas might well have been perpetuated in various ways throughout church history because of an unwillingness to challenge the teachings we have received.

    Totally agree with Nancy that we need to be able to talk about messy things, but I also understand why you want to take a break.

  39. @ Gram3:
    Thanks! I think it is a *very* real dilemma for those of us who are Lutheran, in light of the many virulently anti-semitic things that Luther wrote, which were picked up by the National Socialists in Getmany without them misding a beat.

    The synod i belong to has repudiated all of these writings/ideas. I do not know how the various state churches in Germany and Scandinavia have handled this, nor am i certain of the consensus within other Lutheran synods in the US.

  40. @ numo:
    Luther was, in some ways, a very brilliant man, and admirable. In other respects, he was monstrous.

    I think that, as xtians, we all are called to grapple with the evil that exists in the church, both in contemporary society and throughout history. The very painful legacy of white xtians who have supported slavery, Jim Crow and all other forms of racial discrimination and viewing of not-so-white people in the US as “less than” is a case in point.

  41. @ numo:

    Don’t forget that Luther was also dealing with political and religious corruption in christianity. Apparently those were awful times pretty much all around. Not that this makes rabid anti-semitism all right, but it does mean that bad times plow the ground where bad things grow and thrive and people get caught up in bad stuff when their world spins out of control.

    One more tale. One of the catechists during my RCIA years told us about writing a paper in defense of several of Luther’s theses while he was at a catholic university. The prof made him rewrite the paper or forego the grade (basically recant) but the fellow said he still held to his original opinions. This has nothing to do with anti-semitism, just Luther.

  42. @ Nancy:
    The primary text is “On the Jews and their Lies,” which can easily be found in its entirety on the internet. Luther believed that the reformayion of the RCC would result in mass conversion of Jewish people. When that didn’t happen, he turned incredibly vicious, as can be seen in his writing – particularly in the screed i just mentioned, which has the distinction of being one of THE worst snti-semitic rants in all of Western history and church history. It is in part a malign “prophecy” which was literally carried out on Kristallnacht and in the Holocaust. (See all of his references to burning, for example.)

    He also firmly believed that the pope was/is *the* antichrist – again, something my synod has repudiated but which other US-based synods have not.

    There is so much garbage and evil in church history – the canonizatiin of Thomas More, who was directly responsible for having several prominent “Lutherans” (their term for adherents of church reform) burned at the stake (while he was Henry VIII’s chief minister) is another example. More was another brilliant man with ahuge streak of implacable hatred. Forget “A Msn for All Seasons,” which is a recadting of More a a lone man of conscience. I love it, but it is largely fiction and written to address certain social and political problems of the 60s, as with “The Crucible” and McCarthyism.

  43. I really resent the association of Chrysostom with the depravity of More. In Chrysostoms case we are talking about a man who killed no one, whose flock was largely of Jewish descent, and whose charitable actions are legendary.

    In fact, it was St. John Chrysostom’s campaign against the decadent and miserly Imperial court that led to his exile and death. In the case of More or even Luther, we cannot link them with the kind of charitable projects that St. John Chrysostom was declared a saint for. More and Luther were theological controversialists, whereas Chrysostoms status as a saint was merited through life-saving acts of charity as much as by his immense skill as a preacher and liturgist (who is quoted in the Book of Common Prayer, which recites a silent prayer from his Liturgy, the prayer of the second antiphon, aloud at the conclusion of Mattins and Evensong).

    The status of saintliness does not imply perfection or require that we agree with everything the saint said or did according to the definitions of all churches that venerate saints. It is a mere acknowledgement of the work of Christ in that person. Martyrs are saints by definition regardless of conduct prior to their martyrdom; even the unbaptized were regarded in this manner, the so called “baptism of blood.” There are a great many more saints of unknown identity than those who, like Chrysostom, are venerated, indeed, the majority. Martin Luther could be a saint, in spite of his anti-Semitic remarks.

    Now, regarding the Pope as the antichrist, while I disagree with this, it is possible that Luther was attempting to put forward a theological argument that whoever in the world is most opposed to the Church is the antichrist. The Orthodox might be able to say that such a person becomes an iconographic representation of the antichrist. I am not in favor of antichrist spotting; it seems a boring hobby with rather a moving target, but in this manner one could regard Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, for example, as successive iterations of the anti-Christian principle, and this would explain what St. John the Evangelist meant when he said “the anti-Christ is already in the world,”. This is not my theology, but it is a better one than that of those who would read Luther or Knox as saying that John was referring to Ss. Linus or Clement, which if true would blow an enormous hole in their theology which depends as much on the early Popes as upon other early Christian saints.

    So if in saying “the Pope is the antichrist” an identification with the office of the Pope as implied by the Westminster Confession of Faith is made, I have to disagree absolutely. However, some of the Popes in Luthers time were diabolical, and if one reads Luther as telling us, in the present day, that Pope Leo X was the antichrist, than whoever the Pope happens to be is the antichrist, and becomes so at their coronation or inauguration, I could accept it as theologically valid, if not my own view. For St. Gregory the Great, in criticizing John the Faster, who I am not personally a huge an of (his system of tariff penances and canons directly contradicts that of St. Athanasius in an insane manner, for example, Athanasius stated that those who experience a nocturnal emission need not worry about it, because it is involuntary and biological, whereas John the Faster assigns a penance for the male equivalent of menstruation), for assuming a title Gregory assumed meant “Universal Patriarch” rather than “Imperial Patriarch”, he states that any bishop who claims universal juridsiction is the precursor of the anti-Christ. This I suspect is what Luther was actually referring to.

    The 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia manages to tread around the issue by framing it as a justified attack on the Church of Constantniople and reading Gregory’s remarks in the most universal way possible. However, here, as elsewhere, it succumbs to a certain idealized notion of the Roman church. One also might observe the pure horror that is said Encyclopedia’s article on Judaism is on a par with the worst of Luther.

    Gram3 is right to say that I revere the Fathers. However I do not turn a blind eye towards their errors. There are some early saints who do not impress me as exemplars of piety and devotion, to say the least, and some of my favorite Fathers such as St. Irenaeus expressed theological opinions that the church was later to condemn. For example, nearly all of the early Christian fathers believed in a literal millennium, whereas the Nicene Creed itself explicitly rejects this view, which by the fourth century came to be known as Chiliasm.

    Without forgetting that they are our only viable means of accessing the Apostolic interpretation of the Gospel message, we can disagree with the words and actions of the Fathers. Thus, I do not agree with what Chrysostom said, but I agree with a great many Patristics scholars who point out that there are mitigating factors one must consider, including the ethnic composition of his flock, the status of Jews in the late fourth century Byzantine Empire compared to their status in sixteenth century Germany, Chrysostoms own ethnic identity, and the divergent intentions of Chrysostom versus those of Luther, which must be taken into account before equating their conduct. Indeed, that Roman civilization during the decline of the Empire was more civilized than that of reformation-era Europe becomes plain when one compares Luther and Gregory the Great; the latter did not dare to describe his rival as anti-Christ, but merely described how his appellation, if interpreted as conveying universal authority, would make him a precursor to the anti-Christ. The difference between the Fathers and the divines of the Reformation era is that whereas the former traded barbs and insults, the latter burned each other at the stake.

    I sincerely wish that one could not find a Lutheran or an Orthodox or Anglican priest in America who would endorse the remarks of either Luther or Chrysostom on the Jews, although lamentably this is not the case and anti-Semitism is on the increase right across the range of Christians.

  44. Yes, but which popes, and by virtue of what? This seems ambiguous in Luthers writings, whereas in the case of the Westminster Confession status as the anti-Christ is implied to be a property of the office.

  45. Here is a fun fact by the way: the Bishop of Alexandria was the first by hundreds of years to be referred to as Pope, so any unqualified denunciations of the Roman patriarchate have the unfortunate side effect of applying to Ss Athanasius and Cyril. This fact has actually led some intemperate Protestants to embrace Arianism or Soccinianism in order to avoid “Popery” amusingly enough, and one can find such silliness particularly evident in the writings of the early Unitarians before the mid 19th century anti-dogmaticism.

  46. @ William G.:
    Well, certainly the pope who was bishop of Rome when he 1st started writing – Julius ???, I think? The one who was using the sale of indulgences to raise money to complete the dome that Michelangelo designed for St. Peter’s.

    It’s a curious commingling of medieval and Renaissance thought, theology and activity – all of life, really. and it makes a hash of the idea that the Middle Ages ended when the Renaissance began, as many general histories would have you believe. Those neat and tidy cut-off dates are imaginary! Heiko Olbermann has written about Luther essentially being a late medieval man, and it is true that the Renaissance began later in nothern Europe, so…

  47. William G. wrote:

    successive iterations of the anti-Christian principle

    This is a pretty common belief, or at least used to be. The term I heard used was usually “the spirit of anti-christ” in the sense of principle not demon. Similar to what you said. It has also been a fairly common belief in some circles that the anti-christ person of prophecy will turn out to be some pope who is pope at that time. So these people would say of Luther that he had the right idea but the wrong pope.

    I do not hold to this theory of some future pope as anti-christ, but the idea of that which is not for christ is in the spirit of anti-christ (anti as in the sense of against, not in the sense of substitute) seems to be a possibly legitimate way of expressing that idea. Of course, I think we are mostly confused about the whole prophecy thing, but that would be a different discussion.

  48. @ Nancy:
    Keep in mind that part of my academic training is in history. Put that together with my having been raised Lutheran in a partly Jewish neighborhood post-WWII, having gone to HS with people whose parents and grandparents were Holocaust survivors, being of German descent myself and… you will, i think, understand how someone might run into problems regarding belief, conscience, what is the right response to virulent hatred and more.

  49. Nancy wrote:

    I do not hold to this theory of some future pope as anti-christ, but the idea of that which is not for christ is in the spirit of anti-christ (anti as in the sense of against, not in the sense of substitute) seems to be a possibly legitimate way of expressing that idea.

    That sentence is confusing. The pope as anti-christ is one idea. The spirit of anti-christ as being an ongoing principle is a separate thing. The idea of the pope as anti-christ I have no patience with. Use of the terminology about the spirit of anti-christ, I think, is possibly good descriptive terminology. I don’t mix those two ideas. Some people do.

  50. @ numo:

    You have a good heart. I get that. One set of my ancestors came here at the time of the potato famine. They let those half starved people die in the ditches of cholera and dysentery rather than help them. Much of it was intentional, including economic theory. Another set of my ancestors fled France because of religious persecution at the time. Politics. Two of my grandchildren were abandoned at birth because they were born female, and one was severely malnourished when we got her. I am not defending people who do this nor the ideas behind such as this. And what happened in WWII in Europe was horrendous. And in China during the cultural revolution. And Russia. And Cambodia. All of this, on large scale and on small scale is awful, and has been and is and will be. The history of western christianity is disgusting in lots of ways. Also government and wars and on and one. Nobody thinks that any of this is good.

    But in the midst of all this there is good to be found, a little here in this person, some promise in that research, the hope of new opportunity in another direction. I am inclined to think that hanging on to the good is essential to the future of everything and everybody. We must not let the bad blind us to the good. Or for that matter let the good blind us to the bad. That is all I am saying. I am not defending the bad stuff.

  51. @ Nancy:
    Oh, i totally agree. But understand, the realities of some situations – such as Jim Crow and the Civil Rights movement – had a big impact on me when i was very young. I was likely raised a bit differently than many people, began to read at 5 and had endless questions. One of my brothers was a conscientious objector during Vietnam. All of these things had an impact on me.

  52. @ Nancy:
    If we do not look both the good and bad stuff head-on, we are ever so much more likely to be persuaded by the bad stuff, which is usually rooted in fear and leads to the demonization of the Other – whoever that “other” happens to be.

    I saw the film version of A Man for All Seasons when i was 8, and it had a tremendous impact on me. Though reading about More later in life disabused me of the idealism, i still firmly believe in the ideals that were communicated about conscience in that screenplay.

  53. numo wrote:

    I saw the film version of A Man for All Seasons when i was 8, and it had a tremendous impact on me. Though reading about More later in life disabused me of the idealism, i still firmly believe in the ideals that were communicated about conscience in that screenplay.

    Good point Numes, this one and your previous comment about More. I have the same ambivalence toward Jefferson. In addition to all the cool stuff he wrote, he was also a cruel slave-master. Feet of clay is our lot as humans.

  54. @ Muff Potter:
    Yes, Jefferson was brilliant, and yes, true Jeffersonian democracy requires the existence of chattel slavery, so that gentlemen scholars can set about the kinds of projects that fascinated Jefferson himself.

    Never mind the reality of all those illegitimate children he fathered; never mind that he apparently didn’t give a hoot about freeing them or their mother(s?). Because Jeffersonian patetnalism, in which The White Man owns their physical selves, is more that they rightfully deserve. (Or is it?! If Christ died gor all human beings, then Africans and people of African descent are evety bit the equals of their white “masters” and… well, you see where *this* is going, no? Because slavety is in the Bible, and there are no express commands forbidding slavery in the NT, and… No wonder enslaved people held the story of the Exodus and the person of Moses as dear as ever they held Christ.)

  55. The Pope in question was Leo X. I have to confess I’m not a huge fan of any Pope named Leo; in light of the death of St. ignatius and the Jihannine corpus the image conveyed is wrong, and you could blame the Chalcedonian schism on Leo I as much as on Dioscorus.

    It should be stressed that there was no magical transition between the Medeival and Renaissance periods. These are mere labels we give them, but reality involves some degree of ambiguity. Theologically I would associate the Medieval period with Cluniac monasticism and the Renaissance with the post-Schism Catholic Church as it began to manifest increasing divergence from Eastern Christendom, with the appearance of the mendicant orders, the Inquisition and the development of scholastic theology based on Aristotle, whose works had been reobtained from Arabs who in turn sourced them from Syriac monasteries. The re-acquisition of knowledge contained in these classical sources spurred the process of technological development that culminated in the period we call the High Renaissance, in which Luther lived. Luthers status as a monk who broke his vows, to me at least, marks a stepping off point into another theological epoch which one can perceive stretching from the Reformation until the Enlightenment and consisting of much violence; this period in turn spurred the rationalism, pietism and anti-dogmaticism of the late 18th century, although one can see it forming as early as the Quakers a century earlier. One might in turn identify the Oxford Movement with Romanticism. One can likewise clearly see theological Modernism in the early 20th century, post modernism in the late. But the transition is always a bit blurry.

    With Eastern Christianity these historical categories lose meaning the further one moves away from the West. They at most can be applied to some Russian artwork. However, for the average Greek, Arabic or Aramaic speaking Christian, the only perceptible changes were for many centuries the identities of the persecutors. If one looks at the Coptic Church one cannot,clearly perceive any dramatic changes since the population stopped using Coptic as their vernacular language, for example. The current liturgy is based on Bohairic Coptic service books from the 15th century that are substantially the same as earlier Sahidic manuscripts, which in turn resemble even older Greek and Coptic liturgies of the Alexandrian school. The same pattern repeats itself across Eastern Christianity; the Russian church shows a superficial Western influence in areas such as architecture and music due to a desire on the part of Czars since Peter the Great to seem modern, but the Old Ritualists preserve more,archaic forms of music, for example, that sound very different.

  56. By the way, perhaps I’ve lost the point a bit, but since we are Christians, surely we should not feel guilt over the sims of our ancestors in a specific way. Sin is built into the human condition, but we are personally responsible solely for our struggle against it, in which we are aided through divine grace.

    Also, I’ve always felt,that Thomas Jefferson in particular is an unimpressive personality. I like some of the Founding Fathers, but I have no use for Jefferson; his dismissal of Christian Orthodoxy as Platonism and his derivative Gospel edited,to,reflect rationalist sentiment show a lack of both religious knowledge and wisdom. That Jefferson was a slave of his passions is demonstrated by the historical,account of his actions. The shocking arrogance required for a man to presume to divine for us, in a literal sense, the accuracy of individual Gospel verses, when that man lives a life most like that of the Rich Young Ruler, is shocking. Jefferson was in such a severe state of prelest, or religious delusion, that he was unable to perceive how the very parts of the Gospel he deemed legitimate condemned his manner of living, much less how those parts lose meaning if separated from the supernatural portions he deemed to be interpolations. Ultimately I believe we see in Jefferson the prototypical member of many of the increasingly post-Christian mainline denominations in the US, in that he has to delete critical aspects of Christianity in order to continue living his depraved lifestyle without guilt. Guilt over our inability to control the passions fuses with pride to create prelest, or religious delusion, which in turn leads people away from authentic Christianit and into various derivative religions such as Gnosticism which attempt to appease the passions. For me the truly objectionable part of Luther was the manner in which he discarded ancient doctrines relating to sin and the need to fight against it, and yielded to his own passions by breaking his monastic vows. Thus, whereas it is possible to agree with the 95 theses without reservation, I hit a brick wall when it comes to the disconnect between Luther and the ascetic practice of the early church. Part of the problem is that after the Great Schism the Roman conception of sin became rather too forensic, so as a result people like Luther were driven to extremes by guilt, to the point where Luther finally broke down and literally encouraged people to sin boldly. In fact, one can, as Wesley later was to emphasize, win the battle against sin and thus acquire holiness, and this is a tremendously good thing to do, because the passions that lead to sin are insatiable; only by resisting temptation can one acquire actual freedom. Thomas Jefferson was as much a slave as he was the owner of slaves, and when one understands this, one can even say that perhaps in terms of sin his slaves were more free than he was.

  57. Nancy wrote:

    The pope as anti-christ is one idea. The spirit of anti-christ as being an ongoing principle is a separate thing. The idea of the pope as anti-christ I have no patience with. Use of the terminology about the spirit of anti-christ, I think, is possibly good descriptive terminology

    Another thing to consider is whether the office of Pope does actually substitute a mere human as the Head of the Body in the place of Christ. Augustine was a little confused/confusing on this point of the relationship between the Head and the Body of Christ. Can or should a mere man assume the office of Head of the Body?

    I don’t think so, but IMO Augustine was eisegeting the Head/Body metaphor with a presupposed spiritual imperial model of the church rather than an organic relationship among equal members of the Body with Christ as Head. He was doing newspaper exegesis in his own historical context just like Hal Lindsey though Augustine bears the halo of history and also his own brilliance. In the substitute sense, ISTM, the office of Pope could be anti-Christ though not necessarily in the “against” Christ sense.

    As far as the Anti-Christ, I’m pretty sure he is either JFK or Gorbachev or Kissinger. Seriously, I think that if the Anti-Christ is a future individual, he will be the chief person opposed to Christ and his Bride at that time. He will be the ultimate expression and embodiment of the spirit of anti-Christ. He will be *the* Christ-denier or usurper of which the others were shadows.

    I do appreciate the way that you draw out distinctions which require more thought.

  58. numo wrote:

    If Christ died gor all human beings, then Africans and people of African descent are evety bit the equals of their white “masters” and… well, you see where *this* is going, no? Because slavety is in the Bible, and there are no express commands forbidding slavery in the NT,

    Right. Dabney wrote that slaves were equal before the law and that slave owners only had a property interest in the involuntary labor of the slave, therefore, the slave himself or herself was not owned as a person. So, equal but not equally equal since the master owned his own labor.

    The mind and word games involved in that kind of reasoning remind me so much of the “complementarian” arguments of spiritual equality of males and females, yet the male owns the right to the female’s deference, just like the masters owned the slaves’ deference. There is a reason the patriarchists and hierarchical complementarians love Dabney, and it is *not* for his systematic theology.

  59. @ Gram3:
    I tend to think that the passages in 1 John shoild carry far more weight than the (spectacularly weird) ones in Revelation.

    You can tell I’m high church by that alone. I also take more of a historical view (they wrre writing about their own times) than do the majority of US evangelicals.

    Us high churvh Protestant weirdos! 😉

  60. numo wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    I tend to think that the passages in 1 John shoild carry far more weight than the (spectacularly weird) ones in Revelation.
    You can tell I’m high church by that alone. I also take more of a historical view (they wrre writing about their own times) than do the majority of US evangelicals.
    Us high churvh Protestant weirdos!

    Ah, yes, and that is why I recommended the parallel column 4 view book on Revelation. It gets a little tricky sorting all of that out. Revelation has so much OT in it, too, so that muddies things up really well. Then, when was it written, and so on.

    I have a comment to you in the Immoderation Lounge, meaning there may be something immoderate about the comment, not the Lounge. I can appreciate much about High Church, but I’m a bit low brow so there you go. Guys at SBTS are expending great effort to bring the SBC up a couple of highness notches, but I do think that genuflecting before the icons of Piper and Grudem is a bit over the top. Don’t think it will last, though.

  61. @ Gram3:
    I don’t think the stuff at SBTS has anything at all to do with high church anything. They’d have to take a sacramental spproach toward communion and baptism and the liturgy of the Word and whatnot for that to happen.

    High brow and high church don’t necessarily go together. Churchmis for everyone.

  62. numo wrote:

    I don’t think the stuff at SBTS has anything at all to do with high church anything. They’d have to take a sacramental spproach toward communion and baptism and the liturgy of the Word and whatnot for that to happen.

    I agree. I don’t think that those who think like what we hear out of that crowd will ever permit anything in their thinking or their practice which has intrinsic value and which they cannot control. As we have seen they can and do control their understandings of scripture, so scripture per se is no threat to them. The idea of sacrament exists without them or their input or control, and they will not go in that direction. It is all about control. Who gets to play god. That would be play god, not serve God.

  63. numo wrote:

    I don’t think the stuff at SBTS has anything at all to do with high church anything. They’d have to take a sacramental spproach toward communion and baptism and the liturgy of the Word and whatnot for that to happen.

    Yes, of course, their intent is not to make the SBC more high church. However, they trace their thinking to the Puritans and Particular Baptists, and their emphasis on a hierarchical polity and spiritual authority of elders is more high church than low. Their pastor-centric obsession is making the sermon a de facto sacrament though they would, of course, deny that. From a high church perspective, they don’t look very high church, but to many Baptist pewpeons, these are significant changes in that direction.

  64. Nancy wrote:

    The idea of sacrament exists without them or their input or control, and they will not go in that direction. It is all about control. Who gets to play god. That would be play god, not serve God.

    SBTS promotes Dever’s view that baptism should be withheld until the candidate is an independent near-adult and they are implicitly retaining control over communion with their obsession with church discipline. That is excessive control-freakery that looks like playing God, or so it seems to me. They will never get Baptists to adopt a sacramentalist viewpoint, but they can still use their power to withhold them to control the pewpeons.

  65. Gram3 wrote:

    SBTS promotes Dever’s view that baptism should be withheld until the candidate is an independent near-adult and they are implicitly retaining control over communion with their obsession with church discipline.

    Is that not a great So What? If baptism is only a symbol, so what if somebody does it or not? If communion is only symbolic, again so what does it hurt to refrain from that particular symbolism? Who cares?

    At the other extreme, if communion is symbolic of something they actually believe, then why not do it more often? What is this with once a quarter, and then saying that well, this quarter it will be in the evening service only and such as that?

    And look at this hypocrisy. If communion/eucharist is sacramental (regardless of how one understands that exactly) and is part of the mass, then the celebrant (priest) has no authority to withhold the sacrament just willy nilly. There are some rules, of course, which vary with denoms, but willy nilly does not apply. The priest, then, has less “control” than the fundygelical pastor who withholds a symbol. However, that does not stop the fundygelical pastor from railing that the priest has too much control in liturgical churches. Talk about hypocrisy. Like I said, everywhere I look it keeps coming back to control.

  66. Nancy wrote:

    Is that not a great So What? If baptism is only a symbol, so what if somebody does it or not? If communion is only symbolic, again so what does it hurt to refrain from that particular symbolism? Who cares?

    I think that if someone believes that baptism is symbolic and that communion is a ceremony of remembrance and anticipation, that does not mean that they don’t care about them. It does matter if a believer who is 13 wants to be baptized and a Deverite refuses to do that merely because the candidate is not 17 or 18. That is withholding something very meaningful and forbidding someone to obey their conscience as well as the instructions to be baptized.

    Also, it doesn’t follow necessarily that denying transubstantiation or consubstantiation means that one is also denying that the ceremony has great symbolic meaning and also real spiritual effects. If it did not, there would be no reason for Paul to caution believers about taking communion unworthily.

    Totally agree that this new direction is about control and all the benefits to them that follow from that control. My perspective is shaped by family who have left the RCC to join Baptists and not the other way around which might result in a different take on these changes, I think. Any human system is corruptible.

  67. Nancy wrote:

    At the other extreme, if communion is symbolic of something they actually believe, then why not do it more often? What is this with once a quarter, and then saying that well, this quarter it will be in the evening service only and such as that?

    Good point. I think that a symbolic view can lapse into neglect and laziness. But the other side of that is that observance at every meeting can also lapse into practical indifference and matter-of-factness. Good instruction and a serious approach to a serious matter by the participants is required, I think.

  68. Gram3 wrote:

    But the other side of that is that observance at every meeting can also lapse into practical indifference and matter-of-factness.

    I take it once a week and it is never a matter-of-factness for me, but I also see it as not just symbolic. If it was just symbolic, then yeah, it wouldn’t mean anything to me after a while. But Jesus told us this is how we were to worship him, not with a praise band, raised hands, and some golden-tongue preaching.

    The alter, and the Eucharist, was replaced with a preacher and preaching during the Protestant Reformation. 1,500 years of the Truth of the Eucharist was thrown out the window. Sad. But the Protestants had to get rid of all vestiges of Church authority!

    My prayer is everyone would want the Meal instead of just looking at the menu.

  69. @ William G.:
    i think you might be misunderstanding the reasons that Luther and his wife got married. But I’m really not up to discussing all of these things today – I have a *lot* on my hands right now that has everything to do with real life issues and although this forum can provide useful distraction from all of that, I’m just not up to it today. Tired and rather discouraged and worried about a number of things, most of which are out of my control, anyway.

  70. @ numo:
    i am also wondering why you see monastic vows as being literally unbreakable, but that’s a subject for another day. Not everyone who takes such vows is able to live up to them, and they are very stringent. Please try thinking about this with a more patient understanding of what people go through in their lives, and less from the pov you’re taking now.

    It would help you a lot, I think. And I don’t believe monastic life was any good for Luther, with his fears and physical and psychological problems. If anything, the rigors of that life drove him to despair.

  71. @ numo:
    On Luther’s view on the pope (office of the papacy) as the Antichrist, see the very last section on this web page. He also believed he was living at the very end of human history, which explains some (though not all) of his focus on things like the Antichrist.

    He was a very contradictory, messed-up but hugely gifted person, and I wish that both the man and his legacy were far less troubled than they are. But there’s no way to rewind and repeat, nor would I want to.

    As to his choice to join a monastery, it was driven by fear. I think you might need to understand more of the man – via a good biography – in order to see why he was against monasticism later in life.

  72. @ THC:
    Not all of us threw away the eucharist, even though you claim we did. Let’s be accurate here, please.

  73. THC wrote:

    My prayer is everyone would want the Meal instead of just looking at the menu.

    Yes, of course, but the question is, “What is the nature of the meal?” That is where the disagreement lies. Those who take a symbolic view, or at least the ones who are educated about it, know that it is not a *mere* symbol or a naked symbol. That is not to say that a great many people of all groups have not thought terribly much about it.

    It is not inevitable that either view lapses into bad theology or practice. I was merely trying to say that different perspectives lead to different susceptibilities to error. I have known Catholics who deeply reflected on the Eucharist and others who see it as something that is done and whatever. Same with those who take a symbolic view.

  74. numo wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    well, many people believed that those who were enslaved didn’t have souls, so…

    I wonder which came first. Was it a bad practice in need of a theological “justification” or was it bad theology which allowed for really horrible and disgusting practice? Or some of both?

    I remember seeing a marker in Savannah that said a Christian promoted bringing slavery to Georgia, and I think it was Whitefield but don’t recall exactly. That is really, really hard for me to understand, and it is hard for me to get away from the idea that plantation economics was driving that willful ignorance of God’s instruction.

  75. numo wrote:

    Not all of us threw away the eucharist, even though you claim we did. Let’s be accurate here, please.

    Precisely. My comment was about the idea of sacrament as opposed to not sacrament. I was not getting into (and do not intend to get into) who believes what about the explanation of what that means and why. There is a huge thinking gap between those two widely disparate positions of ’tis too and ’tis not sacrament however.

  76. Gram3 wrote:

    That is not to say that a great many people of all groups have not thought terribly much about it

    should be “That is not to say that a great many people of all groups have thought terribly much about it.”

    Hate it when I write exactly the opposite of what I meant to say…

  77. Nancy wrote:

    There is a huge thinking gap between those two widely disparate positions of ’tis too and ’tis not sacrament however.

    Isn’t that the truth. Ironic that so much blood has been shed over what should bind us together.

  78. @ Gram3:
    George Whitefield endorsed it; John Wesley opposed it. iirc, Whitefield was a slave”owner” himself.

    I don’t understand it, either – how?? Why????!! And yet, in looking online for information about the theological justifications for slavery, I’ve come across mentions of publications that claimed that *not* having slaves was evil and un-christian. I know, I know…

  79. numo wrote:

    Not all of us threw away the eucharist, even though you claim we did. Let’s be accurate here, please.

    Unfortunately, there is no real presence at a Lutheran Eucharist. You may *believe* it is, just like I *believed* it was as an Anglican, but it isn’t. Without valid apostolic orders, the bread and wine remain just bread and wine, a meaningful symbol nonetheless.

  80. numo wrote:

    @ THC:
    Not all of us threw away the eucharist, even though you claim we did. Let’s be accurate here, please.

    Do Lutheran’s have Eucharistic adoration? Why or why not?

  81. Gram3 wrote:

    Yes, of course, but the question is, “What is the nature of the meal?” That is where the disagreement lies.

    There were TWO things that convinced me to become Roman Catholic:

    1) Authority- Apostolic authority and papal infallibility. You get the unity in the RCC from this. In My Catholic Opinion (IMCO), Jesus didn’t establish a church that was just spiritual. It was also visible.

    2) The Eucharist. In My Catholic Opinion (IMCO), this is the example Christ gave us to worship him. Everything else is just window dressing. And, only Catholic priests (RCC or EO) can consecrate the Eucharist.

  82. @ THC:
    I don’t want to get into what seems like a futile argument. You cannotmprove your beliefs, nor i mine, because they cannot be subject to any kind of scientific examination.

    I wish you well, and hope that you might be able to join a convo rather than ttrying to put a stop to one.

  83. numo wrote:

    I don’t want to get into what seems like a futile argument. You cannotmprove your beliefs, nor i mine, because they cannot be subject to any kind of scientific examination.

    There’s also no scientific evidence of Jesus rising from the dead. There’s also no scientific evidence to support that Jesus had two natures. The Trinity also cannot hold up to scientific examination. We rely on history and the Church for this.

  84. Gram3 wrote:

    Those who take a symbolic view, or at least the ones who are educated about it, know that it is not a *mere* symbol or a naked symbol. That is not to say that a great many people of all groups have not thought terribly much about it.

    That is interesting that you say that. My experience was quite the opposite. When I was growing up, and where that was (time and geography) there was really right much teaching and preaching about how both baptism and the Lord’s supper must be understood as purely symbolic and nothing more. This was a really big thing. They said that baptism was an outward sign of an inner change and also a “witness” to the world. Basically, then, what they were saying was that the baptism was a testimony to one’s own conversion, period. They said that the Lord’s supper was a memorial meal to do in remembrance of the death of Christ. Period. They emphasized the period. I can’t even begin to tell how much teaching and preaching I hear that it was indeed a mere symbol. But in that area there was a large catholic presence, and there was emphasis on how the baptist beliefs about ordinances should not be confused in any way with anything the catholic church might believe about sacraments, since there were no such thing as sacraments and we just better understand that. If I remember correctly every time there was a baptismal service or communion this was mentioned in the introductory remarks. Smoothly of course. I might say that the emphasis on this was at least as intense in one direction as the emphasis THC makes in the opposite direction.

    To me, this seemed then and also in retrospect, to be part of a large process of defining christianity in purely intellectual terms. We diligently avoided “superstition” wherever we could spot it. As a child I did not know there were other options. It took me a long time and a lot of living to come to the conclusion that my opinion that there was had to be more to all of it than just memorizing bible verses was, in fact, correct.

    But let me say that I grew up before television. Not before the technology, just before anybody had one in the home. So there was an enormous amount of going to church and an enormous amount of teaching poured into the young, compared to today where much of what the young do is “activities.” So there was plenty of time to do this.

    But baptists being what they are I believe you if you say that things were different in your area. And I hope that some of the things that were emphasized in my youth have been eased up on some.

  85. @ THC:
    Lok, you appear to be into claiming that your church is better than all other churches. I’ve seen this happen in other places, with other people, and I’m just not interested in playing along.

    I am glad for you that you found a home in the RCC, but it seems to me that you’re trying to stir things up, not have a discussion. In consequence, I’d prefer to bow out.

    Best,
    numo

  86. numo wrote:

    I am glad for you that you found a home in the RCC, but it seems to me that you’re trying to stir things up, not have a discussion. In consequence, I’d prefer to bow out.

    Sure, I TOTALLY understand. I cannot unlock the mind of Luther any better than you can.

    I’ll be sure to consider your recent postings as an example of how to engage here. It’s refreshing to have such an example of not offending ANYONE with posts as tolerant as yours, especially with William G.

  87. @ numo:

    Yeah, me too. There is no use trying to have a conversation if it just turns into some sermon or some fundamentalist-style gotcha game. That would be true especially for those of us who have had prior experience with fundamentalists of the baptist ilk and who have developed a severe allergic reaction to that sort of methodology whoever does it.

    If it isn’t civil then it isn’t conversation, it is combat. (Blip) that.

  88. numo wrote:

    @ William G.:
    i think you might be misunderstanding the reasons that Luther and his wife got married. But I’m really not up to discussing all of these things today – I have a *lot* on my hands right now that has everything to do with real life issues and although this forum can provide useful distraction from all of that, I’m just not up to it today. Tired and rather discouraged and worried about a number of things, most of which are out of my control, anyway.

    Just so we’re clear on this point, I am not judging Luther on his motivations for entering the married state. I would not dare ascribe it to lust or to attempt to pronounce on the honor of his intentions. Rather, my objection is that, unlike his wife, who was inducted into the monastic state involuntarily and held, like many nuns of her time, a prisoner in a convent, Luther had voluntarily professed formal vows after an equally voluntary novitiate. His training as a lawyer made the monastic vocation not only economically lacking in appeal, but disadvantageous, as his father had pointed out. Thus in my mind it was wrong for Luther to violate his solemn vows, which in fact he had done before contracting marriage, through disobedience. That being said, his ecclesiastical disobedience is partially mitigated by the heretical state of the church and the fact that he broke his vows in that respect to combat that state, by denouncing the sale of indulgences and thus incurring the wrath of his patriarch Leo X.

    From an Orthodox standpoint the case of Luther is complicated because Luther stopped an abusive practice, since in response to the growth of Lutheranism the successors of Pope Leo put a stop to the sale of indulgences, and initiated a moral reform of the church in general known as the counter-Reformation, which was really the Reformation proper, in the sense of being a reform of the existing Roman church rather than a mass separation from its authority, which would ordinarily be binding in Western Europe under the canons of the Council of Chalcedon, but at the same time the way in which Luther accomplished this disintegrated the Western Church, making reunion harder to accomplish, and also introduced several new errors, not the least of which was the entirely novel interpretation of Paul in the Commentary on Galatians, which went against the faith and praxis of the Eastern theologians, who had always emphasized the struggle against sin itself as essential, whereas Luthers approach was to “sin boldly.” The Roman error was to fall into a juridical, legalistic view of sin which in turn led to the sale of indulgences and other gross abuses. One can’t really accuse Luther of causing a schism in the sense that the Western Church was already in schism, but from the adverse effects of his actions one can criticize Luther, and one can also fault him from the basis of his conduct setting an extremely poor example as far as ecclesiastical order is concerned.

    Nonetheless, Luther, unlike Calvin, did not declare himself an opponent of the Eastern Church at the outset, and his disciples and the Patriarch of Constantinople carried out a good faith attempt at ecumenical reconciliation which failed over the issue of sola fide. This stands in marked contrast to the Calvinists who appear to have used subversive measures in a failed attempt to convert the Orthodox to their cause, the Confession of Dositheus, which led to Calvinism being formally denounced at the Council of Jerusalem. The Jansenists, who were semi-Calvinist Romans, likewise attempted subversion of the Roman church, which also failed. In light of this the current success of Calvinists at appropriating the SBC is unsurprising, since unlike the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox the Baptists lack bishops with a strong sense of the importance of dogma, who are prepared to depose wayward pastors; the sluggishness of the SBC in reacting even to an attack on its central doctrines of human sexuality suggests that the SBC remains as its founders intended entirely subject to the whims of individual congregations or rather their leadership.

    Thus unlike Calvin, Luther cannot be said to be an enemy of the Orthodox Church, since he operated outside its jurisdiction, and his intentions seem honorable, but one can criticize him for failing to adhere to his solemn vows and for other severe failings in areas such as patristics, doctrine and church order. This is relevant in terms of a comparison with St. John Chrysostom, a monastic bishop who was also obedient unto death, not resisting with violence his exile from Constantinople.

  89. THC wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    Yes, of course, but the question is, “What is the nature of the meal?” That is where the disagreement lies.
    There were TWO things that convinced me to become Roman Catholic:
    1) Authority- Apostolic authority and papal infallibility. You get the unity in the RCC from this. In My Catholic Opinion (IMCO), Jesus didn’t establish a church that was just spiritual. It was also visible.
    2) The Eucharist. In My Catholic Opinion (IMCO), this is the example Christ gave us to worship him. Everything else is just window dressing. And, only Catholic priests (RCC or EO) can consecrate the Eucharist.

    Your Carholic opinion isn’t entirely Catholic in so far as while the Catholics do believe Orthodox sacraments to be valid, they are also held strictly speaking as illicit due to the break in communion with Rome. In fact if we take the acts of the Council of Trent into consideration, one could argue that the Roman church officially views Orthodox sacraments as being ineffecfual. It might be the real Eucharist, but a hardliner could argue from the Tridentine anathemas that the Orthodox are partaking it unto their condmemnation through not being in communion with the Pope.

    The Orhhodox normally receive Catholic priests by vesting, that is to say, by issuing them a gold phanarion to wear in place of a green chasuble, or rather, by placing these on them, since Orthodox clergy normally own their own vestments. We have also received some high church Protestants in this manner. In the early 20th century ROCOR came close to saying that the Church of England had valid orders. Now it would of course emphatically reject such a view.

    Your position also fails to take into account the Old Catholics, and also the other Eastern churches. The Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians have a relationship with Rome similar to, and in many respects, better than, the Eastern Orthodox. The Old Catholics logically should be regarded as having had valid orders and thus valid sacraments at the time of their separation, and some of them should in theory still have them (namely, the Polish National Catholic Church) by the same standards that allow the validity of Orthodox sacraments to be accepted.

    The premise for denying the reality of Lutheran or Anglican communion rests on the lack of a sacramental priesthood within those denominations, so that even, in Sweden and England for example, apostolic succession was preserved, the priesthood was lost on account of not being regarded as a sacrament. However, this poses interesting edge cases, such as what happens when a Catholic priest becomes Anglican or Lutheran. It also seems to deny the Augustinian view that sacraments function ex opere operanto, by at the very least suggesting that one must believe in the Sacramental quality of the Mysteries for them to convey grace. This seems to contradict Roman Catholic views on baptism; if the Roman church believed this it would have to re baptize all Baptist and most low church Protestant converts, which is against present policy.

    For that matter it seems to me difficult to see how Baptism can convey grace in a denomination where the Eucharist is invalid. It’s very difficult to not take an all or nothing view of sacraments.

  90. THC wrote:

    I’ll be sure to consider your recent postings as an example of how to engage here. It’s refreshing to have such an example of not offending ANYONE with posts as tolerant as yours, especially with William G.

    Please don’t drag me into this. I am not here to convert people to the Orthodox Church but because I enjoy discussing theology. It can also be boring discussing theology with other Orthodox because we either agree or I risk getting myself into trouble by taking sides on some divisive internal matter. Thus Numo et al are desirable to converse with in that they are members of ecclesial bodies which I can relate to, having been a Methodist and being educated in a Lutheran school, while at the same time are likely to posess divergent views.

    I very much hope we can salvage this conversation by moving in the direction of an exploration of sacramental validity.

  91. @ William G.:
    I think the key with Luther – insofar as I’m able to find online material about it, which isn’t very – is that he came to believe that *all* monastic vows were invalid by their very nature. He published a small book titled (in English) On Monastic Vows, but it seems to be unavailable on the internet – in English, anyway. (there is a scanned copy of an early printing of the actual book, which is marvelous for those who are able to read it… I am not one of them, though.) Apparently the only way of getting to this document is via the *huge* complete works of Luther in English, which is something like 20 volumes. I didn’t know that On Monastic Vows existed until yesterday, and would like to read it, or parts of it, at least, but…

    I think it’s helpful to keep in mind that lots of people who went voluntarily into monasteries and convents went there for bad reasons. Luther is, imo, one of them, and I wish he had not stayed as long as he did. His whole approach (from his horseback accident when lighting struck a tree) on through to his fleeing to the monastery as a result seem to be very fear-driven, and he suffered greatly from what some religious people (Catholic) refer to as excessive scrupulosity. I don’t think being in a strict monastic order helped him; rather, it exacerbated those tendencies and others around him tried to get him to moderate his penances, etc. but were unable to reach him.

    I think his wife – and an ordinary day to day existence in the wider world – were essential to his getting past the hardest and most painful excesses of this problem; it is understood as a form of OCD today. The fact that he had taken final vows only served to make his condition worse, not better.

    These statements are far from original – all come from his own writing plus those of biographers. That said, I am *not* in favor of attempts to do psychological profiles of people who have been dead for hundreds of years – we can’t talk to them, they can’t get modern medical exams to rule out other problems, and anyway, if we could talk, we might not understand each other, since the world today is vastly different that that of Luther or others from his time and place. Still, his writing about the mental and emotional torment he endured when young is very, very vivid and he describes specific aspects of it very clearly.

  92. William G. wrote:

    I very much hope we can salvage this conversation by moving in the direction of an exploration of sacramental validity.

    Or other subjects…

    Thank you, William. You are a peacemaker.

  93. @ William G.:
    btw, because yesterday was a hard one (due to real-life stuff happening to people close to me), I neglected to respond to your post about my putting Chrysostom and Thomas More in the same post.

    I want to be clear that I was in no way intending a 1:1 comparison between the two men. I was thinking (basically) along the lines of “people who did really terrible things to other people but got canonized anyway” and he popped into my head. It was the best example I could think of at the time, though certainly, there are others.

    The thing is, I agree that many aspects of Chrysostom’s character and actions are commendable. But his sermons about Jewish people and Judaism are really terrible, and helped cement the groundwork for many horrific actions against both Jewish people and Judaism by people who claimed to be doing these things in Christ’s name. Keep in mind that, as a Lutheran, I can look at Luther and see a man who was, in some way, truly brilliant and correct, but his anti-semitism/anti-Judaism is a horror, and I wish he had NEVER written and said what he did. It’s not unlike George Whitefield’s advocacy of slavery and the way in which he was instrumental in *reintroducing* slavery to Georgia.

    Lots of basically decent people can and do hold to horrible ideas about some other people, and when they write/broadcast/etc. those ideas, they bear responsibility for what has been done under their sanction. At least, I think this is true.

  94. @ numo:

    You raise a valid point insofar as all criticsm of Luther has to take into account the lack of proper,catechesis he received; the perverse Roman church of that era intentionally frightened people in order to economically exploit them, and this exploration could occur through monastic enclosure. In a sense, and I really hate to say this because there was genuine sainthood evident in some Roman monastics in that late era, some people has relationships with their monasteries which could be likened to the relationship a member of the Sea Org has with the Church of Scientology. Only with enforced celibacy.

    It is for this reason that I regard Luther and his immediate successors as being uninteresting theologians, in so far as their lack of knowledge prevented them from being able to engage in meaningful exegesis beyond a certain point. In Luthers case we can laud the protest but the outcome at least from an Orthodox standpoint is not horribly pleasant. The Catholic-Protestant dichotomy continues to obscure the Eastern churches which are neither, and the extreme disunity that resulted from the feuds of unsophisticated theologians who, even within the context of Western Christianity, could not keep pace with the likes of Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas, who were their main sources, has made the process of reconciliation difficult. The enemies of Christianity routinely mock us and increasingly succeed at removing people from the church on account of this disunity.

    It is impossible for any side to win the argument on purely historical grounds about which of the apostolic churches is the original. However, I believe that common ground and wisdom can be found if we repair to the theological safe harbor of the undivided church. The reason why the Roman church became so unbalanced was a focus on Augustine at the expense of other, even more important theologians of the early church. Patristics requires a grand and dispassioned survey of a number of figures who do not always agree with each other.

  95. @ numo:

    To my knowledge the unpleasantness of the remarks of St. John Chrysostom is in the tone of the remarks he made; in terms of his physical actions he is blameless. There are a number of saints who did do horrible things and were glorified however. St. Constantine comes to mind as an obvious example.

    In some cases, the conversion from a life of evil to one of holiness was a factor in the glorification, as we call it in the Orthodox Church (where being canonized generally means being subjected to a canonical penalty). St. Moses the Strong is an obvious example; he was a murderer and a highway robber who renounced that, shall we say, lifestyle, to a hermit and later the abbot of one of the great Coptic monasteries. His cultus is particularly popular among the Ethiopian Orthodox. At the Coptic monastery of St. Anthony in California the largest of the churches is an impressive basillica dedicated to him.

  96. @ numo:
    EEp! He wasn’t on horseback, but he *was* almost struck by lightning. Which precipitated his becoming a monk.

  97. @ William G.:
    I’m not convinced that Constantine actually converted to Christianity; he seems to have conflated the god he previously worshiped with Christ. I don’t believe his “In this sign, conquer” dream came from God, either. It might be a much embroidered fiction, inflated in the telling to finally encompass a cross and so on.

  98. @ William G.:
    Your comparison with SeaOrg (and, I guess, by extension, other cults) is apt. Erasmus commented that he felt like he was so stifled in the monastery as to feel like he had been buried alive. He was a devout man, but highly critical of many monks, friars and monastic orders, and rightly so. The excesses of some Western orders were extreme – wealth, sexual profligacy, having vast properties and keeping serfs in bondage to them in perpetuity, etc.

    Some good things came out of monasticism (and still do), but it seems to have – as with many enterprises – also turned *very* bad early on. I think it’s because, ultimately, humans are making and enforcing the rules, and lots of them care more about position and power than about living for God and others. The political power of the English monasteries prior to the Dissolution is a case in point, along with the *enormous* property holdings of many of the individual houses as well as of the orders overall.

    If the “poverty” part of the vow is ignored (and it clearly was, by many, over many centuries), then the rest is going to go by the wayside pretty fast, too. Which is why there were periodic reforms and new monastic orders as a result. Unfortunately, mot of them veered too far to the *other* side of things – so utterly austere as to be joyless. I can’t endorse that any more than I can endorse the abbots and other clerics who lived like courtiers, complete with fine horses, clothing, hawks and hounds, haute cuisine at the table, and much more. They mostly got these things from laity whom they, to some measure, controlled, even “owned” outright.

    It’s no wonder that the Reformation happened, nor that in some places it resulted in violence. What I don’t understand is why it didn’t happen sooner! (Though to be fair, there were those who tried, but were brutally suppressed, as with the “Lollards” in England, Jan Hus, etc.)

  99. @ numo:
    I would guess that the true engine of the Reformation was Gutenberg’s invention of movable type. And being able to get the Bible and other important documents in the vernacular. That changed *everything* and there was no way to stop it.

  100. I don’t believe monasticism ever turned bad. In the Eastern Church, where even those Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome have married priests, monasticism never encompassed as much of the population and was never divided between rival orders with different rules. There was never a competiton between monasteries for secular wealth or power like one sees especially in the case of the Cluniac abbeys. Even in the west, historically the social value provided by monasteries always outweighed the abuses. The Dissolution of the Monasteries in England under Henry VIII was a diabolical act, a monstrous injustice, and to be frank the persecution of monastics in the centuries that followed almost seems to devalue the Reformation altogether. I cannot help but wonder if Western Europe would have been better off remaining in a state of ecclesiastical unity under the degenerated Western church, than losing the majority of its monasteries, even in Catholic countries.

    Monasticism as an institution is directly equivalent to marriage. Just as marriage without consent is an abuse, so too does the monastic state require consent. Most Eastern monasteries have a three year novitiate; the various Roman religious orders have nvitiates of varying periods. The monastery has to be able to test the candidate and vice versa. It is only through this process, analogous to courtship but devoid of a sexual impulse properly speaking (if those in the monastery sexually desire the novice or vice versa then that would be a grotesque violation of the state of consecrated celibacy that monastics are supposed to embody) that the candidate and the monastery are able to determine if they are right for each other. A candidate who would,do well as a monk at one monastery might suffer at, or be harmful for, another monastery. In the East some monsteries follow a strict rule under the command of the abbot, whereas others, idiorythmic monasteries, live under much more lax conditions. Hermits tend not to care well unless they posess enormous personal discipline and commitment; no one is allowed to be a hermit living as a solitary without years of preparation as a professed monk.

    In Luthers case, when he was hit or nearly hit, he made what he thought was a commitment, but in fact it was premature. There is some evidence by the way that suggests that Luther actually did find peace in the monastic state, with his superior being a close mentor who helped him to understand the loving nature of God. Luther was still a monk at the time of the 95 theses; his departure from the Augustinian vocation was a later development.

    The Augustinian monasteries for their part are unusual and have several different approaches to the monastic state, including Friars and canons regular, which are not present in the Eastern church. It is interesting to contemplate what impact membership of a different order such as the Carthusians would have had on Luthers life.

  101. @ numo:

    Jan Hus was really part of a broader movement in the Czech lands that sought a return to Orthodoxy. Roman Catholicism had been forcibly imposed on the Czechs. Contact with the Orthodox Church was lost but the desire to return to Orthodox practices such as a vernacular liturgy (at the time of its conquest by the Holy Roman Empire, I would expect most Czechs would be able to understand Old Church Slavonic) and communion under both species. The Utraquists implemented this and survived for a reasonable length of time before being suppressed in the counter reformation. Jan Hus was another part of the same movement. The Moravians originated there as well.

    In the case of the Lollards, they were one of a number of movements of what you might call unordained lay Friars. Imitating the lifestyle of the Franciscans, they roamed the countryside and preached, but without the sanction of the church. Their recusancy was driven to some extent by opposition to perceived failings in the Fransiscan order to adhere to its vows, in particular, that of poverty. There were equivalent movements in France, Spain and Italy.

    One also has to cite the Waldensians. They were theologically illiterate Donatists, but they did not deserve being slaughtered in the Piedmont Easter.

  102. William G. wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    By the way, it’s a formal doctrine of the Orthodox Church that Christ alone is the Head of the Church, not the Pope or any Orthodox bishop.

    The RCC teaches that Christ alone is the head of the Church too.

  103. William G. wrote:

    However, I believe that common ground and wisdom can be found if we repair to the theological safe harbor of the undivided church.

    Where is the “safe harbor of the undivided church”? IMHCO, for non-Catholics, 33,000 + denominations is hardly a safe harbor of unity.

  104. @ William G.:
    Well, Wycliffe was a so-called Lollard. So were many, many lay people. The movement was far from being one among clergy and religious only.

    Keep in mind that the RCC church – in England as elsewhere in Europe – had great political influence and power. Once Henry VIII made his break with Rome, his greatest enemy was the church, and monadtic foundations were its mainstay. I am not saying this to defend his actions; it is clearly how he saw it and the only way to bring the English church under the control of the secular ruler. Given the bloodthirstiness of his daughter Mary’s reign, along with that of the English Civil War, it is entirely possible that he prevented a civil war from breaking out. (Which nearly did happen anyway, but was swiftly and brutally suppressed.) The country wss still recovering from the results of the protracted civil strife of the Wars of the Roses, and i think he was opposed to another such conflict regardless of the cost.

    I am very, very glad that i don’t have to live during the Tudor era, believe me.

  105. @ William G.:
    I think you are eetting aside Wycliffe’s influence on Hus and others… it’s not as if all of the people in that area were for a return to the Orthodox church.

  106. numo wrote:

    Once Henry VIII made his break with Rome, his greatest enemy was the church

    I think his greatest enemy was the Church, therefore he broke from it.

  107. @ THC:

    We must study theology from the perspective of the apostolic Fathers and the principal guardians of the faith of the Church of the pre schism era, as well as seeking to understand the great heresies in precise detail. It is,the position of the Orthodox Church that after iconoclasm, there have been no new errors, only regurgitations of existing ones, and when one reads the Panarion of St. Epiphanius the rationale behind this view becomes clear. The Sociniams for example were not the first to,regard Jesus as an enlightened man; we see this view espoused by some as early as the second century, if not earlier, as an example.

    I myself advise a balanced recourse to Eastern and Western fathers up to the Second Council of Nicea in order to grasp the mind of the church before the great schism. Thus at a minimum one should study Ss. Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyassa, Vincent of Lerins, Ambrose, Augustine, John Cassian,, Gregory the Great, Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus. One should also read the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, John Climacus, the ancient canons, conveniently anthologized by St. Nicodemus in the Pedalion, and some Origen, but lest Origen be taken too,seriously, the Panarion of St. Epiphanius of Salamis as a countermeasure. Epiphanius,was of,course one of the first Fathers to object to Origen. The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Caesarea should be studied uncritically and in detail; proper piety demands acceptance of the traditions it contains at least from a theological perspective, where it does not contradict the writings of other fathers who unlike Eusebius were also glorified.

    In these works, one finds theological certainty because all of mainstream Christianity depends on the dogma they define. Thia is not to,say that the work of more recent theologians such as St. Gregory Palamas is not vital, but rather, the basis for accepting or rejecting more recent work can be found in the earlier material. A lot of people argue that we need the works,of,conte,poetry theologians such as Benedict XVI on your side or the late Georges Florovsky on my side in order to clearly explain these older works, but I find that this is not the case, and the oft quoted position of,CS Lewis on the superiority of well tested theological works applies. In some cases newer authors in their attempts to explain the old cause controversy by misstating the Fathers or overstating certain teachings at the expense of others. It is very important to know the reputation of more recent works before using them.

    The problem with relying on the Roman church to define correct dogma as opposed to resting on holy tradition is demonstrated in the events leading up to the Sixth Ecumenical Council. The ambiguous instructions of Honorius I ultimately led to the death of St. Maximus the Confessor. The Roman church was extremely valued before the rise of the Carolignian Empire and the subversion of the Papacy under Carlgemagne because historically the Roman church was extremely conservative on all points. This stands in marked contrast to the past 200 years, in which Rome has repeatedly promulgated new dogmatic definitions, and especially with the experience of Vatican II. However evidence of a break appears almost immediately after the end of Iconoclasm, with the insertion of the Filioque, and one cannot reconcile the teachings of Anselm of Canterbury on the atonement with, for example, the great Lyonaise patron Irenaeus, whose views on soteriology are consistently echoed by the likes of Athanasius and Gregory of Nyassa.

  108. William G. wrote:

    We must study theology from the perspective of the apostolic Fathers and the principal guardians of the faith of the Church of the pre schism era

    Why? I don’t agree. That’s a teaching based on Orthodox teaching which I do not agree with.

  109. William G. wrote:

    We must study theology from the perspective of the apostolic Fathers and the principal guardians of the faith of the Church of the pre schism era

    THC wrote:

    Why? I don’t agree. That’s a teaching based on Orthodox teaching which I do not agree with.

    And the third approach is to go back even earlier than the orthodox position. It is called sola scriptura. In this the protestants and the orthodox share a certain common position, that “the church,” as understood in the catholic sense, has been going astray in some areas for a long time. Many of the arguments center around which things went wrong and when and how did things go wrong, and to what extent, and what to do about it.

    And, no, the idea of unity at any cost does not play well.

  110. @ THC:
    Yet another distortion from THC.

    PARAGRAPHS 963 and 964 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says – 963.”She (Mary) is clearly the mother of the members of Christ…since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head. Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church. 964. Mary’s role in the Church is inseparable from her Union with Christ and flows directly from it. This Union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death”
    This is helpfully explained in the Irish Catholic Catechism for Adults that it was Pope Paul VI, at the beginning of the third session of the Second Vatican Council, who announced that Mary would be honoured under the title ‘Mother of the Church’?….The Church can never cease to look to Mary..(p160-161). And in the Glossary on p561 we read “Mary is clearly the mother of the members of Christ…since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head. “(Lumen Gentium).

  111. Gavin White wrote:

    Yet another distortion from THC.

    Not sure how you quoting the catechism makes me distorting something. Oh well, I guess because I am Catholic.

    You know the Bible says that all generations will call Mary blessed? When was the last time you said Blessed Mary? I didn’t think so.

    Say it with me, Blessed Mary. Blessed Mary. Blessed Mary.

  112. Nancy wrote:

    And the third approach is to go back even earlier than the orthodox position. It is called sola scriptura.

    There were several decades without any new testament scriptures, so sola scriptura wouldn’t even work. It was ALL oral tradition. Sola Scriptura is an invention of the Protestant Reformation. It doesn’t seem to have worked that well given all the splits and disagreements among Protestants. Is it really the body and blood of Christ or just symbolic? Is baptism required or just a symbol? Is contraception wrong or a moral duty of Christians? Is homosexuality a blessing or a sin?

  113. THC is in fact right to say that sola,scriptura academically untenable, which is why despite claims to the contrary John Calvin et al did not actually use it. In fact, no serious Protestant theologians ignore Patristics. By serious I am of course omitting the Neil Andersons of the world, although for all I know he had a copy of De Sacramentiis in the original Latin on his bookshelf. The thought is actually almost hysterically funny. At any rate, the Church of England in particular and most of its great divines have always looked to the early church to guide their interpretation; we see this as early as Cranmer.

    The 39 Articles make numerous references that only make sense to the scholar of Patristics, and the BCP uses quotes from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (well actually from the common part of the Liturgy of Catechumens used with both the Anaphora of St. John and that of St. Basil,). Not just any quotes, mind you, but an obscure prayer which in Orthodox services is only read silently. Most likely it was translated directly out of the Greek.

    For that matter Luther himself was both educated in Patristics and a devotee of St. Augustine. In fact much of his more agreeable theology is actually a restatement of Augustinian principles, and to the not inconsiderable extent that Lutheranism conforms to Patristic doctrines, which varies between individual Lutheran churches, the Patristic scholarship of Luther can be credited. Luther in fact was sufficiently well versed in the subject to accurately accuse John Calvin of Nestorianism.

    The Magisterial Reformers are so called in fact because of this fact. The Radical Reformers on the other hand took the principal of sola scriptura far more literally than Luther took it and ignored this scholarship. This gave us a vast array of unusual belief systems and doctrines, such as Socinianism. Thus the problem with Sola Scriptura is revealed: reading the scriptures without knowing how they were historically interpreted, and with a suspicion of the established doctrines of the Church, will invariably cause one to reject those doctrines even where the vast majority of Christians believe they are correct, such as in the case of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is implied but not explicitly stated; the use of the word Trinitas to refer to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, whose distinction and unity is particularly evident in the Gospel of John and in Luke-Acts, originated in Tertullian.

    It is certainly correct to say that all Patristic doctrines should be tested from Scripture; the Fathers themselves agreed and used Scripture to defend their positions. It is wrong to say however that Scripture should be read without this historic interpretation, because there are many passages which if read by themselves can cause confusion. The utility of the Fathers is twofold: they were either of the same era (Ignatius, Clement), or just a few generations apart from (Irenaeus, Justin Martyr), those who actually wrote and compiled the books of the New Testament, or they were, in the case of Origen and the post-Nicene fathers, those who had directly inherited the earlier tradition and who had time to exhaustively study all the books of the old and new testaments. In fact it was St. Athanasius himself who gave us the 27 book New Testament canon. Sola scriptura is insufficient when it comes to the vital definition of what scriptures are, which is why most mainstream Christians simply accept the Athanasian Canon and use it as a starting point. But it seems to me preposterous to use the canon of Athanasius without at least understanding what his doctrine was. There is a reason why each of the 27 books was accepted, and others were rejected, and it is vital to understand that reason in each specific case. For example, many people would be far more cautious about eschatological speculation from the Apocalpyse if they understood how controversial that book was. For example, of the Eastern Churches only the Coptic Church uses it liturgically, on Holy Saturday. It is worth considering in turn that the Alexandrian school favored allegorical interpretation over literal; when we take this, along with the absence of the Apocalypse from the older editions of the Syriac Peshitta, influenced as it was by the Antiochene school, which favored literal interpretation, and then when we take into account the comments on that work from various Fathers, we can consider an allegorical interpretation that sees Revelations chiefly as a guide for Christian worship is favored. This was the view of the ancient Roman church, which makes cautious use of the Apocalypse in the lectionary but which extensively quoted from it in the ordinary of the mass.

  114. THC wrote:

    William G. wrote:
    We must study theology from the perspective of the apostolic Fathers and the principal guardians of the faith of the Church of the pre schism era
    Why? I don’t agree. That’s a teaching based on Orthodox teaching which I do not agree with.

    Actually no. The Orthodox teaching strictly speaking is that Holy Tradition, which continues until the present, is alone authoritative, and outside of Holy Tradition the consensus patrum has no meaning. The Bible is viewed at the center of Holy Traditon.

    The consensus patrum approach, while it is true, will tend to produce the same answers as the Orthodox approach, uses as its starting position the common intellectual heritage of all Christians. Thus it presents itself as the ideal form of dialogue leading to ecumenical reconciliation.

  115. @ THC:

    And of course in the great question of how far back do people go for portions of their belief system there are the messianic Jews. That would, I suppose be the fourth group in this discussion. One can find a lot of interesting ideas and understandings by reading some of their stuff–based on long standing Jewish beliefs and ages ago prophesies. I certainly do not understand it well enough to debate about it, but I find it highly interesting. Especially in the light of the prior scholarship on the jewishness of Jesus and the current studies in the jewishness of Paul.

    Right now I can’t think of any fifth group.

  116. @ THC:
    You are acting suspiciously like a playground bully. That’s the exact opposite of engaging in a good discussion.

    If anything, comments like the one I’m replying to simply cause people to tuneyou out – *not* because you’re Catholic, but because of the way you’re defaulting to angry and mean-spirited words.

  117. THC wrote:

    Say it with me, Blessed Mary. Blessed Mary. Blessed Mary.

    Where is “Blessed Mary” in the actual text of Luke 1 or elsewhere in the Bible? Mary is described by Luke as the passive recipient of grace, not the active dispenser of grace. That is true if you believe the words of the Bible inform and govern our thinking of Mary. Can you direct us to the words of the Bible where Mary is depicted as an active dispenser of grace, especially in the salvific sense?

  118. @ numo:
    which is not what you were asking THC, exactly, but I thought it might be worth bringing the specific verses into this. (Or not; I can’t see a meeting of the minds happening anytime soon.)

  119. Gram3 wrote:

    Can you direct us to the words of the Bible where Mary is depicted as an active dispenser of grace, especially in the salvific sense?

    Let’s instead start with Blessed Mary. Luke 1:48William G. wrote:

    The Orthodox teaching strictly speaking is that Holy Tradition, which continues until the present, is alone authoritative, and outside of Holy Tradition the consensus patrum has no meaning.

    And that’s where we disagree because the Catholic belief is that Tradition includes everything post-Orthodox schism, including the Marian dogmas. Unfortunately, I do not believe the Orthodox Church is the final arbiter of Holy Tradition, but the Catholic Church who, IMHCO, has the Keys of St. Peter.

  120. numo wrote:

    which is not what you were asking THC, exactly, but I thought it might be worth bringing the specific verses into this. (Or not; I can’t see a meeting of the minds happening anytime soon.)

    Oh, you love me numo and you know it.

  121. numo wrote:

    If anything, comments like the one I’m replying to simply cause people to tuneyou out – *not* because you’re Catholic, but because of the way you’re defaulting to angry and mean-spirited words.

    My spidy senses have been going off for some time regarding this situation. I try to hold off on sharing my gut instincts, well, because they are usually brushed off as siliness. Sad to say, they are usually accurate, though I always hope for the best.

  122. numo wrote:

    I’m replying to simply cause people to tuneyou out – *not* because you’re Catholic, but because of the way you’re defaulting to angry and mean-spirited words.

    Please list the angry and mean-spirited words.

  123. @ numo:

    I don’t think that shows that Mary dispenses grace. Rather, in context, it shows a contrast between her shame during her which included culturally indicated the curse of God on her life. However, that curse and shame would be vindicated just as her son’s has been, and she will be considered favored by God rather than cursed by God. In any case, she is the recipient, not the provider of grace and blessedness. I think we way underestimate the shame and humiliation that came with her obedience.

  124. @ Gram3:

    should be “her shame during her life which culturally included the curse of God on her life.”

    I have no idea what happened between thought and “Post Comment.”

  125. @ Gram3:
    Keep in mind that I don’t personally believe in veneration of saints; most of us Lutheran types steer very far clear of it, though I guess there are a few (mostly abroad?) who believe in it.

  126. numo wrote:

    @ Bridget:
    i hear you.

    Because THC believes that the Roman Catholic Authorities interpret everything for us. Not unlike all authoritarians in the Church, which thankfully does not belong to them. This point is where the Pope and Piper kiss.

  127. @ Gram3:

    It is one thing to disagree with a different religious tradition. It is quite another thing to sling mud when one’s own tradition has so much of its own to worry about. And it is yet something else to give way to personal hostilities in the process of any of it. I feel better now that I have said that.

    In that attitude, therefore, let me say that I was not aware that “blessed” automatically meant veneration. Jesus used blessed about the meek, the peace makers, etc. I just thought it meant that these people had received blessing(s) from God. I must have missed some meaning shift along the way.

  128. Gram3 wrote:

    I’m confused…

    Me too. Somewhere in the line of conversation between you and numo the word blessed and the idea of veneration sort of crossed paths, and I was saying that I did not know that the terms necessarily crossed paths like that. I don’t know if that clears up anything, but that is what happened. It is late and I need to call it a night; my brain shuts down about six hours before I do.

  129. @ Nancy:

    I think that numo and I agree that veneration of Mary does not follow from Mary being blessed by God. I was challenging THC’s bold claim. The veneration comes from THC and William, though I don’t think they quite agree on what that means nor do I think they agree on why. But that’s for them to sort out, I guess. I certainly don’t see it, obviously. Totally know what you mean about brains clocking out early. Or not clocking in in the first place.

  130. Gram3 wrote:

    I think that numo and I agree that veneration of Mary does not follow from Mary being blessed by God. I was challenging THC’s bold claim.

    I didn’t make an argument that blessed = veneration. There’s so much other Biblical evidence for veneration than just that one verse about calling Mary blessed. I can understand why you might be confused if you thought that was what I was doing.

  131. THC wrote:

    There’s so much other Biblical evidence for veneration than just that one verse about calling Mary blessed.

    Care to indulge my confusion with some of your Biblical evidence for the practice of venerating Mary? I believe you were the one who said we should get used to saying “Blessed Mary” presumably while working our way around the rosary.

  132. So this conversation has in fact become rather too sectarian. It’s a bit discouraging to see the ODP degenerate into sectarian strife, if we consider the ODP a mirror image of Christendom,

  133. @ Gram3:

    I wasn’t talking about you. I replied to the wrong comment. I hit the wrong button. I tried to stay up later than my mental bedtime and messed up. What can I say. Mea culpa.

  134. Nancy wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    I wasn’t talking about you. I replied to the wrong comment. I hit the wrong button. I tried to stay up later than my mental bedtime and messed up. What can I say. Mea culpa.

    OK, no problem. I can get strident, so it isn’t beyond my capability to get personal. If I do, then it’s good to hear about it.

  135. William G. wrote:

    So this conversation has in fact become rather too sectarian. It’s a bit discouraging to see the ODP degenerate into sectarian strife, if we consider the ODP a mirror image of Christendom,

    Not sure what you mean exactly by the ODP, but I’m assuming it’s the veneration of Mary. I’m willing to talk about the Biblical evidence for that, and you are willing to talk about the tradition evidence. We disagree on what constitutes evidence. THC is a new convert to a viewpoint, and part of assimilating a new viewpoint is actively resisting the other competing viewpoints. There’s nothing wrong with a vigorous discussion, but the fact is we are not going to reach the same conclusions because our assumptions and methodology and goals are very different.

  136. So let’s change the subject a bit. I didn’t post any comment on the Neil Anderson thread because the teaching of Anderson himself so profoundly occult and blatantly diabolical in nature that I really had no comment. Yet I have made it a rule to not doubt the sincerity of religious leaders regarding their experiences, even if I disbelieve in the experiences themselves. Prelest, or religious delusion, is a powerful force of nature, or rather of unnatural corruption. There is a large corpus on L Ron Hubbard which suggests towards the end he actually bought into his own teaching, relying on Orwellian doublethink to justify his financial exploitation of his followers. The Scientology doctrine regarding the necessity of economic reciprocity seems like so much of an excuse.

    Now following this principle, it stands to reason that many of the predatory figures in Christianity if not most did not enter this field for that reason, but rather their financial exploitation is an ancillary function of their delusion. “By their fruits he shall know them”, and surely a malign influence, corruption or delusion would in a capitalist society most likely be accompanied by economic exploitation. Viewed differently, if historically the charity of Christians has been their defining attribute, then surely someone who deludes themselves into doctrinal corruption would most likely show the opposite of charity, that being avarice. Against Heresies by Irenaeus documents among other Gnostic leaders a number of ruthless men, beginning with Simon Magus, who used magic tricks to separate their followers from their funds. Yet in the case of later Gnostics such as Valentinus, the complexity of their declared cosmologies and the risk they placed themselves in even being on the fringe of Christianity (admittedly mitigated but not eliminated by the Valentinian practice of dissimulation, that is to say, denying rather than confessing their faith in the manner of fhe Christian martyrs) would seem to indicate a sincerity in their belief system. This seems to reach an extreme in the case of Mani, who seems to evince both a sincerity of belief and an exploitative aspect which led to his being flayed. Thoughts?

  137. @ William G.:
    I do appreciate your attempt to steer things in another direction, because things have dead-ended re. certain topics.

    Today I’m going to take a break from religious discussions, though. On this blog and another, it’s led to a certain heaviness for me, and I’m talked out for now. Need to get my batteries recharged, i think.

  138. numo wrote:

    Need to get my batteries recharged, i think.

    How does that work for Numo? If not too personal a question.

  139. @ Bridget:
    I don’t have a good answer, as at the moment, a number of things are happening (critical illnesses, etc.) to people i care about and I’ve got some big difficulties of my own. So there’s a lot going on, and I’m very tired.

    Prayers appreciated – very much so. I really don’t like talking about personal issues on open forums, so would rather not go into details at this time.

  140. @ numo:

    I will be praying for you Numo. My querry was along the lines of what do you do to recharge . . . listen to beautiful music, get out an instrument and play the music, take a walk, visit an art museum, talk with friends, cuddle bunnies, etc. 🙂 Not trying to make light of the heaviness either, just hoping you find some little joys to help recharge.

  141. @ Bridget:
    Thanks. I got some of the bad news yesterday, though I’ve been expecting it for a while.

    Very tired today, so just not up for much conversation. And, like i said, i feel down about the direction some comments have taken, both here and elsewhere. I’ll get over it – but it can be discouraging.

  142. Well you know there’s nithing that says ODP has to be heavy. I myself am looking for more information and better English translations of Lutheran and early Protestant worship services. I,would,really,love,to,discuss liturgics, hymnody and so on especially as it relates to Advent, or the Nativity Fast as we call it in the East. Guadete Sunday is,coming up, a day traditionally characterised by pink vesrments in the West, along with Laetere Sunday.

  143. Here’s an idea: we could discuss our favorite traditional Western hymns. I am rather a fan of the Wesleyan classics, but also the more folksy American hymns Old Rugged Cross and the Easter classic I Serve a Risen Savior. I also being a mid Atlantic man am rather fond of the nautical hymn “Easternal Savior”, and on pure Anglophiliac grounds love Jerusalem, although dogmatically its a bit of a can of worms. The British coronation anthem I was Glad most recently heard at the Royal Wedding in 2011 is somewhat more agreeable dogmatically.

    A lot of Orthodox churches sing carols during the Hours before the Nativity liturgy. This practice is not uncontroversial but I’m a supporter, because even the Royal Hours tend to be chanted otherwise and would not be as well attended. I follow the Old Calendar because I believe it works better with out liturgical system than the Revised Julian Calendar (by not turning the Apostles Fast into the Incredible Disappearing Fast by causing on some years the Feast of the Apostles to occur in the non-fasting bright week between Pentecost and the Feast of All Saints, which in the Byzantine Rite is the Sunday after Pentecost. As an economy however to Americans I think the old Calendarists in the US should consider moving the feast of St. Nicholas to Dec 25, from Dec 19 (Gregorian) so that it can function as a bridge to the Naivity worship of the New Calendarists and other Christians. It is traditional for Orthodox to give presents on the Feast of St Nicholss rather than the Nativitt, and also on the Feast of St Basil (January 1st on either the old or new calendar depending on jurisdiction). These feasts are both solemn and popular given the huge popularity of both saints; Santa Claus is an amalgamation of the two, as Basil,who also invented hospitals, like Nicholas, was known for extreme acts of charity involving children. St Nicholas is alleged to also have smacked down Arius at Nicea, although many deny this is the case. We do know that St. Nicholas was a confessor who was in prison during the Diocletian Persecution and his nose, according to forensic study of his skeleton, which is preserved, was broken repeatedly. He was elderly by the time of Nicea. He developed an association with sailors and is also somewhat of a Christian replacement for Neptune. I take a permissive view on Pagan converts viewing Christian saints as a way of getting into the faith, because the difference is that the saints embodied virtue, whereas the old Pagan Gods like Neptune tended to be scoundrels. The old Phoenician and Canaanite Sea God in particular was a nasty piece of work. So I do believe that Santa Claus has a lot to offer Christians as we prepare for the glorious Nativity if we take the trouble to find out who he actually was, and how his Christian witness under torture and his charity were profound acts of exemplary virtue. Specifically, Nicholas is alleged to have saved some young girls from prostitution by providing them with money for the Dowery required by the marriage customs of that time, and a better way to share with someone the good news of Christ than to bail them out of a family emergency I cannot fathom.

  144. @ William G.:
    My musical interest are pretty diverse, and that’s as true of sacred music as it is of its secular counterpart. Am a fan of German chorales (not just Bach!), love much black gospel music, and have a soft spot for both Ethiopian religious songs (there are many vids on uTube) as well as some odd stuff – like the Svots Gaelic psalm-singing from the Isle of Lewis, in the Hebrides. There are a few good vids of that on uTube as well,but am using a small tablet at the moment, so linking can get weird.

    I’ll try to post some links tomorrow.

  145. The Ethiopian Divine Liturgy is very beautiful. I recently visited a Coptic monastery and on my first day some Ethiopian pilgrims sang vespers in the refectory. The liturgy in terms of the prayers is a blend of the Coptic and Syriac Rite, but the hymnody is different and of course features the use of drums or in their absence the clapping of hands. Also the particulars of Ethiopian worship are distinctive compared to Coptic services, including the use of round churches with the altar in the center behind a circular iconostasis, but also square churches. The book The Oxford History of Christian Worship, which you should own (it goes into depth on Lutheran and Protestant liturgics as well as on more ancient services; it is comprehensive and even includes a chapter on women in worship, a chapter on Baptist services, and a chapter on vestments), features dialogues outlining the configuration of the Ethiopian church, which is similar to the standard Greek Cross design favored in the East but with unique characteristics in terms of the placement of the singers and other factors.

    Speaking of liturgical books, I recently obtained three of interest: The Genius of the Roman Rite, which would be interesting to discuss with THC if he would end his futile efforts to proselytize us, Medieval English Liturgy, which goes into depth on the Sarum Rite and its contemporaries, and a rare volume containing the Coptic Holy Week services beginning with the annointing of the oil on the last Friday of Lent. Holy Week is the one time of year the Copts use the Old Testament extensively, and in the Paschal liturgy they read the Apocalpyse, which is a nice touch.

    For those unawares, the Apocalpyse of St. John is another name for Revelations.

  146. Oh also thrillingly the Coptic liturgy features a Paschal Homily of St, Athanasius which I have not encountered before. On Easter Sunday Byzantine priests preach the Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom, which is of similar length. This does not preclude preaching other homilies, but last year I believe it was Wartburg Watch which documented a megachurch preaching about one of their favored members rather than the Revelation. There is a lot to be said for using definitive sermons written more than a thousand years ago which cover all the bases rather than trying to write your own each Easter. I once attended a cringe worthy service at the ELCA parish in Solvang where the pastor decided to ruin everyone’s Easter by repenring the Paschal sermon into an occasion to speculate about the possibilities surrounding Christ being married. Other than that it was a good service though, good hymns, and one could sense the congregation stiffening during the moments of reduced Orthodoxy. Alas the Pulpit did not have one of the epic sounding boards of Puritan churches in New England; the definitive book on them states that Children of the early colonies believed the purpose of those was to fall on the pastor if his oreaching became questionable. :p

    Also speaking of such unpleasantness, I at last obtained a copy of Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future by Fr. Seraphim Rose, which unlike his work with “aerial toll houses” which remain controversial in Orthodoxy, has been widely accepted as the apologetic masterpiece of Orthodoxy in the struggle against syncretism in the late 20th century, with its withering critique of the New Age movement.

  147. @ THC:
    There are times when the forum resembles the school playground and this is one such time and it is for that reason that I visit this particular page once a week or so.
    In fact my comment was made shortly after I had spent a day at a retreat centre run by Cappuchin monks and it was marvellous. In a former life I had a close relationship with a Cardinal who venerated the Black Madonna of Jasna Gora which I also visited and enjoyed. So I probably know more about Mary than you give me credit for.
    FWIW,Scott Hahn has written a good book on how Catholics can evangelise others.

  148. Gavin White wrote:

    Scott Hahn has written a good book on how Catholics can evangelise others.

    I am not a big fan of Scott Hahn, although a lot of others are. To me he’s an academic who found a career post-conversion by selling books. That said, I am not here to evangelize. I just give my Catholic side of things, like you give your side.

    BTW, what religion are you? “Christian” is too vague. I think people on here should be up front with what religion they are, like I am, or at least write a statement of beliefs. For all I know you are agnostic with a splash of spirituality and not affilitated with any organization.

  149. I myself enjoyed a lecture series by Scott Hahn, altough I obviously disagree with his choice to cross the Tiber instead of the Bosphorus, on the baseless grounds that Orthodox theology is stale. While it is true we admit no innovation, this opens the door for never ending process of exploring the Traditon we have through theology, iconography, et cetera. Also within the apophatically defined bounds of Orthodoxy, which consist essentially of a broad pasture delimited by statements of negative dogma, one has much more freedom than in most other churches, which rely on cataphatic theology, or positive doctrinal definitions. Orthodoxy is unique in that it’s defined as much by what it is not as what it is. Only the Anglican enjoys more practical freedom, although in Orthodoxy there aren’t a set of 39 Articles stabbing at you from the back of your Prayerbook; in theory Anglicanism should be more restrictive than Orthodoxy, but the prevalence of the Broad Church party reduced the 39 Articles, the Book of Homilies et cetera to the status of ghostly apparitions lingering from aa dark and unsavory past.

    On another matter, unlike the SSPX, but like the post Vatican II Roman Church, I Believe in religious freedom. An essential part of this freedom is the freedom to present ones beliefs however one wishes, as long as one does not lie about them for personal gain (for example, by posing as a member of a wealthy and exclusive sect in order to marry into said sect and thus obtain great sums of money, or misrepresenting oneself as a clergyman of a specific church in order to con the faithful; such things have been known to occur). If someone self identifies as Christian, I have zero problems with that. I might however out of sincere and loving curiosity ask them to share their experience of Christianity with me. One thing I would bitterly resent would be if someone told me I was not Christian because I was not a member of their sect. I don’t mind Mormons or Unitarians identifying as Christian, even though I don’t consider their Christianity to be normative. At some point minority religoons should try to build their own identity, but the threat of persecution drives many to engage in dissimulation; the Christian religion is almost unique in its historic aversion to dissimulation.

    Most of the minority religoons in the a Middle East such as the Druze and the Alevis will engage in dissimulation to pass themselves off as Sunni; I don’t object to this at all because the alternative is their demise; at the same time I treasure the testimony of our beautiful saints who have received the crown of martyrdom for non violent confession of Christ. I have a personal devotion to the Coptic martyrs Ss. Mina and Abanoub, victims of the horrible Diocletian persecution, and pray that through their intercession and that of our all holy, immaculate Lady Theotokos and all the Saints, the embattled Christians of the Middle East and their brethren from other religious minorities such as the Yazidis, the Mandaeans, the Yarsanis, the Alevis, and others, will be spared and escape the tyranny of ISIL.

  150. @ THC:

    I don’t know if you have noticed this or not, but catholics that I have run into seem to say what religion is somebody when a protestant would be more apt to say what denomination are you? In my youth it was strongly emphasized in my religious tradition that a denomination is not a religion. Christianity is, denom is not. I personally would never answer the question of what religion are you by saying anything but christian, perhaps with an explanation that if you mean denomination I am such and such but that is not a religion. In other words, my reply to the question would be sort of in the form of an explanation, knowing full well that the person to whom I was speaking might resent that. It is that important to some protestants.

    In RCIA they constantly called protestants “christian” and called themselves “catholic.” Not protestant christians, just christians. And not catholic christians, just catholics. It bugged the ever living mess out of me, but I kept my mouth shut about it.

    Anyhow, if you have not noticed that in your experience, now you have heard it from me. This thinking is out there and to be dealt with in cross-cultural conversation.

  151. @ William G.:
    Perhaps this is a good time to ask a question. Does the Orthodox Church take a stand on how to interpret the first nine chapters of Genesis? Many parts of the evangelical branch of Christianity insist on treating these chapters literally which puts their theology in total opposition to contemporary physics and cosmology. At the same time these same groups use all the technology based on the same science (computers, internet, video, …) to promulgate their particular interpretations.

    Understanding how the Orthodox deal with such interpretive questions would be very interesting.

  152. Subject Change for those who are interested:

    I am seriously on the verge of becoming a “none”. The final straw may have been the scolding I recently received for alerting the elders to a problem in our church involving a couple. I am concerned that we are told, on one hand, to bear one another’s burdens but also told that people should be directed to the elders to solve their problems or to receive counseling.

    Where is it written that only elders are qualified to minister to hurting people? And why does everything have to be so secretive? I am told to have relationships and maintain some kind of accountability, but then scolded for sharing things with the people I have chosen to have those types of relationships with. Apparently I am doing it wrong, but no one seems to know how to do it right including those who do the scolding.

    I am told that I need to be “involved” in some kind of ministry, but every attempt at being ministry has resulted in a spiritual black eye so far. There is always something that I have done wrong, or some controversy that erupts. I am at the point of asking: what is the point of all this involvement?

    The context is a small, independent church (Not SBC) with a small congregation and single pastor. I am seriously considering no longer congregating. There is so much turmoil and drama that it hardly seems worth it anymore, and I really don’t think that the Lord intended the church to be this messy. When I try to bring these things up (the messiness of it all) I am told to expect it, that Satan would attack us in this way. Really? Most of the mess seems to be of the self inflicted variety, caused by people who just can’t seem to figure out how to behave themselves.

    Anyway, it has really grown to be frustrating. And, there is no one left for me to talk about all this to because it will get back to the elders. (I typed “bosses”, but erased it.) Worship time is no longer worshipful for me at least. I feel like I am being told to check my brain at the door, sit down and shut up. And I don’t seem to know how to communicate with the people in charge anymore. So it’s getting old.

    I am wondering if this situation is endemic to the modern free churches, and that’s just the way it is. Denominational churches are not an option for me or for my wife. So we have planned to be away from the church this weekend, and to miss some of the traditional Christmas programing in favor of date night and spending time alone and with family.

    I have always thought that none was not a viable long term option, but now I am not so sure. Maybe my faith is too small. I am sure there is something wrong with me, and that there must be a church on the island for misfit toys that I would be better suited for…

    Signed,
    Maybe-soon-to-be-a-none

  153. @ oldJohnJ:

    So tell me. Do you sometimes feel like you are the only one still standing on the deck in the rain while all the others have found some place warm and dry? So stuff has got to be taken in away from the rain, but where is everybody? Meanwhile does it seem like no matter how much you try to say that it is indeed raining, nobody is listening? This with the end result that when all is said and done, you are right in that it is raining, but also you are the only one wet and cold. I pretty much feel like that from time to time.

  154. @ THC:
    ‘christian’ is the only term that counts. The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch and Peter encourages us that if we suffer as Christians we are not to be ashamed but glorify God in this behalf.1 Peter 4:16

  155. @ William G.:
    I hear you! The thing is, the songs I’m talking about aren’t from the liturgy or used as liturgical music. they are literally songs in praise of God, and have no specific name. As I said, lots and lots of vids available!

  156. THC wrote:

    I think people on here should be up front with what religion they are, like I am, or at least write a statement of beliefs.

    I think this is a silly idea, THC. Anyone can comment here, regardless of beliefs, so apart from having a separate discussion page for newbies to say hi, this really doesn’t fit anywhere in discussions.

    I don’t like it when people try to parse what I believe and what I don’t believe, and I bet you don’t enjoy it, either.

  157. @ MSTBAN:

    Out of curiosity why are “denominational churches” not an option for you? Surely every church, even an independent church, is a member of a denomination consisting at least of itself, and shares theological categories with other like minded churches.

    The main problem with small autonomous churches is the pastors lack proper accountability. In a church win an episcopal hierarchy the bishops exist to, among other things, provide a means whereby abusive pastors can be held to account. The same is true of churches following a Presbyterian polity. Even a properly run congregational church will have systems of oversight. But in small private churches these systems are often lacking.

    The early Church had a vast body of common law that has come down to us from the the third century on. These canons largely focused on the behavior of clergy and mandated, for example, the removal of clergy who attempted to financially exploit congregants. The problem with independent non denominational chapels is they either have no canon law, or there is no one to enforce that law.

    I would urge you to try the “denominational churches” before writing them off, especially in light of the fact that if the Univerrsal Church does exist, it is more likely to be them, or one of them, then some random freelance chapel, and membership in a denominational church full of caring, loving people who don’t get bent out of shape about “church discipline” but instead focus their spiritual efforts around coming together to know Jesus Christ in the breaking of bread, the fellowship of Holy Communion, is much healthier than being a “None.” The New Testament clearly demands we be part of “the Church” but it does not demand we submit ourselves to abusive false prophets who are like “wolves in sheets clothing.”

  158. @ oldJohnJ:

    There is no official dogma on how to interpret Genesis Ch. 1-9 other than the belief that God created the universe ex nihlo (from nothing) and a belief in original sin, that is to say, a degenerate condition but not one of imputed guilt as in Augustine or Anselm, and the role of Satan and in human free will bringing this about. Regarding the mechanics of how the universe came to be, this question belongs to the realm of theological opinion; some Orthodox are creationists, some believe in evolution, and some believe that Genesis describes allegorically the Big Bang, evolution and so on. I don’t know of any Orthodox who were particularly interested in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye; I seem to recall at least one blog posting to the extent that the participants were missing the point.

    I should also say, for the Prthodox, the most important creation narrative is John 1:1-17, which is the appointed Gospel for the Paschal Divine Liturgy, traditionally celebrated around midnight on Easter Sunday. Immediately before the Paschal Divine Liturgy, Paschal Matins is served following a procession around the church, and in that service the Gospel of Mark with the finding of the Empty Tomb is read. The point of reading John ch 1 during the Holy Communion service that follows is to convey how Christ through his death and resurrection has brought about the sanctification of all things, leading to a new dawn of creation. It is to celebrate the wonder of this “eigth day” that the service is held before dawn; the World to Come being topologically symbolized by the dazzling darkness outside of the church.

    The Orthodox Paschal liturgy is incredibly joyous. This year, unlike last, Pascha will be on a different date than Easter according to the Gregorian Calendar, so I would urge you to visit an Orthodox Church to experience it, which you can do without missing the regular Easter service at your own church. All Orthodox churches outside of Finland still use the Julian Calendar to compute the date of Easter. For that matter, many of them use it for Christmas, so the opportunity to see an Orthodox Christmss service on January 7, and an Orthodox Theophany (Epiphany) service with the Great Blessing of the Waters on January 18 presents itself.

  159. Nancy wrote:

    Do you sometimes feel like you are the only one still standing on the deck in the rain while all the others have found some place warm and dry?

    First, YEC is a minor secondary issue. It mostly affects non believers well acquainted with science. I am not alone as there are the entire American Scientific Affiliation and Biologos organizations. Deebs have taken a strong stand on this.
    However, the hypocrisy evident in using all the technology based on the same science that yields the age of the universe and our planet grates, especially when the current big bang cosmology supports a beginning for a single universe. Our evangelical branch of the Christian church should be pleased with this, not fighting it.

  160. William G. wrote:

    There is no official dogma on how to interpret Genesis Ch. 1-9 other than the belief that God created the universe ex nihlo (from nothing)

    Thanks for the helpful comment. I too feel that John 1:1-5 is ignored in most Biblical approaches to understanding origins, especially from the YEC advocates.

  161. @ oldJohnJ:

    You may have misread my comment, but whatever. I found myself very “alone” in evangelo-world” since the people and the evidence which I believed were not evangelicals nor ideas welcome in evangelo-world. Nor did they care to listen to evidence or reason, neither would they quit trying to indoctrinate the grandchildren. If you do not feel along among that bunch, that is great, but I certainly did.

  162. @ Nancy:
    Yes, I interpreted your comment much more narrowly than you intended. I attend a small SBC church in Augusta, GA where FBC Augusta prides itself as being the birthplace of the SBC. (In their defense they allow specifying either the SBC or CBF for the part of your giving that goes to missions.) I also feel the pervasiveness of the very narrow outlook of these folks that you mentioned.

  163. William G. wrote:

    There is no official dogma on how to interpret Genesis Ch. 1-9 other than the belief that God created the universe ex nihlo (from nothing) and a belief in original sin, that is to say, a degenerate condition but not one of imputed guilt as in Augustine or Anselm, and the role of Satan and in human free will bringing this about.

    This is interesting. Could you elaborate on the EO view of original sin and what you mean by “a degenerate condition?” I have been so immersed in Augustinian thinking that it can be difficult to imagine some other view though I sense that Augustine is not the whole or only story. The penal substitutionary theory of the Atonement also dominates in my theological neighborhood, but ISTM that does not account for all of the data.

  164. @ oldJohnJ:

    Most Evangelicals seem to live in a world where John ch. 1 does not even exist; the verses in question unambiguously declare Jesus Christ to be the Word of God, yet evangelicals use this term to refer to the Bible. Thus a vast array of Christological remarks in the New Testament are reinterpreted as being scriptural in nature. I can’t imagine that anyone reading John 1:1 would understand it as taking about the Bible rather than Jesus, but I fear such a distortion could arise if the current misuse of the phrase “Word of God” to refer to the Holy Scriptures rather than to the One Who they describe continues unchecked.

  165. @ Gram3:

    The Orthodox follow the teachings on original sin expressed by St. John Cassian. Do a Foogle search for “Eastern Orthodox original sin” and you will come up with a wealth of material which explains our position in detail. It is a subtle position, and I don’t wish to elaborate on it further myself, for fear of suggesting Pelgaianism or otherwise distorting our views on the subject.

  166. Oh by the way, Numo, here’s an article on the use of torture or the lack thereof in Kievan Rus: http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2014/12/12/going-hell-terrorists-torturers/

    We’ve sparred about what ai consider the utopian aspects of that state before, but I find it interesting to note that the bishops tried to get St. Vladimir the Great to reconsider his ban on torture. In Orthodoxy, in many cases, the faith has been upheld and defended most fervently by the laity; during iconoclasm for example,the episcopate largely capitulated and it was the monks and laymen who refused to surrender their icons for burning. St. Maximus the Confessor was a lay theologian who lost his tongue for defending Orthodoxy against heretical bishops and a heretical emperor. Thus bishops can make mistakes. Dom Gregory Dix OHC, the Anglican Benedictine liturgical scholar, once joked that it was appropriate that (in the west) the symbol of a bishop was the crook, and of an archbishop, the double cross.

    I do believe that the episcopal system of polity is the most perfect system, because Presbyterian systems seem to be lacking Biblical warrant, and while Congregationalism describes the situation of the early church where each of the fledgling local churches had its own bishop, it tends to lead to either an unaccountable elite, or if democratically run, to factionalism in the laity which takes on the divisive character of local politics. That said, I do not consider it inadmissible; I would argue the Church of Sinai, which is the smallest autonomous Orthodox Church, consisting of the Monastery of St. Catherine and little or nothing else, is an example of Congregational polity in the Orthodox Church; the Archbishop of Sinai is elected by the brethren and confirmed by the Patriarch of Jerusalem; once seated, he can in they only be removed by the monks who installed him. There are also a handful of laymen, including some Christian or semi-Christian brethren, and many pilgrims, who are under the care of the Church of Sinai, whose autonomy was established in the Imperial decree that founded it, issued by Emperor Justinian.

    Bishops in general are good, and I love my bishop (and he loves me, along with the rest of his flock). However I think the key message of Wartburg Sarch is the need for there to be loving bishops; the church should not be ruled by cynical people. It is a scandal that a bishop suggested to St. Vladimir that he reconsider his ban on torture. Like Vladimir, we should reject authoritarian pragmatists like Mark Dever (himself a bishop in all but name) and Katherine Jeffers Schiorri who, while not in all cases guilty of advocating torture (sadly,some right wing pastors do advocate it; I’m right wing but opposed to torture at all times) continue to this day to erect roadblocks for the faithful.

  167. William G. wrote:

    Most Evangelicals seem to live in a world where John ch. 1 does not even exist; the verses in question unambiguously declare Jesus Christ to be the Word of God, yet evangelicals use this term to refer to the Bible.

    Agreed. The mindset is very similar to what Wahabbi Islam has done with their Qur’an. Ironically, and so far as some versions of Evangelicalism have evolved, the paradigm is not much more that 40-45 years old and almost exclusively American in origin.

  168. @ Muff Potter:

    I would concur with that, except I'd have to add fundamentalism is even more of a distortion. The early church never believed the Bible to be an uncreated marvel with deistic properties, in the way some Muslims view the Quran. One wonders if Mohammed's faith was based on a corrupt translation of the Gospel of John conveyed by an Arian or Gnostic priest.

  169. @ William G.:

    OK, fair enough. The P word generates a lot of heat, not to mention that it is misused sometimes. Would you be willing to offer an opinion of how or why Augustine got off track on original sin? From my perspective inside the Augustinian bubble, it is hard to see things as they are outside that bubble. Something doesn’t seem to quite fit, but I don’t know what it is.

    And I will look into your idea about the “word of God” being misunderstood. Nick, I think, made a similar point on another topic. I do agree that John 1 is overlooked to our detriment. It is part of our personal Christmas reading. Before Luke.

  170. @ Gram3:
    Ok, just quick, and lacking references: growing up Lutheran, i was not taught about p.s.a., but about God’s own choice to freely become incarnate, suffer and die with us and for us, and rise again. There was NO wrathful god present, and no intimation of most of the things that make up TULIP. For us, it goes against everything of Christ’s life and character. The father described by many is most emphatically not the loving, merciful father that Jesus described in his parable of the prodigal son, though the prodigal’s older brother might well have viewed his father that way…

  171. @ numo:
    I’ll just quickly add that “limited atonement” horrifies me, and leave it at that. Either Christ died for all, or (imo) he might as well not have botheref. I don’t mean to sound flippant about this in the least.

  172. numo wrote:

    @ numo:
    I’ll just quickly add that “limited atonement” horrifies me, and leave it at that. Either Christ died for all, or (imo) he might as well not have botheref. I don’t mean to sound flippant about this in the least.

    Horrifies me, too. Tom Nettles takes it even further. Sufficient for the elect only. Have no idea what that even means.

  173. @ Gram3:
    I don’t for one single nanosecond think God EVER has intended for people to focus on who is supposedly “elect” and who is not.

    Perhaps Jesus would have made a big deal out of it if it was important, no?

  174. numo wrote:

    Perhaps Jesus would have made a big deal out of it if it was important, no?

    Yes, I think so. But such things make jobs for professional pontificators.

  175. @ Gram3:

    To break out of the Augustinian bubble, read Athanasius On the Incarnation, some St. Basil, and some St. John Cassian. Or if you find Patristic authors difficult to read, try The Orthodox Church or The Orthodox Way from Metropolitan Kallisros Ware, or take a look at the blog Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy. As far as why Augustine’s view on original sin was distorted, I am not in a position to judge him. I will say we do regard him as a minor saint; he was a man who in his youth as a member of the Manichaean Gnostic religion loved a lascivious lifestyle and after his baptism felt much guilt. He also lived during a time when the Western Empire was rapidly crumbling. His popularity as a theologian in the West has a lot to do with language; in the Dark Ages, many Western Scholars lost the ability to read Greek but could still read Larin, especially more recent Larin compositions like Augustine. His work, especially thr City of God, spoke to a people whose world, the Western Empire, was crumbling, and focused their attention properly on God, allowing them to survive it, so thus he was widely copied, and his work became more accessible than older, more important works of theology by the likes of the Cappodacian Fathers, Athanasius, Irenaeus et al.

    Lastly, in the Western Rite liturgies, John ch. 1 is the traditional Gospel for Christmas Day. Thus historically the Eastern and Western churches recognized the cardinal importance of this by making it the Gospel on Christmas and Pascha, the two most important feasts. In the Roman Catholic Tridentine mass (but not traditionally in the Dominican Rite) John 1:1-14 is also read at the end of most services as The Last Gospel, a custom later adopted by the Armenians during a period of Armenian-Catholic dialogue around the 14th century that resulted in some Westernization of the Armenian liturgy, but no ecclesial unity. I believe some other Eastern Catholics such as the Maronites also use, or used, the Last Gospel.

  176. @ numo:

    The real problem is that tou and gram3 remain caught in what gram3’calls the “Augustinian bubble” by focusing on atonement theology. Thus like it or not, you’re still playing in Calvins court, by participating in this juridical concept of soteriology. Take a look at the Wikipedia article on Theosis for an alternative view of salvation that is a world apart from the nastiness of TULIP. Indeed, even Lutheran soteriology, which is ambiguous on the question of free will and stops short of Arminianism, looks a bit mean spirited compared to the concept of Theosis, which is fundamentally salvation driven by personal choice. I reject absolutely the idea that God foreordains people to salvation; God became man so that man could become through grace what God is by natured that is to say, adopted sons of God, not members of the Trinity, as the divine essence is and will remain incomprehensible, but gods in he sense of being sentient beings created in the image of God living voluntarily in alignment and participation with God’s uncreated energies. That is the mystical heart of Orthodox theology that one Calvinist theologian famously said “It gives me the willies.”

  177. numo wrote:

    I’ll just quickly add that “limited atonement” horrifies me, and leave it at that.

    There are issues both ways, and I have no idea how to solve it. Double predestination is what I find horrifying. However, we had a pastor who used the idea that Christ died for all to be a universalist, and that has its problems with some things in scripture also.

    The baptist-ism of my youth was a confusing mixture of some arminian ideas and some calvinist ideas. They would, for example, preach Jesus died for all, come to Jesus today. Then the invitational hymn might be: Pass me not Oh gentle savior, Hear my humble cry, While on others thou art calling, Do not pass me by. In other words, Jesus died for all but he might not “call” all, and one of the uncalled just might be you. What sense does that make? That is just one puzzle piece in my lifelong chant of “that doesn’t make any sense.”

    My parents were perennially angry with me about one thing or another and made sure that I knew that I had the symptoms of somebody who just might get passed by. I am thinking that one of the driving forces behind some calvinist ideas is just plain cussed meanness.

  178. William G. wrote:

    That is the mystical heart of Orthodox theology that one Calvinist theologian famously said “It gives me the willies.”

    Was it R.C. Sproul? I remember hearing him state on an FM radio program that anything outside of the standard reformed doctrines of grace is suspect and that even Luther didn’t have it completely right.

  179. Nancy wrote:

    My parents were perennially angry with me about one thing or another and made sure that I knew that I had the symptoms of somebody who just might get passed by. I am thinking that one of the driving forces behind some calvinist ideas is just plain cussed meanness.

    Cussed meanness (no matter what it’s cloaked in) is a work of the Devil, and Jesus came to destroy the works of the Devil.

  180. Friends, this video was played at my church today. I tweeted the production company, & they replied that I wasn’t getting the “big idea”, that they weren’t trying to talk about reconciling w/ an abuser, and that “we’re all abusers” when it comes to the forgiveness of Christ. I want to scream!!! Please give this a watch, and contact the company if you feel it might possibly perpetuate the abuse cycle. (Headdesk!!) https://shiftworship.com/product/your-gift/

  181. @ Muff Potter:
    If it was him, then he is looking at Luther as “one of us,” which is something the mainstream Reformed as well as the neo-cals tend to do. They are right about itin certain respects and way, way off-base in others.

  182. Nancy wrote:

    I don’t know if you have noticed this or not, but catholics that I have run into seem to say what religion is somebody when a protestant would be more apt to say what denomination are you?

    Catholics do not believe in “denominations”, nor do they call Protestant communities “churches.” Are Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses denominations of Christianity? They say they are Christian.

  183. numo wrote:

    I don’t like it when people try to parse what I believe and what I don’t believe, and I bet you don’t enjoy it, either.

    You don’t have to parse what I believe and don’t believe. You know what I believe. What I believe is Catholic.

  184. Gavin White wrote:

    ‘christian’ is the only term that counts. The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch and Peter encourages us that if we suffer as Christians we are not to be ashamed but glorify God in this behalf.1 Peter 4:16

    According to a Protestant. Originally, they were called “followers of the way.” Then they were called Christians at Antioch. Then the Church was called Catholic in the middle of the first century, to differentiate itself from the heresies already taking hold. Protestants reinvented the word Christian for themselves, but Catholics are Catholic Christians.
    Catholics are getting better at calling themselves Catholic Christians because that is what they are. Yes, that is what is taught in RCIA. I know, I teach it.

  185. THC wrote:

    Catholics do not believe in “denominations”, nor do they call Protestant communities “churches.”

    So why would you ask some protestant what religion they are? The only two possible answers would be either (denomination) which you say you do not recognize or else christian, which you have refused to accept from Gavin. That is it–two possible answers, and you reject both. So apparently you were not asking a question of Gavin but rather just being ugly. What is the point here? I guess there is always separated brethren or something similar, but that is a position statement not a name of anything.

    I will never forget during Vatican II when they came out with the idea that protestant christians were separated brethren, or such was the way we were told. I was a resident in rotation through a catholic pediatric hospital at the time, and the chief of radiology introduced me to one of the nuns we met in the hall. He said, Sister, this is Dr. X. She is a protestant. We have to call them separated brethren now.” Sister went rigid and straightened up to her full height and said literally through almost clenched teeth “I will never say it.” Lovely. Very Christlike. I guess you and she are two of a kind?

  186. @ THC:
    Err, i believe ghe official RCC term is “separated brethren,” so yeah, we are recognized as having real churches, though clearly the goal on the RCC side is that we all come back into the fold. I think that might work for a lot of people if the RCC fuctioned more like the Anglican Communion, but it doesn’t and likely never will.

  187. @ THC:
    It is a particular type of Catholicism, imo – one that not all Catholics agree on. There’s quite a spectrum within the RCC, though you might not want to see that as yet.

  188. @ THC:
    Speaking of parsing, it appears that some European Lutherans do venerate the sacrament, and are pretty well Catholic in their views re. transubstantiation. Since you brought up this topic a while back, i thought I’d mention it.

    Finding info. about this in English is difficult, though – seems to be happening in Scsndinavia and maybe parts of Germany as well, though it’s controversial.

    At any rate, there’s clearly more of a spread (as with Anglicans) re. understanding of what constitutes the Real Presence than I’d previously thought. Still, i don’t think most European Lutherans are going to default to transubstatiation.

  189. @ Nancy:
    That sister was completely unlike the nuns i live with, as well as others that i knew. Ditto for the priests i knew, back in the day. Most of them took the “separated” out of that phrase altogether, but then, they were more Protestant than our friend THC. None of them believed in the veneration of saints, or in the Marian apparitions that the RCC has accepted, among other things…

  190. @ numo:
    Lived with, that is.

    Things have gotten pretty locked down over the past 30 years or so, but i sense a resurgence of Vatican II since Francis was elected pope.

  191. @ THC:

    THC, you still have not addressed my legitimate concerns about the destruction of the Roman Liturgy since Vatican II. In the first millennium, the Popes acquired their reputation as bulwarks of Orthodox and their status as Primus inter pares by being the most conservative bishops in the church. Even Honorius was condemned posthumously not for actually propagating Monothelitism, but for suggesting a course of inaction, to avoid rocking the boat. The sweeping liturgical reforms that occurred after Vatican II suggest a lack of continuity and a willingness to play games with orthodox doctrine for purposes of political gain. Then we have the very disagreeable situation of the LCWR, which seems not to be aware of Cqtholic doctrine, or to actually despise it. of course given the vocations crises affecting their orders I doubt this will remain a problem in definitely. Because Religious can’t reproduce, to keep the monasteries and convents going they have to evince holiness to th point where young people will be attracted, otherwise they will disappear. What worries me is the lack of vocations across so much of the Catholic community of religious. In contrast the Orthodox monasteries have had a huge increase in vocation since the 1930s. The population of Mount Athos more than doubled,

  192. By the way, does anyone find the old custom of referring to theologians as “Divines” as amusing as I do? Imagine the conversation playing out in a railway carriage: “Well,what’s your line of work?”

    “I’m a Divine.”

    “Right.” The secular passenger then swiftly moves to a different seat.

  193. @ numo:

    Personally I don’t care what they do or don’t do about some of the pronouncements of Vatican II. They can argue about some of that until the cows come home; it is their problem not mine. I do think, however, when anybody acts ugly and surly and then tries to hide that behind some religiosity they need to be called to task; be they protestant or catholic. If their religion, whoever they are, turns them into ugly and surly people they need to re-evaluate themselves before they look at other people. Something about a mote and a beam, don’t you know.

  194. @ Nancy:
    Understood, though i do care about the Vatican II reforms, given my time among Catholics, professed religious and lay people alike. The reforms opened so many doors, and it has been painful to see those doors being closed over the past 30 years.

    I see the faces of people i know when these topics vome up.

  195. numo wrote:

    Err, i believe ghe official RCC term is “separated brethren,” so yeah, we are recognized as having real churches, though clearly the goal on the RCC side is that we all come back into the fold.

    Yes, Protestants are “separated brethren.” By virtue of your baptism, you are tied to the mystical body of Christ, the Church, the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict clarified back in 2007 that Protestants “churches” are not Churches, but “ecclesial communities”, because of the lack of a sacramental priesthood.

  196. numo wrote:

    @ THC:
    I think it’s helpful to respect our beliefs, you know. This isn’t a one-way street.

    Isn’t “faith tradition” respectful? I am sorry if you don’t like “separated brethren.” I didn’t make it up.

  197. @ THC:

    Dee jumping in here. I know that each of us holds to our faith traditions dearly. But, what is the goal of a discussion? It is to learn from one another and to help the other understand our perspective in a way that builds understanding as opposed to frustration?

    I know you mean well but sometimes you come across as condescending, even if you do not mean to do so. I so admire Pope Francis. He is a Pope who is building bridges and is a good example of how to do it.

  198. @ THC:
    I have no problem with separated brethren and if i gave the impression that it bothered me, i didn’t intend to do so.

    Perhaps you are seeing hostility where none exists?

  199. Just so we’re clear on Vatican II by the way, I don’t object to the theological content of it, or most of its liturgical reforms; the only thi the Council itself did that annoys me is to suppress Prime, which is an ancient Christian office of prayer and the source of the word “Primer” (for it was used in books to teach children to read Latin). It would have been better to suppress Lauds or merge Lauds and Matins, since the Western churches were unique in separating them. However, after Vatican II, Cardinal Bugnini implemented sweeping liturgical changes which destroyed the solemnity and antiquity of the Roman Rite and greatly exceeded the Conciliar prerogative. Even Pope Paul VI was surprised by them,but he stuck by them. What the Council actuall envisaged was the reading of the Scripture lessons in the vernacular, and more Scripture lessons, such as three per mass rather than two. What you get if you attend a Diocesan Tridentine mass is fairly close to what they had in mind.

    But what is worse is the liberties clergy took with the revised Liturgy. All those horrid,mfantsstically dated looking Gothic chasubles from the 70s, the clown masses, the puppet masses and so on. The late Rev. D. james Kennedy, striking a dignified pose in his academic gown, was infinitely more magisterial than many Catholic priests who are still active today, and indeed the liturgy at Coral Ridge in the Kennedy era was pretty good; Kennedy was an artisan when it came to ex tempore prayer, and the music program was second to none.

  200.   __

    THC,

    Hey,

    William was painstaking in sharing as to why he holds to his faith traditions.

    Respectfully, I am still waiting for you to do the same. 

    Please keep it in mind that some, maybe many of the Wartburg Watch readers know little or nothing about your religious traditions. 

    You have done the ‘officials’ of your religious tradition, and those who faithfully subscribe, a dis-service.

    care to try again…

    ATB

    Sopy

  201. numo wrote:

    @ THC:
    I have no problem with separated brethren and if i gave the impression that it bothered me, i didn’t intend to do so.
    Perhaps you are seeing hostility where none exists?

    Actually, it appears to me that you are the one who is seeing hostility since you remarked “I think it’s helpful to respect our beliefs, you know. This isn’t a one-way street.”
    Numo, you seem to be overly sensitive to everything I say here. You shouldn’t take offense. I don’t have hostility towards your or anyone else’s faith tradition.

  202. dee wrote:

    But, what is the goal of a discussion? It is to learn from one another and to help the other understand our perspective in a way that builds understanding as opposed to frustration?

    This has become like a playground. I use the word religion and it sets off several people in a tirade. I try a different word, faith tradition, and get ransacked again. I won’t call protestant communities denominations or churches. Hey, how about respecting my beliefs too.

    I am sure that Pope Francis doesn’t participate in Protestant blogs, so to say “be more like him” is a moot, and in my opinion, condescending statement.

  203. Sopwith wrote:

    Respectfully, I am still waiting for you to do the same. 
    Please keep it in mind that some, maybe many of the Wartburg Watch readers know little or nothing about your religious traditions. 

    Is your real name Scott?
    If you want to know about my religion, it is there for you in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

  204. William G. wrote:

    What worries me is the lack of vocations across so much of the Catholic community of religious. In contrast the Orthodox monasteries have had a huge increase in vocation since the 1930s. The population of Mount Athos more than doubled,

    Yet there are 4 times more Catholics in the world than Eastern Orthodox. I don’t think you should worry about the Catholic Church. God is faithful to his Church. The gates of hell haven’t and won’t prevail against it.

  205. A large number of us are familiar with that Catechism, THC. However, many of us have specific objections which we would perhaps be willing to drop with some dialogue. For me the stumbling blocks are the fluidity of Catholic doctrine (a fluidity Scott Hahn gave as his reason for joining the Roman Church rather than the Orthodox) and the debased liturgy since the 1960s; I am also troubled by the enthusiastic approach to mysticism which seems to lack the dispassioned sobriety of Orthodox monasticism. I don’t see that the apparitions at Fatima et al were sufficiently tested as regards their supernatural rather than demonic origin. So rather than slapping the Catechism on the table and saying “read this”, I would very much appreciate it if you could address these concerns of mine. Because part of me would not mind working for the Romans; I love the Tridentine mass and my understanding is that Roman Catholic priests can be qualified to serve multiple liturgical rites. The thrill of being able to do a Tridentine mass one day, followed by the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, followed by the Syriac Liturgy of St. james, is very appealing.

  206. @ THC:
    I am done with this, because no matter how polite anyone is, there is no substantive conversation.

    Interesting how you see “playground” in what Dee said to you. And kind of sad.

  207. numo wrote:

    @ THC:
    Interesting how you see “playground” in what Dee said to you. And kind of sad.

    I think you used the “playground” analogy before me. Someone else also did before you.

    I was just wanting to understand what beliefs people had. It’s difficult to respond to people like Gavin when I know nothing about his faith. What reli-, I mean faith tradition he belongs to and if he even believes what his community teaches. Is he part of a faith community or is he a NONE?
    Why is that too much to ask? Why on earth take offense to that?

  208. William G. wrote:

    and the debased liturgy since the 1960s; I am also troubled by the enthusiastic approach to mysticism which seems to lack the dispassioned sobriety of Orthodox monasticism. I don’t see that the apparitions at Fatima et al were sufficiently tested as regards their supernatural rather than demonic origin. So rather than slapping the Catechism on the table and saying “read this”, I would very much appreciate it if you could address these concerns of mine.

    William, I am not the person to ask about this. Honestly, you seem like a very intelligent guy. If you are really seeking answers, possibly seek out a Roman catholic priest or Catholic theologian? Maybe you already have? I have a hard time believing you are coming on this board for answers to your questions. My guess is this is just one of MANY boards you frequent.

  209. Wow, looks like the Catholic Church is calling an end to the previous Pope’s persecution of it’s American nuns for their ‘liberal views’ (i.e. social justice, etc.) and is actually going to engage with them:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/12/16/vatican-issues-a-largely-positive-report-on-americas-nuns-following-a-six-year-investigation/

    Good on P{ope Francis for what seems to be the beginnings of a culture change regarding women in the church.

    Now, if CBMW would follow the same lead . . .

    I’m not a Catholic, but it sure is great to have a very public religious leader that talks a lot about caring about and doing things for other people rather than bludgeoning them into forking over more money to support a ‘ministerial’ lifestyle of the rich and famous and other self-serving pronouncements.

  210. @ JeffT:

    That article is a profound distortion of what actually occurred. The LCWR were investigated for, and reprimanded for, the propagation of theological errors. This promoted a general investigation into the quality of life of the nuns under LCWR control, which determined that fortunately the majority of them are elderly ladies continuing to live the traditional lives of nuns. The CDF has appropriately chastised the impious few who dared publish articles suggesting a “mother Goddess religion.” Fortunately this did not extend into a toxic climate for the majority of the sisters under the LCWR, which is what the investigation was about.

    Ultimately the sad fact is that the LCWR-affiliated religious are dying out. All of their orders have a profound lack of vocation. The majority of new vocations are in the CMSWR, the conservative rival to the LCWR established under the pontificate of St. John Paul II (though I am Orthodox I do not mind regarding John Paul II as a saint; after all, if Isaac the Syrian, a Nestorian bishop, can be a saint, then surely we can consider glorified one of key players in the collapse of the evil Soviet Union, which killed so many Christians, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant). Thus, to a large extent the tranquility of the church is best preserved by keeping the LCWR one short leash and waiting for the storm to blow over.

    In response to THC, there is a serious vocations crises in the Catholic Church in general. The Catholic Church may be larger than the Orthodox, but we have more vocations across the board. I consider the quantity of vocations a leading indicator of ecclesial health. The collapse of the Episcopal Church USA in terms of membership was precipitated by the near disappearance of its religious orders; I think there are at most 50 monks and maybe 20 nuns left, whereas 60 years ago the numbers were larger and growing, and Anglican Benedictines like Dom Gregory Dix were vital intellectual contributors.

    The parts of the Catholic Church where vocations are stable are in those religious orders that are highly traditional, in particular those under the supervision of Ecclesia Dei.

  211. THC wrote:

    I am sure that Pope Francis doesn’t participate in Protestant blogs

    I wouldn’t be so sure, he seems to be pretty ground-breaking in many things.

  212. JeffT wrote:

    Wow, looks like the Catholic Church is calling an end to the previous Pope’s persecution of it’s American nuns for their ‘liberal views’ (i.e. social justice, etc.) and is actually going to engage with them:

    ….from another similar article on the same topic:

    The overwhelmingly positive report Tuesday also promised to value their “feminine genius” more, while gently suggesting ways to serve the church faithfully and survive amid a steep drop in their numbers.

    Could the “steep drop in their numbers” be a motivator toward some concessions? I’m inclined to think so.

  213.   __

    THC,

    Upon dutifully pointing us to the Vatican to find our hope and our salvation and our religious comfort, you must be very proud.

  214. @ Sopwith:

    Interestingly enough the seat of the Papacy before Avignon and the Great Western Schism was the Lateran Palace, which used to be much larger than it is today. Even now the Basillica of St. John Lateran (originally dedicated to Jesus Christ, then to John the Baptist and John the evangelist, but some naive Catholics venerate a “John Lateran”) is the Cathedral of the Bishop of Rome, de jure, if not de facto. Since the conquest of Rome by Garibaldi,,even after the normalization of relations between Italy and the Vatican, the Popes have tended to,avoid it, although it and the adjacent Lateran Palace are extraterritorial possessions of the Holy See, as are the other two major basilicas (St. Paul Outside the Walls and St. Mary Maggiore).

  215. William G. wrote:

    Interestingly enough the seat of the Papacy before Avignon and the Great Western Schism was the Lateran Palace, which used to be much larger than it is today.

    I believe it has burned down and been rebuilt a number of times. I didn’t know it is outside of Vatican City.

  216. @ William G.:
    I profoundly disagree on this, William. I strongly believe it was an effort to put the nuns back into what many men in the hierarchy belive to be “their ‘place.'” I saw this happening on a local (diocesan) scale many years ago, when i lived with the nuns. A lot of people in power want to stifle anything they perceive as dissent, perhaps especially when they know that they’re in the wrong and/or feel threatened.

    Were it not for the many “dissenting” voices speaking out about abuse, the same system of transferring abusive priests from parish to parish would still be in high gear. It’s an “old boys” network, and it protects its own, even when they’re guilty of serious abuses/crimes. Both JP II and Benedict bear a great deal of responsibility – i would say outright blame – for allowing all kinds of abuses to occur under their respective watches. While i realize that no pope can be, on his own, the new broom that sweeps the place clean, i think Francis is doing better than his predecessors in attempting to do so, as well as in attempting to steer people back to the core values of xtianity.

  217. @ William G.:
    I think the RCC would be gine for vocations if they would make celibacy optional. It’s crazy (to my mind) that Eastern Rite clergy can marry, but west of a certain point, no way nohow. And married Anglican and Episcopal priests can convert and continue to function as priests in the RCC, so…

    I really don’t think that the problems in TEC can be said to have bern precipitated by a lack of religious (celibate) vocations, either. One thing you might not be factoring in as thst lay particpation in many aspects of church life – in the RCC since Vatican II, and in many other churches as well – has greatly increased, and there’s not the emphasis on a religious vocation being the single best way to serve God that existed prior to Vatican II. i think that some balance was restored to church life at that time that had been greatly lacking for a long, long time. A lot of older Catholics can remember when there were many priests who ruled their parishes in a super-authoritarian way. This was better in some dioceses and worse in others, usually the latter in highly conservative dioceses.

  218. William G. wrote:

    The collapse of the Episcopal Church USA in terms of membership was precipitated by the near disappearance of its religious orders;

    I disagree. The collapse of TEC was a result of their abandoning orthodoxy. To actively support and bless homosexual unions is contrary to the faith. They have become nothing more than an organizational arm of the United Nations.

    One could argue that what I just said precipitated the disappearance of religious orders. That’s entirely possible, but the root cause is moral relativism and secularization from the top down.

  219. @ THC:

    The decline in religious vocation in the Episcopal Church preceded the adoption of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer and the ordination of women, which caused the initial schism and the beginnings of the plunge in membership which greatly accelerated with the ordination of Gene Robinson. In like manner a decline in vocation has preceded the weakening of Catholic doctrines on certain stances. On the other hand, the Orthodox Church, which is considerably more conservative now than it was in the 1970s, has seen a doubling of monastic vocation. Likewise, the traditionalist religious communities in the Catholic Church which are under Ecclesia Dei and use the traditional Latin Mass are seeing the most growth. The vicious treatment of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, who had the misfortune to be traditionalist but not under the pontifical commission Ecclesia Dei demonstrates the ruthlessness that the enemies of the apostolic faith will use in pursuit of their agenda. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were profoundly Orthodox popes and under their tenure relations with the East improved dramatically, but since Francis came to power we’ve seen the resumption of sectarian warfare in the Ukraine and a complete collapse in relations between the Vatican and the Moscow Patriarch. Frankly under the current pontificate the Roman church is toxic. This is why I am such a strong supporter of Western Rite Orthodoxy; the use of corrected forms of the Tridentine mass and the BCP in the timeless safe haven of the Orthodox Church is urgently needed; many Anglo Catholics who enthusiastically crossed the Tiber when the Personal Ordinariate was set up I suspect will soon cross the Bosphorus in the same manner,

  220. @ numo:

    The problem with the LCWR was nuns promulgating theology and left wing politics contrary to the teaching of the Roman church and against the instructions of the hierarchy. One of the three vows that all religious take is that of obedience, and the LCWR made breaking this vow its priority. Disobedient monastics regardless of gender must be subject to canonical punishment up to and including laicization and expulsion from their monastery or convent; this is an ancient principle of monasticism. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were more than accommodating with the LCWR; if any monk or nun dared pull some of the stunts they have become associated with in say the Coptic Church or the Moscow Patriarchate, they would simply be deposed and excommunicated. And indeed the history of the Orthodox Church is characterized by the zeal with which it has cracked down on “dissent”; that is to say, refusal to obey Holy Tradition. Even Patriarchs have been deposed and excommunicated for disobeying tradition, for example, Nestorius or most recently, Patriarch Ireneos of Jerusalem. No one is above the law, and the supreme law of the Orthodox Church is its sacred Traditon, which is the unchanging regula fide inherited from the Holy Apostles. The responsibility for enforcing Traditin rests as much with the laity as it does with the senior most hierarchs, and there have been many cases where the laity have contributed to the removal of wicked bishops; for example, popular opposition to the Iocnoclasts sealed the fate of that movement, and in like manner the Rennovationists who controlled the Russian Orthodox Church after the martyrdom of St. Tikhon were removed by Stalin after he realized their liberal theology had alienated the church going public, whose support he needed to win WWII.

    However, in contrast to the Roman church since the Great Schism, the Orthodox Church has historically been merciful in enforcing its Rule. The only barbarism on record concerns Patriarch Nikon and the Old Believers, a struggle in which the modern consensus of Orthodox theologians seems to be that the Old Believers were at least partially justified; no one has rushed to the defense of Nikon in recent years. One could also cite in recent years in Greece the cruel treatment of Old Calendarists by the secular authorities, but this has angered the devout Orthodox and pushed the entire Greek Church, which had been “progressive”, back in the direction of Holy Tradition.

    Within the past month, practically the entire Orthodox online community has arisen against a priest in the OCA who in a pn ambiguous treatise suggested the church capitulate on certain contemporary matters in the manner of TEC et cetera. Suffice it to say that was not well received, and an association of 100 Orthodox priests in Texas unanimously denounced him, and the OCA’s primate Metropolitan Tikhon received somewhat of a well deserved pasting from Patriarch Kyrill. What makes the Orthodox Orthodox is the fact that we do not admit “dissent” when it comes to our dogma and praxis, which is defined apophatially as much as cataphatically. The Orhodox Church demarcates a wide region in which one may freely hold a diversity of opinions, but the boundaries are fixed, and to cross them is to exit the church itself. However, the church will always readmit those who realize their mistake, and welcome them back as the Prodigal Son.

  221. @ William G.:
    Some orders are papal, some are diocesan, and afaik, most Americans stand by freefom of speech. If total obedience to a part line is demanded by anyone – religious order, corporation, political part/system or what have you – then problems will never, ever be discussed, let alone resolved.

    Why do you place such a high priority on obedience? Neither Christ nor the apostles fit into the religious vows straitjacket terribly well in this respect. Nor should they – or we – imo. Blind obefience can turn into the perdon who uses “i was only following orders” as an excuse for inexcusable actions all too quickly. William, i know you have a lot of respect for these kinds of overarching institutional demands of loyalty/obefience, in theory at least, but in real life, that can get us all into trouble very fast. As gor pinning things in TEC to both women bei g ordained and Gene Robindon, you surely are aware that there have *always* been gay priests, gay stalwarts of the churvh, etc. – and not always closeted? This is espevially true of TEC. To make it seem like Gene Robinson is the watershef is kind of beside the point, in some respevts. BTW, did you know that he received enough death threats re. his consecration as bishop that he wore a bulletproof vest undernewth his vestments? He stepped down partly due to the toll that being bishop took on his health.

    As for people being a bit out on the fringe – there’s one or two in every crowd. And sometimes serious critivisms and calls for change are strongly opposed – cf. the entire history of the Civil Rights movement. In general, established instituions of any kind don’t take kindly to shakeups and calls for change. I’ve seen that up close with a lot of the fallout from the Jerry Sandusky case, Joe Patetno being fired etc. etc. The intensity of the backlash against *any* suggestion that *anyone* associated with Penn State football had done anything wrong has been VERY intense. (And the univerdity and alums have bern scrambling to keep football – their cash cow – from being tipped over, no matter the cost to either victims or whistleblowers.)

    Let’s just say that i spent much of the summer of 1973 watching the Watergate hearings. I’m deeply distrustful of people in authority, even though i ended up being in highly authoritarian churches anyway. Sadly ironic, though thank God, I’m doing ok now.

  222. @ William G.:
    The fact that you use the word “enforcing” re. a church goes right to the heart of the problem. Church isn’t good when it starts acting in lieu of a police force.

  223. @ William G.:
    You know, the focus on excommunication strikes me as being off, too. I mean, you’ve got these very top-down, highly patriarchal churches in areas known for authoritarian political systems. Do you see the connection there, or not? The RCC is no longer a key player in goverment anywhere, and often takes the part of the poor and disenfranchised, as in Latin America. Francis’ awareness of serious evils perpetrated by previous regimes in Argentina has made him take a different tack than most Europeans would – plus he’s not from the same generation as the previous two popes. I think the RCC is becoming more and more aware of the fact that evils done by many in its ranks (as in the Republic of Ireland) can’t be covered up or hidden or blackmailed away any longer. They cannot rule the members of the church in a dictatorial fashion, even though some would like to. It simply won’t work anymore.

  224. @ William G.:
    One other thing to keep in mind is that here in the US, there are some incredible Catholic universities, and stifling research, inquiry and dissent is completely contrary to the way in which those institutions have historically operated. There have long been nuns in thd ranks of faculty, and some orders had their own colleges – all-female at 1st, but long since gone co-ed. I went to one for a while myself, for my 1st few years in undergrad.

  225. __

    “Bumped, Snuffed, Scuffed, And Blown Off?”

    hmmm…

    And to think all this christian religion stuff started with a thirty year old jewish carpenter from Nazareth without two pennies to rub together. 

    -snicker-

    His language and mission simple, to save His people from their sins.

    huh? 

    When they just blew Him off and had Hm bumped off, He just got up and called another man to take His message of salvation to the nations. Didn’t even miss a stride. 

    What?!?

    Now the nations of the world are blowing off the Carpenter’s message of salvation.

    Whoops!

    yet,

    The invitations have gone out, and soon the door will be closed, and the wedding feast will begin… 

    Pretty simple request,

    Pretty simple language,

    God so loved the world, Jesus said…

    See da bible for details…

    (you’ll be glad you did!)

    ATB

    Sopy

  226. William G. wrote:

    The problem with the LCWR was nuns promulgating theology and left wing politics contrary to the teaching of the Roman church and against the instructions of the hierarchy.

    Other would say that the Catholic powers, particularly American bishops, saw the women as getting uppity wanted them to focus more on gay-bashing and anti-abortion activities and less on service to the poor and social justice.

  227. You all are talking about issues that are smack dab in the middle of why I did not convert to catholicism. I have hesitated to talk about this, because there is always a plentitude of people who want to rush in and lecture about this or that as if lecturing changed anything, or for that matter as if a hard-nosed dogmatic approach convinced anybody of anything. But there you all are talking about some stuff, and I believe I can say some things from yet another viewpoint which may add to the conversation.

    Part 1

    First: professed religious people, in my case nuns. I have not lived with a group of nuns, but I have worked in hospitals owned and run by religious orders and seen just a whole lot of nuns in that environment. And I have been “behind the wall” so to speak by virtue of two things: the nuns who owned and ran the hospital used the female interns to furnish some medical care to the elderly and ill nuns who were living in the area of the hospital reserved for them, and when I was doing public health nursing one of the things we did was minor medical stuff for some nuns who lived in and managed an orphanage. Please leave off the cries of separation of church and state re the public health thing–it was a different era. I do not think that I have ever seen a group of people with a higher level of unhappiness as those ladies had. I do not know what goes on in anybody’s heart, but from the outside there appeared to be those who had a tight jawed and almost desperate appearing commitment to the necessity to enforce the most elemental of rules. (I got chastised by a nun once because I forgot and pushed the elevator button twice when once would have been sufficient.) Then there were some who clearly seemed miles past burn out. I interacted during all that time with only two or three who seemed to be doing OK. One was a nursing supervisor at a hospital where I was doing private duty with a burn patient. (Burns are horrendous, in case anybody did not know that.) The other was one of the women at the orphanage who seemed genuinely concerned about the welfare of the children. (We were in the midst of a scarlet fever outbreak there.) Other than that I felt great pity for those women, and I as a protestant thought they had fallen into bad works-based theology to excess and were paying the price for that error.

    So you all talk about the number of lack of religious vocations and I see it differently. The then powers that be at the old Foreign Mission Board of the SBC told me back in the day that the number of nurses and midwives in full time overseas missions had dropped largely due to increased opportunity for women back home. Perhaps this has had some effect on the number of women who choose a religious vocation in other faith traditions also? Perhaps some of them never would have done it in the first place except for the lack of other opportunities? Perhaps that would account for some of the difficulties?

  228. @ Nancy:

    Part 2

    Second: When I went to RCIA I was not expecting two things: the extent of the changes that Vatican II and its aftermath had wrought and the extent of dissent and contention and division I saw in the contest for “here is the way I think it ought to be.” In our specific situation the lead catechist was “liberal” and the second priest to be in charge during that time was “conservative” and it was so bad that the catechist basically advised us to stay out of his way and interact with him as little as possible. Trouble was, I thought that what I saw in class was a bunch of catholics who were trying to be protestants but did not know how. I kept thinking, OK people, you want to be protestants? Sit down and let me teach the class and I will show you how, because I got that protestant thing down pat, don’t you know. Now, these were all nice people and good to deal with–not at all like my experience with the nuns. None the less, I wanted and still want nothing to do with the current post Vatican II struggles. I believe that the reformers of prior centuries who pulled out and went their own way had a better idea than the people who stay and become a source of conflict and confusion, especially if they do it over non-essential issues. Disagreement is one thing, but at some point you got to either be a team player or go find some other team.

    Third: and this is the total deal breaker regardless of all the rest. There are some catholic dogmas and doctrines with which I eventually realized I disagree at a profound level. This means, of course, that I do not believe that the catholic church has the authority to tell people what to believe (what is or is not true), and that strikes at the heart of the issue of what the catholic church believes about apostolic succession and all the spin off from that belief.

    So, I am neither a true believer in religious vocations or a true believer in the right of dissent. That is what is pertinent to this conversation you all are having. The third point is not up for discussion because too many people get too upset with anything that even hints at what I have said. I will not fight over that in this venue.

    I will be a good episcopalian, once I really learn how, and if I can just get this vertigo under control enough to get out of the house to get over to church. Labrynthitis and residuals of labrynthitis can be a real problem right on, so the information says and so I am experiencing.

  229. Nancy wrote:

    Third: and this is the total deal breaker regardless of all the rest. There are some catholic dogmas and doctrines with which I eventually realized I disagree at a profound level. This means, of course, that I do not believe that the catholic church has the authority to tell people what to believe (what is or is not true), and that strikes at the heart of the issue of what the catholic church believes about apostolic succession and all the spin off from that belief.

    Thus is the nature of Protestantism. It just begs the question, how do you know what to believe? I read the Bible as you do, and other Christians do to, so the Bible alone can’t be the only authority. How do you know what is true? This is the heart of why I am Catholic, because I believe Jesus didn’t just leave us a book for everyone to interpret by themselves. Only the Catholic Church has the pedigree and the seat of Peter.
    I think the hardest thing to do is to submit oneself to any authority. Once I agreed that the Catholic Church is the true Church that Jesus established, then I sought to understand, rather than disagree, with her teachings, and they actually made sense to me because I took my anti-Catholic glasses off.

  230. William G. wrote:

    nuns promulgating theology and left wing politics contrary to the teaching of the Roman church and against the instructions of the hierarchy

    Liberation Theology, whoo hoo !

  231. Nancy wrote:

    I do not think that I have ever seen a group of people with a higher level of unhappiness as those ladies had.

    This was kind of what I always suspected.

    I’ll also share a story that was related to me first-hand. I know an elderly gentleman who still pays to get beaten with a cane, probably twice a year or so. Why? Because at school he was flogged or beaten by one Sister Everest. Pants down etc. And he found it turned him on. It filled him with such shame that as an adult he saw a psychiatrist. And the advice given was when he could feel the psychological pressure build up, to pay to get a few lashes. So, 4 lashes for $80 does the job apparently (why why why was I not smart enough to think of this job during my poor university years?) I did suggest trying to find said Sister’s grave, as I thought it might bring some closure. “Oh, I’d piss on it for sure” he said. I find this a very sad reflection on a woman who obviously relished doling out the ‘cuts’. (I feel safer writing this in “Open Discussion” as I figure this area isn’t as well-read as the main page…). Also, I don’t think what I’ve related is rare or unusual for those times.

  232. @ Nancy:
    Oh, and FWIW, I flirted briefly with becoming a Lutheran nun – visited the area and everything, with a view to changing my role in life. I remember how attractive the idea seemed at the time. It wasn’t what I expected, and I quickly realised I wasn’t cut out for it. In short, I would have been a baaaad nun…

  233. William G. wrote:

    The decline in religious vocation in the Episcopal Church preceded the adoption of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer and the ordination of women, which caused the initial schism and the beginnings of the plunge in membership which greatly accelerated with the ordination of Gene Robinson. In like manner a decline in vocation has preceded the weakening of Catholic doctrines on certain stances.

    The liberalization of TEC started long before the adoption of the BCP in 1979. I think, if anything, you are confusing correlation with causation. More likely, there are multiple factors that caused TEC’s decline. When I was Episcopalian, our diocese went through a split with TEC over the hot-button issues. They are still in litigation over property. One reason I crossed the Tiber is that the TEC has no central authority on doctrinal issues.

    The RCC has the magisterium and the pope. Even through some bishops and priests and religious swung too far to the left post-Vatican II, the RCC hasn’t changed any dogmas. Catechesis and apologetics fell of the cliff for 20 or 30 years, but is getting back into full swing again.

    I’ve listened to the arguments of sedevacantists and they just don’t hold any water in my opinion. Their arguments are truly weak and conspiratorial. They are schismatics.

  234. @ Nancy:
    I hope you’re feeling better ASAP. i still get inner ear-related vertigo from time to time, and it is no fun at all.

  235. @ Nancy:
    Your comments on the lack of vocations and why are correct, and i don’t think anyone can turn back the clock on that. One of the opportunities post-WWII is higher education for women – that’s had a profound effect on so much, snd religious vocations (or lack thereof) are no exception.

  236. I think one of the biggest pushes for the nuns was wanting to be ordained to the priesthood in the RCC.
    That can’t happen. It has been dogmatically defined that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood.

  237. THC wrote:

    I read the Bible as you do, and other Christians do to, so the Bible alone can’t be the only authority. How do you know what is true? This is the heart of why I am Catholic, because I believe Jesus didn’t just leave us a book for everyone to interpret by themselves. Only the Catholic Church has the pedigree and the seat of Peter.

    I agree that the bible alone especially when subjected to individual interpretation is not the sole basis for belief. Gazillions of protestants also think this. In the methodist tradition, for example, there is Wesley’s quadrilateral: prima scriptura, tradition, reason and experience. Your apparent assumption that all protestantism believes and practices sola scripture is not how things are. Not by a long shot. It looks to me like this is one area of misinformation between catholics and protestants.

    But we differ from catholicism and to some extent from each other as to what constitutes believable evidence. Hence the arguments between science and faith, which is a good example of a different thinking process. The catholic church has said, if it has been accurately reported in the press from time to time that catholics may but are not required to believe in an old earth and an evolutionary process as long as they continue to believe that God is the creator. Some catholics may perhaps now let themselves believe that because (operative word) their church says they may. Authority. Meanwhile, some protestants may end up with the exact same conclusion/belief about origins but not because their ecclesial community says they may but rather because they are convinced by the preponderance of the evidence. This is a vast difference in perspective. Is the evidence itself convincing enough to be believed or must permission to believe something come through official pronouncements by the church authorities. We are miles apart on this one. At the same time many of us are not miles apart from you in saying that sola scriptura is not enough.

    As to the rest of your comment about your reason for being catholic it does seem apparent that authority, needing /wanting /believing in the rightness of having a central authoritative voice is the main issue with a lot of people, at least I read something back when about why people do or don’t convert to catholicism, and that came in at the top of the list for evangelicals who converted to catholicism, as well as for evangelicals who did not. Mary came in second for why some do not convert, but we are not going to renew that conversation; at least I will not join it. It gets too acrimonious. But not everybody is/was an evangelical and not everybody converts, so the opposite question also has to be asked: what then about the rest of them? Are they out there wandering around trying to find somebody with authority to tell them what to believe? Some may be, but I have never personally know one who was. Are they all sola scriptura people who can’t even go to work for trying to reconcile difficult scriptural passages on their own? Again, there are some who seem almost like that, but the vast vast majority of pew sitters do not fall into that category in my experience. I may be wrong here, but I get the impression that while the catholic church talks about mystery more than protestants do (and rightly so) there are perhaps masses of protestants who are more willing to live with unanswered questions than catholics are, or more exactly that the catholic church is. So if you ask an unanswered question, perhaps some catholics are waiting for the church to tell them the answer while some protestants may be waiting for more evidence. In this, we differ, if that is an accurate observation.

    I have tried to re-read this all I am going to. Where I have been obtuse, I apologize, Where the spelling or punctuation or such is in error, it is just going to have to be. I can’t sit here all day with this, don’t you know.

  238. @ Nancy:

    Thanks for sharing those experiences. They mirror some of my own, and I think your observations about the nuns are tragic but true for that era, at least. Maybe that comes from the implicit asceticism which never brings true spiritual fulfillment. The realization of that must be overwhelming when you don’t know there are other options.

    I hope your vertigo clears soon and you can get around more.

  239. numo wrote:

    @ Nancy:
    Your comments on the lack of vocations and why are correct, and i don’t think anyone can turn back the clock on that. One of the opportunities post-WWII is higher education for women – that’s had a profound effect on so much, snd religious vocations (or lack thereof) are no exception.

    So true. There are many who want to turn back the clock on that, however. Because they assume that all societal changes that are bad are due to more opportunities for women.

  240. Nancy wrote:

    So if you ask an unanswered question, perhaps some catholics are waiting for the church to tell them the answer while some protestants may be waiting for more evidence. In this, we differ, if that is an accurate observation.

    Maybe we need to adjust our expectations regarding how much we can understand the being and ways of a Person who is so different and transcendent. I do believe in sola scriptura, but I don’t think that means that we have no regard for tradition. It is just that tradition is subject to scripture and not the other way around. We may, to one degree or another, defer to traditional understanding in the first instance. But tradition must always be subjected to testing, since even the ECF were mere men.

    And I repeat that views of inspiration and inerrancy and authority other axiom-like matters are matters of faith.

  241. Nancy wrote:

    I will be a good episcopalian, once I really learn how, and if I can just get this vertigo under control enough to get out of the house to get over to church

    Ouch Nancy, sorry you’re experiencing that. One of my favorite jobs was at a rehabilitation hospital and I know that vestibular issues are a bear to deal with. Hope it gets more manageable.

  242. Nancy wrote:

    Is the evidence itself convincing enough to be believed or must permission to believe something come through official pronouncements by the church authorities.

    I wonder, though, if your logic continues to articles of faith as well, beyond a side-issue like the age of the earth. For instance, how about the Trinity? There are many non-Trinitarians who say they are Christian. It was exactly the authority of the Church which produced the Nicene creed. That was an authoritative decision handed down by the Church. Same was true with circumcision not being required for Gentiles. Same is true for the two natures of Jesus. Also for which books even go into the Bible you have today.

    The Church through the centuries HAS authoritatively declared items of faith and morals. It didn’t say you “may believe” this or that, but that you “must” believe it. The Church gave us the Bible and says this is HOW to interpret it. Is something symbolic or not? Is it literal or figurative. What good is having an infallible book when your interpretation of it is fallible? Also, how sure are you that you even have the right books? RC Sproul said that the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books. Why? Because he doesn’t want to say that the Church was infallible putting it together. How trustworthy is that? How sad is it to not even know for sure that you have the right books.

    It has been said that the splits between Luther, Calvin, Zuwingli, and others mostly fall on which of the Church fathers they were wanting to side with.

    I believe the Church is a gift from God, the protector of the faith. The fullness of truth. Catholic means “of the whole” and is used to differentiate itself from those Christians in the first century who were teaching errors. When error started creeping into the Church, the Church then made dogmatic statements to define the faith. For the most part, dogmatic statements were reactions to heresies. With the Church, we won’t be “tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming.”

  243. @ numo:

    No one in the Orthodox Church takes the view of running a police force. The Episcopal Church USA has a police force of sworn LEOs at the National Cathedral, that it recently used to arrest traditionalist Anglicans protesting the hosting of Islamic Orayer in the Cathedral itself. The Roman Catholic Church has the Swiss Guards and the Gendarmes, the latter handling routine criminal policing in the Vatican City State. To my uncertain knowledge there are no specifically Orthodox police forces under the direct control of the Orthodox Chuch anywhere; in Syria, and Iraq, there are some Christian militias, but these are not organs of the various Christian churches.

    The Orthodox Church non violently enforces dogmatic compliance. I do use the word enforce here intentionally. By Church, I mean the entire ecclesia; not the hierarchy and not the priests, but everyone. The rule of the Orthodox Church is you have to be a member of the Church to receive communion, and you have to agree with the dogma and praxis of the church to be received as a member. The right of freedom of assembly applies here; people do not have a positive right to force themselves into the church; the church, as a free assembly of persons that is one of the oldest membership associations in the world, has the right to exercise discretion in who it admits.

    Now this does not in any way run counter to the evangelical mandate. The New Testament is full of guidance on who should be a part of the church and who sets themselves outside of it. Few would disagree that the apostles did the right thing in turning away Simon Magus. Not everyone who presents themselves for fellowship has the prerequisite purity of heart. The Orthodox Church believes that you are what you are in communion with, and that our priests at the day of judgement will have to offer an account for their ministration of the sacraments, so,the policy of closed communion, and of excluding from communion those who separate themselves from the church by dissenting from its dogma or praxis, is an integral part of the Orthodox faith. I should stress that unlike THC my motives here are not to convert people to Orthodoxy, and I will say without hesitation that the Orthodox Church is not a religion of sunshine and rainbows, like the ELCA or the mainline Protestant churches. It is an extreme and ancient form of Christianity that has been handed down without change over the centuries, that places heavy demands on its members in terms of fasting, ascetic praxis and so on, and that contains many aspects that many Protestants will find frightening or deeply unpleasant. However I’ve never had an Orthodox clergyman manhandle a relative of mine or persecute me for my political views (both have happened in the UMC); the only problem I ever had in the Orthodox Church was with a laywoman on the choir harassing me, who it turns out was herself suffering from psychiatric illness.

    Research has shown by the way that religions that place higher demands on their members attract more members and retain existing members better than those that don’t. I am not an advocate of the authoritarian 9Marks approach, but that explains their success. The Orthodox Church is much less authoritarian than that, and much more power rests with the laity, which is why there have been ,any cases when the Orthodox faith was saved by the laity acting against corrupt bishops, for example,during the Monothelite and Iconoclastic eras. St. Maximus the confessor,,one of the most beloved Orthodox theologians, whose tongue was removed for opposing monothelitism, leading to his death, was a layman.

  244. @ THC:

    Saying that a decline in monastic vocation is a leading indicator does not confuse correlation with causation; it presupposes correlation while leaving the cause undefined. This is how in economics leading indicators work; they are metrics that are correlated with future changes. The doctrinal corruption that has nearly destroyed the Episcopal Church was probably in its nascent state the cause of the decline in monastic vocation, but regardless, that decline precipitated the collapse. Likewise in the mid 20th century when the Orthodox Church was at a nadir the population of Mount Athos hit a low watermark. So my belief is that monastic vocation is a leading indicator of future ecclesiastical performance.

    As far as the Roman church is concerned, those parts which embrace the traditional Latin mass have no shortage of vocation. Thus it seems likely to assume the traditionalist component of the church will continue to grow, but the growth won’t be fast enough to offset the losses elsewhere. As Rorate Caeli has indicated, much policy has been driven by German bishops fearful of alienating secular Germans to the point where they lose the church tax, and as a result things could get worse before they get better. Additionally, while it is true that the traditional Latin mass is more acceptable to the Orthodox than the Pauline mass, traditionalists tend to have baggage in the form of scapulars, medallions and so on, which are rejected by the Orthodox and even by most Eastern Catholics. So the current degeneration in the Roman church is deeply troubling.

  245. Nancy wrote:

    Meanwhile, some protestants may end up with the exact same conclusion/belief about origins but not because their ecclesial community says they may but rather because they are convinced by the preponderance of the evidence. This is a vast difference in perspective. Is the evidence itself convincing enough to be believed or must permission to believe something come through official pronouncements by the church authorities.

    On this subject, in the Orthodox Church, one is free to believe anything one likes outside of the realm of dogma, which in our case is more of a list of things you shouldn’t believe. Procuring a new dogmatic definition is hard, maybe impossible, so as a result regarding questions like the age of the earth, it seems likely that these will simply remain areas of private conscience. Patriarch Barthlomew of Conatantinople is a known environmentalist for example, whereas I think it’s safe to say Patriarch Kyrill of Moscow is not.

  246. @ THC:
    Are you familiar with yhe variances in views – on many things – of the early church fathers? It really isn’t as straightfoward as you’re making out, nor can one equate the Jerusalem council’s decision on which parts of the Mosaic law applied to gentiles with the magisterium of the RCC. The political machinations in the various early councils were intense, with rivalries that sometimes led to the use of physical force by one faction against another.

    Nonetheless, i profess the ecumenical creeds, as do many of us Protestants. I wonder why you haven’t mentioned the “deposit of faith” in the history and development of doctrine? Because it seems crucial to understanding how the RCC looks at these things, and has a lot of aspects that i like and agree with.

  247. @ numo:

    The Orthodox Church where there is a lack of consensus allows for freedom of choice. That said, there is one belief that was very common in the second century but that was condemned at Nicea, and that is Chiliasm: Irenaeus and the other second century fathers embraced it, but in the third century, perhaps owing to the work of philosophers like Origen, it came to be viewed as carnal and also impossible to logically affirm; for example, the soteriological status of children born during the millennium was just one quandary Chiliasm presented. Thus the Nicene creed says “and his Kingdom shall have no end” and the millennium is interpreted either as the current age or as a symbol of the future.

    This is actually the only significant change in the belief system between the ante-Nicene church and the Orthodox Church I’ve been able to identify.

    On another note, I’ve been getting a kick out of a fantastic compendium of sayings of Greek philosophers, Persian sages, the Desert Fathers. like St. Antony, et cetera, compiled by the 13th century Syriac Orthodox bishop Mar Bar Hebreaus
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/asia/lsbh/lsbh07.htm

  248. numo wrote:

    Are you familiar with yhe variances in views – on many things – of the early church fathers?

    Name one.

  249. By the way, it is possible to argue that the divergent doctrine developed by Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther or John Calvin is superior to the Orthodox faith. One can state that because it’s newer, and reflects advances in philosophy and so on, it is a more mature and complete form of Christianity. And this is in fact to some extent the Orthodox justification for the rejection of Chiliasm. However my own reason for embracing Orthodoxy is due to the fact that after a certain period of development it stabilized, and has not changed since. So there is a certain philosophical choice: Orthodoxy is for one who believes that the Church as the Body of Christ will naturally reach a point where it has properly comprehended and internalized its doctrine and will then change only superficially. This is apparently a minority perspective but it’s a very happy place for someone like me, who is distrustful of the narrative of progress, the Enlightenment, secular philosophy, et cetera.

  250.   __

    “I Am Da Light(bulb) Of Da World…”

    Click, Click!

    ” …the Bible alone can’t be the only authority. How do you know what is true? This is the heart of why I am Catholic, …” ~ THC

    “I believe Jesus didn’t just leave us a book for everyone to interpret by themselves…” ~ THC

    ***

    hmmm…

    —> Respectfully, those who are washed by the blood of the lamb of God don’t need any other mediator, middle-man or sin confessor, or priestly forgiver.

    One stop shopping…

    (grin)

    Da bible sayz Jesus does it all.

    Yep.

    Heh, Heh, Heh…

    “No one comes to da Father but through Me” ~Jesus

    (bump)

    Believe it!

    da truth will ‘really’ set you’ze free…

    hum, hum, hum, Jesus, “You came down from heaven’s throne,
    This earth you formed was not your home,
    A love like this the world had never known,
    A crown of thorns to mock your name,
    Forgiveness fell upon your face,
    A love like this the world had never known…[[1]

    ATB

    S“㋡”py
    ___
    [1]Chris Tomlin’s song – ““Jesus Son Of God”
    ” ; Songwriters: Jason Ingram, Matt Maher, Chris Tomlin, © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JpATeLgaZQ

    🙂

  251. @ William G.:
    You don’t have to have a police force on staff to act like the cops, William. It was a direct reflection of my own experience of having my life monitored – policed – in evangelical churches.

  252. @ THC:
    AskWilliam, who can explain it far better than i, since he has done more reading than i have. What i can certainly tell you is that it’s true. You might consult Jaroslav Pelikan’s multi-volume work on the history of the xtian tradition (Eastern and Western) for starters, since he goes into great detail. My copies are in storage and thus unavailable to me at present.

  253. THC wrote:

    numo wrote:
    Are you familiar with yhe variances in views – on many things – of the early church fathers?
    Name one.

    Well, several obvious cases come to mind. Aside from the dogmatic shift of the entire church away from Chiliasm, which is a carnal worldview which has been lamentably re popularized by the likes of Darby, Graham and figures like Chuck Smith, Hal Lindsey and so on, a view which was held by St. Irenaeus but unanimously rejected by the 318 holy fathers at Nicea, there are several other instances of divergent opinion. For example:

    The Cappadocian Fathers prized the work of Origen and collected it, whereas St. Epiphanius denounced Origen completely. Related to this was the spat between St. Epiphanius and Lucifer of Cagliari, who is accounted by some as a saint, and indeed Epiphanius set out to Constantniople with a mind to depose St. John Chrysostom over the latter harboring monks with Origenist sympathies until he realized it was a plot by the Emperor to unjustly remove St. John Chrysostom. Then you have the disagreement between the Antiochene school, whose foremost pupil was St. John Chrysostom, and the Alexandrian school, whose heroes were Ss. Athanasius and Cyril, over literal vs. allegorical interpretation. Although most of the Antiochene school fled to Nisibis after the Council of Ephesus, one cannot say that the Alexandrians won, because St.John Chrysostom is highly regarded as the foremost exegete.

    The. There is the very obvious rift between Augustine and John Cassian regarding original sin, even though the two never personally sparred about it to my knowledge. Then we have many other differences of opinion. St. Athanasius in his canons stated that soldiers fighting in war were acting honorably if they killed in battle, whereas St. Basil, while agreeing in principle, in his canons suggested a 3 year period of exclusion from the sacraments to atone fo the bloodshed of combat. St. Athanasius ruled that a nocturnal Edison did not warrant a penance, being an involuntary act, whereas St. John the Faster assigned a penance to it. St. Gregory of Nyassa expressed a belief in the possibility of apocatastasis, on which grounds Origen was anathematized by Emperor Justinian,mechanically outside of the Fifth Ecumenical Council but in an action associated with it. The Fifth Ecumenical Council itself caused the Three Chapters Controversy as a number of western bishoprics rejected it.

    The reason why the phrase “consensus patrum” exists is because such a consensus is not always present. For this reason, the Orthodox Church apmaintains as its rule of faith Holy Traditon, which includes the Bible, the Nicene Creed, the dogmatic definitions of the ecumenical councils, the standing traditions and customs of the church and the consensus patrum where such a consensus exists.

  254. @ numo:

    I could not be a Roman Catholic for the very reason that I’m Orthodox; the faith of the Roman church is apparently subject to change in spite of protestations to the contrary. What Anselm of Canterbury taught regarding the atonement, and the scholastic method favored by Thomas Aquinas, are alien to the works of the fourth century church. The willingness of the Roman church to suffer innovation and to accept new doctrines, sometimes on the basis of Marian apparitions, is unsettling, The Orthodox Church is implacable and unchanging, and this sense of antiquity is something I value in a religion.

  255. William G. wrote:

    The Orthodox Church is implacable and unchanging, and this sense of antiquity is something I value in a religion.

    I guess you will just have to clarify *which* Orthodox Church you are referring to because from the outside the different Orthodox Church flavors have doctrinal disagreements just like the Protestants- precisely because there is no central authority.
    I believe that when Jesus said that he wanted the Church to be one, that meant in teaching/doctrines as well. That’s a big reason why I couldn’t be Orthodox.

  256. William G. wrote:

    The reason why the phrase “consensus patrum” exists is because such a consensus is not always present. For this reason, the Orthodox Church apmaintains as its rule of faith Holy Traditon, which includes the Bible, the Nicene Creed, the dogmatic definitions of the ecumenical councils, the standing traditions and customs of the church and the consensus patrum where such a consensus exists.

    William, I think it would be helpful for you to explain how Orthodox comes to a view that a doctrine is considered infallible.

    The Orthodox argument that something is infallible when it is believed by the whole church is a circular argument. Who exactly are those in the Church? Those who hold to true doctrine. How do you know what is true doctrine? Because it is believed by the whole church.

    For instance, the Council of Nicea defined the nature of God. Arians rejected it, but were they part of the Church? According to Orthodoxy, the Nicene Creed is infallible apart from the Arians because they don’t believe in true doctrine. But how do you know it is true doctrine? Because it is believed by the whole Church who believe true doctrine.

    This is the logical flaw in the Orthodox Church, but must be believed because the alternative would be to say that the pope confirming the councils is infallible, which is unworkable in Orthodox thinking.

  257. @ THC:

    No, you’ve got it backwards. Firstly, between the canonical Eastern Orthodox churches, and between the canonical Oriental Orthodox, there is no disagreement on fundamental doctrine. There is a disagreement between the Easterns and Orientals on Chalcedon, but Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, the two Popes of Alexandria and the Syriac and Greek Patriarch of Antioch among others have done much work to try to repair this rift. Significantly St. Vladimir’s Seminary in New York trains a number of Armenian clergy through it’s oartnership with St. Nerses, and also trains Syriac Orthodox.

    Now the Orthodox Church relies on infallible sacred Traditon. The consensus patrum merely validates this, as does the Bible. So we believe in the Trinity because it’s a part of our tradition; this Traditon is in turn validated by the consensus of the fathers who withstood Arianism, and that in turn is validated by the apostolic tradition of the ante-Nicene fathers and by the Bible. The rule of faith is very clearly laid out in the dogmatic determinations of the ecumenical councils. It’s worth remembering that the sixth ecumenical council showed Pope Honorius to have erred grossly by not taking a stand against monothelitism.

    There is no ambiguity within the Orthodox Church about what true doctrine is; in fact I daresay there is rather more harmony than in the Riman church, where you have the Byzantine Rite Catholics who have recently become strident in embracing things like hesychasm and in de-Latinizing their rite, you have the traditionalists who attend diocesan Tridentine masses, represented by the FSSP and the ICKSP, and you have the ultra liberal element represented by the LCWR. Such a diversity of faith and praxis does not exist in the Orthodox Church. The actual beliefs of the church are clearly described in a number of documents such as the acts of the councils and the creeds, but also to a huge extent in the liturgy; much dogma is contained in the appointed hymns for various services. The Maundy Thursday liturgy will explain to the attendee the meaning of the Eucharist, the nature of the crime of Judas, the nature of the Eucharist itself, it’s connection with the passion, et cetera, and there is no disagreement amIng the orthodox about what these mean.

    The approach of proving Orthodox doctrine from the councils et cetera is merely a way of validating the Catholic faith of the Orthodox Church, in the sense of St. Vincent of Lerins. In each case we assume that the seven ecumenical councils that were received by the later church as infallible were so, and that those who dissented, eith the possible exception of the Oriental Orthodox, separated themselves from the Church. One can also make the case that the Assyrians appropriated Nestorianism as a means of alienating themselves from the Byzantine Empire and thus avoiding genocide by the Sassanians; although for a time there was some real Nestorianism in the form of figures like Mar Narsai, the Twelve Anathemas of Nestorius are not reflected in Assyrian praxis. But as to whether or not the Assyrians are part of the church I cannot say.

    What I can say is that the Roman church violated its obligations under the Council of Ephesus by unilaterally inserting the Filioque and thus separated itself from the Orthodox. I am gladdened to see a “drop the Filioque” movement active in the Roman church now although I doubt it has much of a chance. Amusingly the Byzantines don’t use the Filioque because the Roman church somewhat ludicrously maintains that the formula expressed in Koine Greek is heretical, but expressed in Latin, it is not. It doesn’t matter; the Filioque was obviously an attempt to describe Christ sending thr Holy Spirit into the world, but it was against the rules. The Nicene Creed should have been treated as immutable by Rome in accordance with its obligations under the Ecumenical Councils, which can be interpreted as among other things, binding compacts between the ancient patriarchs, which assigned to each Patriarch it’s canonical territory and responsibilities (article 28 of Chalcedon) and which provide no mechanism for a single Patriarchate to dissent from them without the approval of another council.

  258. @ THC:

    The consensus of the Orthodox Church and her bishops.

    You keep looking for some systemic weakness in the non-Cafholic denominations under the assumption that without a Pope a church will collapse like a house of cards. That this is nonsense is proven by the fact that the Orthodox Church has survived under conditions of extreme persecution without bring in communion with the Roman pontiff for nearly a thousand years, including repeated attempts by Rome to violently suppress it (the Fourth Crusade, the Union of Brest, and untold scheming between Catholic powers and the Sublime Porte). We have endured this period of time without an Inquisition, without the grotesque Great Western Schism and the horrors of the Avignon Papacy, without using concentration camps to convert native Americans to Orthodoxy (the Alaskan disciples of St. Herman came to Christ because he was a decent man who treated them well, and not a conquistador in the habit of a friar backed by military might, like Junipero Sera), without engenedrring a massive, enduring and apparently irreconcilable recursive schism in the form of the Protestant Reformation, which would not have happened were it not for the greed of Leo X and his ilk, and which is sufficiently severe so that it continues to recur until the present, producing more and more schisms, due to the dangerous notions of anti-ecclesiology the abuses of Leo promoted. The Orthodox Church also withstood the Russian communists, without I should add, the “help” of Our Lady of Fatima, whatever it may be (for that was surely not the Theotokos) and the patronizing Leonine Prayers, and in the communist persecution the Russian church more than atoned for her earlier misconduct in the Nikonian Schism.

    The Protestant churches may be dogmatically unstable, and will likely continue to increase in number through further schisms and even through natural growth, but this is because the abuse by the Pope caused the Protestants to mistrust ecclesial authority and to lose their faith in a visible church. The Orthodox Church on the other hand will continue to weather the brunt of persecution in Christendom without losing the divine grace that is its unique endowment, which is manifested in the integrity of Orthodox ascetic praxis and the sacred Traditon, most especially the unaltered and life-saving mysteries.

  259. William G. wrote:

    The consensus of the Orthodox Church and her bishops.

    What do you mean consensus? There was a large population of Christianity that adopted Arianism. Were they not part of the Church at the time? Did you really have consensus of the Church from the Council of Nicea?

  260. Well,goody. We have the implacable and unchanging from antiquity orthodox and we have the infallible and authoritarian catholic church and we have the protestant biblical inerrantist neo-cals. And lots and lots of ideological conflict.

    Meanwhile we have a world in which the pressing issues change frequently, and in which knowledge is increasing at an exponential rate, and in which religious chicanery thrives, and in which this all plays out against a background of very real and dangerous situations at home and abroad.

    And this is a hopeful scenario with a winning game plan? I must be blind, wicked, recalcitrant, rebellious, deceived and female that I don’t see that, don’t you know.

  261. Nancy wrote:

    And this is a hopeful scenario with a winning game plan? I must be blind, wicked, recalcitrant, rebellious, deceived and female that I don’t see that, don’t you know.

    Nancy, I think you have made a very cogent observation.
    Where is the love? In the visible church, I mean.
    I for one have a very difficult time believing that what we see is what God intended.

  262. Nancy wrote:

    And this is a hopeful scenario with a winning game plan? I must be blind, wicked, recalcitrant, rebellious, deceived and female that I don’t see that, don’t you know.

    I think you left “pessimistic” off your list. That’s how the dominionists and reconstructionists would describe you, in addition to your other attributes with which they would totally agree. I, OTOH, think you are a realist, or IOW an optimist with considerable experience.

    Have to disagree with William that we Protestants lack any ecclesiology. It’s just that we hold the Head of the Church in higher regard than we do the institutional church, whatever the label it wears. I think that Christ has hidden his true church inside *and* outside the institutional church. And the hirelings are driving more and more of the true sheep out of the fold of the institutional church.

  263. Nancy wrote:

    We have the implacable and unchanging from antiquity orthodox and we have the infallible and authoritarian catholic church and we have the protestant biblical inerrantist neo-cals. And lots and lots of ideological conflict.

    At least we aren’t threatening to behead the faithful in other branches of Christianity than our own. Given discussions reported in other blogs there are some, I suspect, that would make exceptions for bloggers.

  264. Doug wrote:

    Where is the love? In the visible church, I mean.
    I for one have a very difficult time believing that what we see is what God intended.

    I agree that the divisions aren’t what God intended, but it is expressed in the visible Church every day in how the Catholic Church tends to the flock and takes care of the poor.

  265. @ Nancy:
    yeah, these “my church is better than your church” go-rounds are depressing – and, imo, a complete waste of time.

  266. @ numo:

    And we tend to miss/lose this from Matt. 22.

    37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

  267. Nancy wrote:

    I must be … female that I don’t see that, don’t you know.

    I would say from my experience that I have found that men are more open to arguing these issues than women. I KNOW that probably sounds sexist, but it has been my experience. Men usually let any perceived slights roll off their backs where women take things more personally.

  268. @ Bridget:

    An important point. As Paul put it in 1 Corinthians 13:13 –

    And now faith, hope and love remain – these three. But the greatest of these is a proper biblical understanding of penal substitutionary atonement, together with biblical submission to biblical leadership authority, and a biblical view of biblical gender roles according to biblical guidelines.

    Praise God for these precious words to live by in his holy and perfect Word.

  269. THC wrote:

    Doug wrote:
    Where is the love? In the visible church, I mean.
    I for one have a very difficult time believing that what we see is what God intended.
    I agree that the divisions aren’t what God intended, but it is expressed in the visible Church every day in how the Catholic Church tends to the flock and takes care of the poor.

    With all due respect, all of the *love* talk doesn’t mean a thing when the “church” has not adequately addressed the rampant sexual abuse of children, women, and men throughout all strata of it’s various expressions.

    When the Lord returns, I have a feeling that He will execute a colossal flush on most of what goes by the brand “Christian” and what He accepts will astound us all.

  270. THC wrote:

    William G. wrote:
    The consensus of the Orthodox Church and her bishops.
    What do you mean consensus? There was a large population of Christianity that adopted Arianism. Were they not part of the Church at the time? Did you really have consensus of the Church from the Council of Nicea?

    The Arians were not part of the church. Of the 318 bishops present at Nicea all condemned Arianism. The support for Arianism was built up through politicking by Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had illicitly left his original see and intruded into the canonical territory of another bishop. He and Emperor Constantius were responsible for the appoint ment of most Arian bishops, who in turn intruded into the sees of canonical bishops and deposed them illicitly with military assistance.

    Thus from the start Arianism existed outside the church. It was outside the Church from the moment Arius refused the order of St. Alexander of Alexandria that he stop preaching the non-divinity of Christ and was thus lawfully deposed. The Arian church had its own illicit bishops, its own illicit councils, et cetera, and furthermore, any bishop who after Nicea embraced Arianism, even if lawfully ordained and in his canonical territory, ceased to be a member of thr church, according to the conciliar legislation. So your argument is moot; no part of the church properly speaking was Arian after the council of Nicea because under the conciliar legislation one was obliged to believe in the Nicene Creed (of 325).

    The semi-Arians and Pneumatomachians who were dealt with by the revised creed at Constantinople in 381 are another matter, but again, that problem was corrected by the Second Ecumenical Council. Since that time, people have attempted to hold robber councils, but what for the Orthodox differentiates an ecumenical council from a general council, and a valid but non-infallible General council from a robber council, is the reception of the council by the entire church including the bishops and laity. So whereas in the Roman church the Pope can unilaterally “declare” an ecumenical council, faith by all of the bishops and laity in the ecumenical status of a council is what makes it ecumenical in the Orthodox Church. Thus the only real division amIng the ancient churches called Orthodox is between the Eastern Orthodox, who unanimously count seven ecumenical councils (many Orthodox count two additional councils as ecumenical), and the Oriental Orthodox, who unanimously count three, and some of whom consider the Second Council of Ephesus canonical. This would seem to be insurmountable, and the historical approach was for each party to label the others heretics and to consider itself solely Orthodox; however, it has become increasingly apparent that the actual faith of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox is identical, and on that basis through Christian love we are moving towards a reconciliation. But such will ultimately take a while to propagate and involve controversy, because unanimous consent is difficult to obtain and there are those who are opposed to such a reconciliation.

    Unlike the Roman Churhc, whose faith is decided by one man, the faith of the Orthodox is best explained by the Russian concept of sobornost, which my horrible chest infection precludes me from adequately translating, but which refers to the shared decision making and the required consensus between the laity and the hierarchy. Ultimately the essentials of the Orthodox Church are there because all Orthodox alive believe in them, and all dead Orthodox as well; we unanimously confess the faith of our fathers or godparents in the case of converts. To not confess this received Traditon by definition makes one not Orthodox. The only way change happens is very slowly, at the generation level, as individual generations might shift slightly in their views on something. However even then, reversals can occur. Most older Greek Orthodox churches in the US have an organ and pews, but organs are unheard of in newer Orthodox churches due to the popular return to a capella singing, and pews are increasingly being replaced by individual seats that provide more room for standing and prostrating during services and which allow a more open and traditional-looking interior. The Russians historically embraced pews but not organs. Nonetheless, there is not, contrary to what some say, universal consent that organs are unorthodox, and there are some rather good settings of the Divine Liturgy accompanied by an organ, for example,the works of Tikey Zes. Thus, on more trivial matters differences of opinion between the ethnicities and generations do exist, but this adds to the rich tapestry of the Orthodox Church, which is still as a whole far more united than the Roman church.

    This is because the Orthodox Church defines orthodoxy on the basis of shared faith rather than communion with the Pope. How can, we ask, the Nuns on the Bus, the nutty Latin Rite priests who celebrate Clown Masses and Puppet Masses, and people like Walter Cardinal Kasperite, be in the same church as the FSSP, the Ukrainian Catholics of the Byzantine Rite, or the Chaldean Catholics of the East Syriac Rite? Some confess the Filioque, some do not, some campaign for its abolition. There is a pronounced lack of unity on dogma, despite claims to the contrary. Ultimately all these groups have in common is communion with the Pope. The Orthodox believe this is insufficient and that an actual unity at the level of belief must exist. This is not to say that there are no differences of opinion within the Orthodox Church; there are, but the actual issues that are debated over, with the exception of the question of how to effect ecumenical reconciliation, tend to be of a secondary nature, for example, should Greek churches have organs or should the cantors sing unaccompanied? I actually am of a neutral stance on this issue; the lack of organs is more traditional, but where they exist I am opposed to their removal, and furthermore, considering that many cantors when forced to sing alone use an iPad app to generate the ison, I would propose seating the cantor at the organ and having him play the appropriate ison on the keyboard or pedal keyboard would be better. I should add this applies equally to Greek Catholics and to Italo-Albanian Catholics, for example, the Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics in Southern Sicilly.

    I would urge you THC to stop looking for some loophole, like a hacker searching for a software exploit or a lockpicker probing for the binding pin, that will cause the faith structures of Protestants and Orthodox to collapse, because such “gotchas” do not actually exist. There are objections that can be raised against our faiths by Catholics, and to these we have long ago formed counter objections. So attempting to cause a mass conversion to Roman Catholicism by picking holes in our faiths on an Internet forum is unlikely to be a fruitful experience.

  271. Gram3 wrote:

    Have to disagree with William that we Protestants lack any ecclesiology. It’s just that we hold the Head of the Church in higher regard than we do the institutional church, whatever the label it wears. I think that Christ has hidden his true church inside *and* outside the institutional church. And the hirelings are driving more and more of the true sheep out of the fold of the institutional church.

    The sad part of what you’re saying though is that it does mean that reunion of the vast majority of Christians into a single visible church, like that which existed before the Great Schism, is impossible. Mainline Protestants would go for it, but the Orthodox wouldn’t, conversely, traditionalist Protestsnts aside from a minority of Anglo Catholics and Lutherans would object to “Popery” and would create Hal Lindsey-esque myths about such a church. As a fun fact by the way, the LCMS wants ecumenical dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox and is getting increasingly friendly with the ACNA. This is good, and surprising given how historically anti-ecumenical the LCMS was. I do have a soft spot for the Missouri Synod having gone to one of their elementary schools, and in their faith and praxis the possibility for a relationship does exist if they can comprehend our doctrine of Theosis, which has always been a stumbling block for Lutherans.

    By the way, I would urge you not to refer to clergy as “hirelings” as this is reminiscent of the demeaning language used by the late Chuck Smith, who described all pastors not following his abusive Moses Model as “hirelings.” In fact, it is not the pastors who are “hired” by bishops or elders of a congregational or Presbyterian church, who earn in the neighborhood of $4,000/mo, and usually no longer get free housing in the form of a parsonage, but rather, the self-appointed founders of the megachurches, who make obscene amounts of money and are basically entrepreneurs who found churches instead of businesses, and who run their church to generate income. I know of Orthodox priests who are paid $800/mo, and I know of some who are paid nothing and who work a day job. Small churches that can’t afford a married priest often have a monastic priest who can subsist on minuscule amounts of food and a bed, and in other cases married priests depend in part on the income from their wives to support their family.

  272. Doug wrote:

    When the Lord returns, I have a feeling that He will execute a colossal flush on most of what goes by the brand “Christian” and what He accepts will astound us all.

    Actually I think he said that in his description of the judgment when so many people had done such big time religious stuff (“we cast out demons in your name”) and the reply they get is devastating.

  273. @ Nancy:

    I would propose that in the unpleasant and fast changing world you describe, people like me become Orthodox because of the glacial pace at which it changes. Having something that is immutable in your life is a major consolation. This is obviously not for everyone, but for someone like me the immutability of the Orhtodox faith provides a great refuge; I also don’t have to worry like I did in zprotestantism about what the next pastor would be like, because the impact of individual priests is minimal. Most of them don’t preach much; when they do preach they’re usually not very good, and it doesn’t matter, because they are almost invariably good singers and the singing of the liturgy is the main event. Some Orthodox churches actually stress the musical abilities of their clergy over other aspects of their formation; among the Oriental Orthodox for example the Coptic priests are hit or miss in terms of singing skills, alithough all can keep time and match pitches, but are well trained in theology, and preach good sermons weekly, and hear confessions and dispense thrological advise. Syriac Orthodox priests on the other hand,tend to not be as good at preaching, seldom hear confessions, but are usually the best singers in their church, and usually personally direct both the male and female choirs. They do not conduct them by the way with hand gestures, rather the music is very well rehearsed and such issues of timing do not occur, because of the antiphonal structure of Syriac chant. But to use a Jewish analogy, if a Protestant minister or Catholic priest is like a Rabbi, then a Syriac priest is more like a Hazzan.

    One thing you have to understand is that the praxis of the Eastern churches is so radically different from Western norms that a Western Christian will find it initially incomprehensible. It was very intimidating for me at first. And I had to make huge lifestyle changes which most people on the ODP would be unable to make. In my case it was beneficial as I used to be a major gourmand and now through Orthodox fasting, I’m not; I eat begrudgingly much of the time various disgusting fasting foods we subject ourselves to. Like these incredibly nasty beans cooked in a sort of oil, which one seasons with mustard and pickled vegetables,,and dips unleavened bread into. Or Blinis (Russian pancakes). I used to like blinis until I became Orthodox. But I have ceased to be obese, so for me it worked. But for someone who struggles with anorexia, it would be necessary to approach Orthodoxy with great care; the anorexia would need to be confessed to the priest and one would need to find a priest who had experience dealing with it, who would prescribe in lieu of the fasts, mandatory feasts, which can be done, and who would take steps to make sure the convert was eating properly. Not all priests would be able to do that, and so for an anorexic the Orthodox Church could prove a disaster. One thing we need to do is be more rigorous in our reception of converts, to diagnose whatever is wrong with them physically, psychologically and spiritually, so that they don’t seize upon some random part of Orthodox monastic discipline and use it to justify whatever self abuse they have become accustomed to.

  274. Why anyone would purposely choose to identify with a christian brand (religion, org, society, etc) that has in its history the oppression of dissenters is beyond my comprehension. Why anyone would self identify as a member of a church who’s theological ancestors k*lled people, abused children, and tortured innocent people is equally beyond me.

    Those two facts of history are at the top of my matrix when it comes to the choice of which ecclesiastical group I identify with.

    In our age, it really ought to be an easy decision to make. Abuse, in any form, ought not to be part of any church in the 21st century.

    That is still is ought to make us repent in sack cloth and ashes.

  275. Doug wrote:

    Why anyone would purposely choose to identify with a christian brand (religion, org, society, etc) that has in its history the oppression of dissenters is beyond my comprehension. Why anyone would self identify as a member of a church who’s theological ancestors k*lled people, abused children, and tortured innocent people is equally beyond me.

    I assume you are talking about the Catholic Church. While certainly there are things in its 2,000 year history which are troubling, part true, part great exaggeration, it doesn’t diminish the fact that it is the Church that Jesus established. If you want perfect people, you certainly aren’t going to find them in Church. While I do agree that there have been terrible times in the Church, and if you are Christian, Protestant or otherwise, you still share in that heritage like it or not, I believe that the Holy Spirit has protected the Church from teaching error. I believe the words of Jesus when he says that the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

  276. William G. wrote:

    I would urge you THC to stop looking for some loophole, like a hacker searching for a software exploit or a lockpicker probing for the binding pin, that will cause the faith structures of Protestants and Orthodox to collapse, because such “gotchas” do not actually exist. There are objections that can be raised against our faiths by Catholics, and to these we have long ago formed counter objections. So attempting to cause a mass conversion to Roman Catholicism by picking holes in our faiths on an Internet forum is unlikely to be a fruitful experience.

    Oh, I am under no delusion that there will be a mass conversion on this blog to the Catholic Church. Are you somehow seeking a mass conversions to the Orthodox Church?

    The difficulty I see is when I bring up arguments and the responses are about organ music or where the cantor stands or which liturgy is better. In many ways, this is exactly how many Protestants pick their faith tradition. Do they like the music? Is the preaching good? Is the music modern or traditional? How big is the congregation? etc.

    I am very happy to have a pope which has the charism of infallibility to define for the church matters of faith and morals. I absolutely believe that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching error. I am saddened by the schism of the 11th century, but that doesn’t hamper my belief that the pope can continue to lead Christ’s Church and teach the flock, and we can be assured that what the Church teaches doesn’t contain error.

    I do respect the Orthodox Church and consider it, as the Roman Catholic Church does, as the second lung of the historic church. While I point out the similarities, you point out the differences. But, we actually have a lot in common.

  277. @ Doug:

    In defense of the Roman church, their charity operations are second to none. In fact by virtue of being spread across so many different non profits ranging from educational institutes associated with the Church to hospitals to religious orders, and owing to the large scale involvement of non Catholics in them, they are almost immeasurably large. They include such high profile endeavors as the Missionaries of Charity, such educational initiatives as many of the best state schools in London and various top tier universities, through a range of monasteries, more mundane community charities and food banks, and individuals like the Blue Hermit, a consecrated hermit and priest who is also an MD, who provides spiritual and physical care to a mainly Muslim village in the Gambia, with a Catholic minority. So in my opinion the scales of the Roman church do balance out, and I would rather associate myself with it than with so many of the do-nothing megachurches with millionaire pastors who interpret sola fide as meaning no obligation towards charity exists.

    The Orthodox Church used to have charitable operations on a grandad scale but has lost most of them due to the communist persecurion. However, we actively work with the Romans and this is also a major point of our ecumenical dialogue. In the US especially Orthodox charitable organizations do not have the profile they should, but we are working on improving that. I would especially cite the Order of St. Ignatius (of Antioch, not the Jesuit from Loyola) as an emerging Orthodox charity that is doing courageous work in dangerous conditions to save the lives of endangered children in Tijuana and other Mexican border towns.

    There has of course been a lot of great charitable operations by Protestants. However I do think Doug that the sins of arome are compensated for by the truly epic scale of its charitable operations, and the guilt over those sins is in fact a driving factor behind much of this. Pope Francis is trying to ramp it up as well but I fear his management techniques may not be as effective as he hopes; he gives off the impression of trying to micromanage a bit too much.

  278. @ THC:

    I bfought up the case of liturgical music to demonstrate how change does slowly happen to Orthodoxy, but essentially the substance of our faith is a glacial construct that, while not immutable, is of limited mutability. This construct because of its slow progression of change closely resembles the Chrsitian faith as was practiced in the Eastern Roman Empire during the time of the council of Nicea. The Eastern Catholic Churches share this resemblance; the fact that they are able to coexist in the same ecclesial body with the radically postmodern Latin Rite parishes using the Novus Ordo demonstrate the lack of a single shared faith within the Roman church. It seems only a belief in the Pope ties the elements together.

    Now, you also seem to be reducing my concerns about the Novus Ordo to mere liturgical preference. But this is not the case. The Novus Ordo Missae is such a profound alteration of Roman praxis that it caused an enduring schism, resulting in the SSPX, which I consider a dangerous cult, and which is classed by the SPLC as a hate group. Where paranoia combines with liturgical alienation the results can be deadly. I don’t blame the laity who have gone over into the SSPX or other even more extremist groups like the Palmerians, but rather the hierarchs such as Cardinal Bugnini who caused this profound alienation.

    It is my contention that the idea of papal infallibility is in fact disproved by the Novus Ordo mass; if the Pope were infallible then Paul VI would not have permitted such a destructive innovation to occur. The Catholic Church is much smaller and less influential than it was before the Novus Ordo, and it was after Vatican II that the worst crises in the contemporary Roman church, the sex abuse scandal, began to unfold. An infallible Pope would have acted to prevent this damage rather than facilitate its infliction.

    What is more, I am entirely convinced that individual humans cannot be safely presumed infallible; the infallible Tradition of the Orthodox faith is composed of things like Scripture, the acts of the Councils, and the writings of post-Apostolic fathers that were only accepted into Holy Tradition in retrospect. It is only in hindsight that we can authoritatively differentiate on a theological level between the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit and prelest, or spiritual delusion caused by devilish agencies. Thus the Pope, in claiming to posess an infallible faculty, automatically commits himself to the highest form of prelest or delusion. The Roman church is by no means another lung of the same faith as the Orthodox Church, but rather the decaying relic of an ecclesial body which, in the pride of spiritual delusion, separated itself from it. The Roman church redeems itself and functions to some extent as an ecclesial body on account of its great works of charity, but it is still subject to diabolical corruption which continues to manifest itself in scandal after lurid scandal. Thus I would daresay that pious and charitable Roman Catholics are invisibly United to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which the Roman Catholic Church is fundamentally distinct from.

    To elaborate on this point, Roman Catholic and Orthodox both believe in the same number of sacraments, and have monastics who practice mystical contemplation. But in the Roman church there is a dangerous focus on the search for religious ecstasy and a lack of rigor in the discernment process. The Wagnerian excesses of the asceticism of St. Francis of Assisi stand in marked contrast to the extreme humility of the Desert Fathers. St. Francis confessed on his deathbed that he was confident he had repented of all sins, whereas Abba Sisoes confessed that he could not know if he had even begun to repent. If the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, Abba Sisoes seems the more enlightened of the two. This is not to deny that St. Francis was a thoroughly nice chap who did very good things, but rather to point out that he did not, like most Roman Mystics of the past thousand years, appear to have a very firm grasp of ascetic discipline; it appears rather that Francis suffered from prelest and was subject to demonic mockery as a result; if he really received stigmata, this was a profoundly occult occurrence that had not happened since at least St. Paul, if ever, and to equate Francis with Paul seems ridiculous; why should not Ss. Anthony, Macarius, Benedict, Columban, or John of Damascus, among others, have received the stigmata, and why have stigmata been so regularly granted to Catholic Mystics since the time of St. Francis? It does not make sense.

    I am a proponent of ecumenical reconciliation between the Roman and Orthodox churches because I believe the Roman church urgently requires Orthodox ascetic discipline in order to,save itself from a spiritual crisis which seems to be intensifying. In this sense the Orthodox,church is not so much another lung in the same chest, as it is a separate pair of lungs of a healthy adult seeking to resucitate those of a drowning child, that being the Roman Church, which is literally drowning in prelest. As I stated in a previous post, the Roman church has the most extensive charitable operations in existence; these must be preserved or millions and millions of people will die in horrible suffering; therefore the rescue of Roman Catholicism from its self inflicted disfigurement is, or should be, a priority for the Orthodox. There are many Orthodox who of course take other views, either that the Roman church is not drowning, which seems ludicrous given its continuing implosion; it is a decrepit shadow of what it was even in the 1860s; or that the Roman church is drowning but that we should simply ignore it; this last approach, which seems to be the prevailing view on Mount Athos, seems to me to be in contradiction of the Parable of the Good Samaritan, which requires Christian intervention to assist distressed individuals.

  279. By the way, here is a terrifying but comprehensive abandoned Russian website on Prelest: https://web.archive.org/web/20131024091038/http://oprelesti.ru/index.php/what-is-spiritual-delusion

    Prelest is the most terrifying doctrine of the Orthodox Church, and also the most important. Most of the Philokalia is centered around it. If there is one part of Orthodoxy that I wish Protestants and Catholics would acquire, it is knowledge of prelest, its causes and its remedies. The idea that our perception of reality, particularly our faith in God, could be partially corrupted by demonic delusions is a frightening one, evocative of the most nightmarish works of Philip K Dick, but when you consider the frightening ability of Christians to commit obscenely evil acts, when they should in theory have known better (indeed, when one considers ones own propensity towards vainglory), the importance of this idea becomes clear.

  280. William G. wrote:

    An infallible Pope would have acted to prevent this damage rather than facilitate its infliction.

    It appears to me that you don’t understand what papal infallibility is. Or, maybe you do understand it but choose to ignore the teaching on it to make your argument.

    If anything, you are beginning to sound like a background singer in a boy-band who is upset that the lead singer got a solo career and is flourishing.

  281. Some of you don’t read very well, IMO. Abuse goes on, and is built in to most of the christian brands. I am not protestant. My tribe does not, nor has it ever contained abuse. I’ll leave that to the professionals. The institutional church is abusive by nature, and no amount of “good works” can wipe away the blood stains.

    There is a much simpler way, but most are too blind or hardened to leave their own self-built theological system behind. Abuse and abusing is comfortable.

    The Jesus I know doesn’t agree with those systems.

  282. @ William G.:
    In all honesty, Vatican II was NOT the catalyst for sexual abuse in the RCC. God alone knows how long it’s been going on, but believe me, predatory priests and their protectors (in the hierarchy) were alreadymin existence and active. The 1st person i ever met who spoke about it was in 1973… he had been an altar boy, before Vatican II. this is also very true in Ireland, where the church had great power starting immediately after independence. The Irish have done far more investigation than (probably) any other country, and what has bern brought to light is very damning. Nuns were definitely involved in systemic abuses, though primarily emotional/physical/spiritual/economic.

    Taking vows, wearing a habit or cassock and playing a role doesn’t make people holy, any more thsn extreme asceticism (which the apostle Paul warned against) does. I know you won’t like what I’ve just said, but it is true. I do not know how long you have been Orthodox, but istm that you are where i once wss with xtianity as a whole – idealistic and more than willing to “believe the best.” It took a long time, anf some very hard things, for me to be able to gain some perspective. I am not cynical, but i certainly have been dis-illusioned about many things. If that wasn’t the case, i would have no interest in this blog.

    Please keep Bridget’s post above – where she quotes Jesus’ words on the 2 greatest commandments – as a reminder gor all of us when discussing our differences and seemingly endless church controversies. All of those things pale before the admonition to love God with all our hearts and love our neighbors as ourselves. Imo, the rest is window dressing.

    Fwiw.

  283. THC wrote:

    I would say from my experience that I have found that men are more open to arguing these issues than women. I KNOW that probably sounds sexist, but it has been my experience. Men usually let any perceived slights roll off their backs where women take things more personally.

    Oh excuse you – and ……. just bless your fluffy cotton socks. I am truly sorry if that is your response to the pool of (female) people you mingle with.

  284. Doug wrote:

    I am not protestant. My tribe does not, nor has it ever contained abuse.

    I don’t know what that means, but it sounds like something good.

    The word protestant has been become a trash basket word. It seems that there are very few categories for non-catholics. There is orthodox and there are heretics / non-christians, and some minority groups from elsewhere and there are protestants. That does not begin to take in the diversity of faith traditions within the larger concept of “christian.”

    And there is the issue of who gets to make the call as to who is what? Is it like Adam naming the animals? Is it I said you an antelope and therefore you are an antelope? I am thinking that any group does in fact decide what name to call itself and whether it identifies with a certain larger category or not, and no amount of labeling by some other group changes that reality.

  285. THC wrote:

    William G. wrote:
    An infallible Pope would have acted to prevent this damage rather than facilitate its infliction.
    It appears to me that you don’t understand what papal infallibility is. Or, maybe you do understand it but choose to ignore the teaching on it to make your argument.
    If anything, you are beginning to sound like a background singer in a boy-band who is upset that the lead singer got a solo career and is flourishing.

    I am well aware of the theoretical limit of infallibility to ex Cathedra statements. However it stands to reason that Paul VI, endowed with the faculty that allows him to make infallible statements ex cathedra, was negligent in not using that faculty to stop the liturgical degradation by condemning ex cathedra rather than embracing the liturgy proposed by Cardinal Bugnini.

    Regarding your two lungs of the church statement, there is another huge assumption therein, that being that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have the same theological objectives. Byzantine Rite Catholics largely do, but one good thing Vatican II did was to free them from subservience to Larin theology, and as a result the Byzantine Catholics have largely become Orthodox in communion with the Pope. The Maronites have not been as lucky given that so many important liturgical books and theological manuscripts were burned; recovering an authentic Maronite spirituality is probably impossible and the Maronites will probably remain like the Syriac Catholics, but less formal and more numerous,

    The objective of the Eastern Orthodox, and I believe, most educated Oriental Orthodox who have read the fathers, is the pursuit of Theosis, or deification through the Grace of God. The aim of Latin theology has been, since the age of the Schoolmen, the pursuit of the Beatific Vision. Orthodox theology holds that the essence of God is incomprehensible and unknowable; Latin theology asserts Absolute Divine Simplicity and appears to suggest that this is what will be beheld in the Bearific Vision. So whereas the objective of Orthodox is to become gods by grace, adopted sons of God endowed with the divine quality of immortality and participating in the divine energies, the Romans would hold this to be impossible and instead insist upon the perception of the essence of God which the Orthodox maintain cannot be perceived.

    So it seems that once certain ecumenical pleasantries and superficial similarities are set aside, the faith of the Latin Rite church is radically different from that of the Orthodox, or even that of Eastern Catholics in the wake of Vatican II. How do you explain that?

  286. numo wrote:

    Taking vows, wearing a habit or cassock and playing a role doesn’t make people holy

    You see, the VAST majority of priests and religious do live holy lives. Are there some who don’t? Sure. Has there been cover up? Yes. Is it hugely scandalous because it is in the visible Church? Absolutely.

    I can name you several popes in the Church’s 2,000 year history and what they did which would make your head turn. Johann Tetzel was an unorthodox teacher at the time Luther was alive and Luther’s primary revolt was based on this man’s teachings on indulgences, which weren’t the teaching of the RCC.

    What am I saying? While the Church has had many stains, it doesn’t diminish one iota (a reference William G. will understand) the RCC as the Church Jesus founded with St. Peter as the head, that continues today. If you are looking for perfection in the Christian Church, then you will always be disappointed.

  287. Nancy wrote:

    Doug wrote:

    I am not protestant. My tribe does not, nor has it ever contained abuse.

    I don’t know what that means, but it sounds like something good.

    There are those who do not play in the sandbox that is 16th century religion, who identify with “none of the above” when it comes to labels or categories.

    Since we get attacked by the Neo-Cals that makes us heretics to them.
    We are not protesting anything or anyone, so we are not protestants. Our heritage began over 50 years ago when a bunch of “ex _______” began a small bible church.

    We do not condone abuse, although we are often abused by those who want to covert us to their brand. We are probably the only group here who has taken a stand against reformed theology.

    We are not perfect. We do not accept most of what calls itself christian as being something we want to be, but we are not running around bashing them or trying to convert them to our way.

    We like a simple faith and are ordinary simple people. Lots of laughing, mostly at ourselves. Just a plain, boring bible church with a bunch of plain boring people. And we like it that way.

    There us a simpler way – non religious – that is not anti intellectual, but most people seem to want a whole lot more and seem to like the control. I don’t get it.

  288. numo wrote:

    Taking vows, wearing a habit or cassock and playing a role doesn’t make people holy, any more thsn extreme asceticism (which the apostle Paul warned against) does.

    Actually, strictly speaking, or rather, literally speaking, taking holy orders or professing religious vows does make one holy, according to the correct definition of holy, as being set aside for divine application. Holy does not mean “good”, someone who is set apart can act in a manner that shames their vocation, as many in the Roman church and indeed some Orthodox have. There is a reason for the fact that the greater portion of the ancient canon law of the church deals with misbehavior by clergy. There is also a reason why the majority of the Philokalia echoes Paul’s warning about the dangers of excessive asceticism. St. Seraphim of Sarov once admonished a schema-nun to take at least one hot meal per day; when she refused, citing the time away from prayer this would take, he observed that truly she never posessed the prayer of the heart, and neither did the superior who vested her in the schema.

    The word I believe you were searching for, which people tend to confuse with “holy”, is rather “pious.” And unfortunately due to the poisonous legacy of Luther’s grave error of sola fide, most Protestants lack a clear understanding of what piety is, and frequently engage in acts of gross impiety as part of their religious praxis. Questioning the vocation, holiness or piety of those in holy orders or in the religious state is almost by definition impious. The Roman church is guilty of having systematically ignored a disciplinary problem primarily confined to the Latin Rite, leading to widespread abuses, which did in fact become manifest primarily in the wake of the liturgical reforms, with some of the worst abuses occurring in the 1970s, which was also a decade in which the “sexual revolution” on its outer margins embraced the sexual exploitation of children, something which in the UK has engulfed in scandal politicians including Harriet Harman MP. However the vast majority of priests did not engage in this abuse, and what is more, it is increasingly obvious that this problem was not confined to the Roman church, but occurred in other denominations such as the SBC. Thus it cannot be linked, as some dare to claim, to the celibate nature of priests in the Latin Rite, although the Orthodox do not agree with the Roman church that it is appropriate as a rule for secular clergy to be celibate; almost all priests are either married or professed monastic hieromonks, who live in a more controlled manner than secular Latin Rite priests. I myself was a bit scandalized by the images of gourmet food Fr. z, a popular Catholic blogger priest, likes to post, from his piligrimmages; as a former gourmand I don’t object to fine dining in principal, but there is an indulgent aspect to it, and one would not expect to see even a married Orthodox priest posting images that could incline someone towards the passion of gluttony. However the majority of Roman clergy have remained celibate and are also not gluttons; as a result generalizations regarding their morals are impious. Even Protestant clergy are entitled by their station to the benefit of the doubt in casual conversation.

    The worst cruelties of the Reformation have always involved anti-clericalism, which was not confined to Proestant countries but extended through the French Revolution and Continental Freemasonry (which unlike English freemasonry, which regards it as schismatic, a sort of Masonic heresy if you will, admits atheists and allows discussion of politics within the lodge, and which takes political opinions on issues) to various Catholic countries. The dissolution of the monasteries in Protestant, Catholic and even Orthodox lands was an act of unjustifiable evil, full stop. For whatever excesses the monks, even the Cluniac monks, were guilty of, their contributions to the welfare of society and the nobility of the monastic enterprise as such justified their existence. In this respect I feel the Synod of Jerusalem was justified in classifying Luther’s doctrine as “madness.” It had even harsher words for Calvin, the denunciation of Calvinism being the main objective of the synod, which was called to refute the forged Confessio Fidei falsely attributed to Patriarch Kyrillos in Geneva.

  289. @ Doug:

    What you’re describing sounds very much like Pietism to me. The ideal of a doctrine-free church does not quite work, alas, because on the one level such churches as yours tend to be doctrinaire about their supposed “simplicity.” On another, such an approach often results in avoiding the hard theological questions posed by the New Testament.

    It has been my experience that, with some happy exceptions, most pietists are unable to explain the conceptual underpinnings of their faith and wind up sounding a bit like Unitarian Universalists. At the same time, there seems to be a lack of an ability to explain what Christ meant in certain key passages, such as “Be perfect, even as your father is perfect”, and “pray without ceasing”, to name a few.

    In the case of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, there are logical answers to these questions. In the case of Calvinism, Calvin and his disciples tried with varying success to answer them, the soft Calvinists of the Church of England having the most success. But Pietists tend to spin in circles when confronted with the “hard sayings” because addressing them requires serious dogmatic theology, which Pietists like to avoid. The Pietist position is not incomprehensible; it came into being as a result of violent conflicts between Calvinists and Lutherans, but the failure of reformed Proestants to behave In a Christian manner cannot be used as a condemnation of the Orthodox Church, which had nothing to do with the Reformation and which, when it encountered Pietism in the border regions of Poland, reacted with some degree of nausea.

    It should be noted that one cannot point to specifically Orthodox violence against Protestants without invoking the four-way conflict between Russia, Sweden, Austria and Prussia for the Baltic region and surrounding environs; collectively,these powers represented Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Catholicism and Calvinism, but it would be wrong to regard it as essentially a religious struggle. Indeed Sweden at one point enlisted the aid of the Ottoman Empire, which had a sizable and important Orthodox minority but was ruled by Muslims, to aid it against Orthodox Russia. So these political intrigues, although occasionally related to sectarian conflict, are not purely as sectarian in nature. So the emergence of Pietism is itself unremarkable,Mas the consequence of the recursive schism engendered by Protestant anti-ecclesiology; as more dogmatically opposed Protestant sects came into being it was inevitable that a group, the Pietists, would attempt to avoid dogma altogether. This reaches a certain extreme in the denomination known as the Disciples of Christ, one of whose members published the most anti-ecclesial treatise of any serious importance, entitled Christ or Christianity?

    However, avoiding dogma because of dogmatic definitions results in unanswered questions, and a lukewarm, Latitudinarian Christianity. Rather than attempting to discover Truth, Pietists retreat from it for fear of conflict. Now I do apologize if you’re not Pietist, by the way, but your approach did seem a bit Pietist, and Pietism has been creeping into this thread as the predictable backlash to the dogmatic discussion that has arisen at the behest of THC. However if we are to have an open discussion, conformance to an oppressive Pietism would be, in your words, boring.* It’s much more interesting to take a stand and attempt to work out the theology of that position.

    *I should add that I could never be a member of some religions, such as Orthodox Sunni Islam or especially the Baha’i faith, or some Christian denominations, that are either minimalist in ritual or actively opposed to ritual, and that do not allow for independent theological inquiry by their adherents, primarily because Iwould find such religions excessively boring. I categorically refuse to believe that God is uninteresting.

  290. THC wrote:

    You see, the VAST majority of priests and religious do live holy lives.

    What difference does that make? One would never be certain that they were holy enough to have favor with God or obtain eternal life. How holy is enough?

    The alleged holiness of the priest dies not matter on whit. I don’t need a priest. No one needs a priest. We can have direct access to God through Jesus Christ, if we will believe. Simple.

    Priest and ecclesiastical form does nothing. It adds no thing to the shed blood of the Messiah. Faith, hearing the Word of God, grace, Jesus – these are what matter. Simple.

    No religious excrement, as Paul taught. There is one mediator. No co-mediator or mediatrix. No pastor comes between me and my Father. One Big Brother, friend, and many brothers and sisters who rock! Simple.

    Why drown under the weight of religion when you can mount up on eagles wings? Jesus was born, lived, died, was raised, and lives to make intercession for us, to free us from all that religious excrement that never saved a single soul. Simple.

    Believe and be saved. Then live it from the Book. Listen to the Holy spirit who dwells in you. He points you back to the cross. Lay the dung there and live free. Simple.

    Worship, play, love, live, laugh, sing, and rescue. Simple. Easy if you want it. Not so much if you don’t. The choice is yours.

  291. @ Doug:

    This is in fact addressed to both THC and Doug. Holy does not mean pious, it merely means set apart. Anything set apart for divine service is by definition holy.

    It should also be stressed that the idea of a priest as mediator seems a questionable model of sacramental theology. The word priest is derived from the same Greek root as presbyter, meaning elder. The priests do represent Christ, or rather the Bishop, who represents Christ, in the Eucharistic sacrifice (which is a sacrifice in so far as bread and wine are offered up to God to be consecrated; one might also consider how the Jews regard their prayer, which is equivalent to, for example, Morning Prayer in the Anglican tradition, in terms of the action; that is to say, a Jewish service consists purely of the same kinds of actions that occur at a non Eucharistic Christian prayer service, and like a non Eucharistic service, Jewish prayers do not depend on the presence of a cantor or rabbi, although it helps; at any rate, Jews regard their prayers as a “sacrifice of praise”, an idea that first emerged during the Babylonian exile, when the prayers were considered substitutes for the animal sacrifices that could not be offered due to the lack of the temple). However this representation in persone Christi should not be considered as intermediation, but rather as the actualization of Christ’s command to the Apostles to “do this in anamnesis of me”, in this case executed by the proper successors of the Apostles, the bishops, and vicariously by their representatives, the presbyters.

    As far as the other suggestions of Doug, as I predicted in my earlier post, there is no answer to the question of how one addresses Christ’s command to “be perfect, even as your father is perfect”, “to pray without ceasing,” et cetera. Should we not actively seek to construct our lives around the models of virtue outlined in the Beatitudes? Should we not actively flee the world as Christ did and enter the desert to pray? Should we not, as Paul exhorted us, view ourselves as athletes training ourselves to fight sin? Your theology fixates upon a handful of verses, taken out of context, and actually deprecates piety on the absurd notion that piety is outside our reach. As such, your theology is actually antinomian, and crypto-Gnostic at that, in so far as it seems to rest on a mental idea of salvation rather than an active corporeal response to the action of the Holy Spirit in inspiring faith.

    The book does not say “Listen and be saved” and leave it at that, which is something the magisterial reformers recognized. We must rather “work out our salvation with fear and trembling” because “not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, will be saved.” The message of the Gospel as I have said before is not the sunshine and rainbows, happy-flappy thing it’s made out to be; the Gospel is a terrifying message; it offers good news, in that we can actually escape death, but it demands in return that we entirely give ourselves over to the Lord. “Whoever seeks to lose his life shall save it, and whoever seeks to save it shall lose it.” The New Perspective on Paul furthermore validates the non-Lutheran interpretation of Paul, that is to say, Paul doesn’t say that we can just ignore the frightening demands Chrisr makes of us and escape purely by faith. Luther, in reacting against the macabre excesses of Roman Catholicism in the High Renaissance discarded vital information and misinterpreted Paul fundamentally, and what is more, in compiling his German translation, even rendered Paul into German in such a way as to suggest Luther either really did make an error of comprehension in reading the Greek, or else intentionally mistranslated, which together with the deprecation of James, Jude, Hebrews and the Apocalypse, makes the Luther Bible about as reliable as the New World Translation.

    But you’ve gone way beyond Luther, because even Lither was not antinomian, and even Luther admitted the necessity of baptism and the Eucharist as part of the process of salvation. As did Calvinism. The extremely minimal form of Christianity your practicing would have seemed innovative in the 19th century, and is al,out incomprehensible from a Patristic standpoint. Now please don’t get me wrong; this is not meant as a personal attack in any way, but rather a critique of the theology you’ve presented. What your discussing seems entirely alien to the faith of the late first century Christians, Ss. Clement and Ignatius of Antioxh, both of whom knew the apostles. Ignatius was fed to lions. His letters were preserved and forewarned by St. Polycarp, who knew St. John the Evangelist, whose writings form a rather important chunk of the New Testament. Because I can’t reconcile what you’re saying with what they wrote, I can’t accept that the Gospel says what you argue it says; I believe you have inadvertantly misinterpreted it based on your own experiences, which have led you to a pietistix and anti-Ecclesial form of minimalism, which nonetheless depends on various Western theologians.

    You refer for example to Anselm of Canterbury and indeed to Calvin with penal substitutionary atonement, the idea that Christ paid specifically for our individual sins on the cross and this is how we are saved. This idea is not seen in the Patristic corpus until Augustine. St. Irenaeus, a disciple of St. Polycarp, argues that Christ took corrupt human nature unto himself in all things in order to deify it, a view known as recapitulation, and also anticipates the view of St. Athanasius, who said “God became man in order to deify us.” What Athanaius said is particularly relevant in my opinion given that the 27 books we use in the New Testament were first declared canonical by him; earlier canons either were missing some texts, or added texts of dubious value like the Epistle of Barnabas or the Shepherd of Hermas; Athansius also defended the Trinity against the Arians and played a key role in the establishment of monasticism, through giving us the biography of St. Anthony, and also contributed to the system we use even today to calculate the date of Easter (the Orthodox still use the unmodified Athanasian Computus with the Julian calendar, except in Finland, which is why we usually celebrate Pascha later than everyone else).

    Now, there are some differences between what THC and I could agree on is the shared component of our faith, togrther with the Assyrians and the high church Anglicans and Old Catholics, and the faith of the early church. The early church did not use fixed Eucharistic prayers; these began to be written down in the second or third century but were initially delivered ex tempore by the bishop, following the Didache, which is the most ancient collection of canon law, and gives us a picture of the praxis of the mid first century church. Early Christians tended to celebrate the Eucharist at night or before dawn, often over the graves of martyrs. They tended to believe in a literal millenial reign of Christ, and expected his return within their lifetimes in many cases. Several of them, such as Polycarp, celebrated Easter on the 14th of Nisan regardless of the day of the week. The early church tended to treat baptized sinners severely, imposing humiliating public penances, or in the case of some sects, like the Montanists, permanently excommunicating those who sinned after baptism. That this in fact was an impossibly high standard did not occur to the likes of Tertullian; it was only later that it was realized we sin at the speed of thought. Also the early church did not, in its very early years, even have all the texts we call the New Testament; some scholars date these as late as the early 2nd century, but piety demands that we accept a first century origin of them. At any rate most early Christians did not have access to the entire Athanasian canon,many furthermore, the Didache, the aforementioned Shepherd and Barnabas, and also the epistles of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, and the Infancy Gospel of James, were much read. The word “Scriptures” when used by St. Paul certainly referred to the Old Testament, There were an abundance of counterfeit gospels and epistles, many of which have been recovered in recent centuries, such as the Gospel of Thomas. Almost all Syriac Christians did not read the four canonical Gospels, but rather a somewhat watered down harmony of them, the Diatessaron, produced by Tatian, and only switched to the four canonical gospels in the Peshitta in the 19th century.

    So we can say what the early church looks like, and it can be seen as something that matured into the theologically refined church of the fourth and fifth centuries. Much was clarified as a result of Origen,,and the works of Ss. Athanasius, Ambrose, the Cappadocians, and John Chrysostom, and indeed Augustine, so it’s really in the mid 5th century around the time of the Council of Ephesus that a clear picture of the faith emerges, and that, not in coincidentally, is when the first permanent schism occurred; the Nestorians are still around and who have suffered grievously in recent months alongside the other Christians in Mosul and the Nineveh Plains, which is historically the Nestorian homeland, but is also home to many Chaldean Catholics and Syriac Orthodox. So Al,out from the day Christianity through the work of many men and women who were not only holy, but pious, and blessed, and venerable, many of whom died for Christ at the hands of th Pagans or the Arians, became comprehensible, it has also been divided into different groups. But this does not mean we simply chuck all of the doctrine out the window, aside from a few convenient bits of Augustine, Anselm and Luther interpreted out of context, but rather, that we must critically engage with the ancient church in order to trace the development of theology.

    This is where I disagree with THC, who is content to believe what the Pope tells him to. In joining the Orthodox I have accepted the sporitual leadership of its hierarchy, but my journey there was one made through the study of Patristics, and I will readily admit that one is forced to make some choices, for example, between Nestorianism and the faith of St. Cyril, on the basis of personal preference. One can by such a process in fact arrive at some forms of Protestantism, in particular, Methodism or high church Anglicanism, or some of the more sophisticated forms of Lutheranism and Calvinism, that pay heed to Patristics. One can by such a process also arrive at Catholicsm. But I am skeptical that one could arrive at the faith you’ve outlined, which seems to depend on anti-ecclesiology, anti-doctrine and anti-intellectualism, that is to say, a rejection of the exegetical study of the Bible in favor of reliance on “the voice of the Holy Spirit,” which was the approach taken by George Fox. In fact, I have to ask, are you a Quaker? Because the thrology you’ve outlined does seem to resemble Quakerism closely. And I have nothing against Quakers; they’re rhoroughly nice chaps, and their religion is interesting and has a certain mystical dimension to it. But I cannot personally accept their beliefs because of the gulf between them and the faith of the early church; the faith I have come to believe can be expressed as a narrative beginning at John 1:1 and continuing until the present, without interruption, without room for any Great Apostasy or any discontinuity in the narrative, aside from the gap between the praxis of the ante Nicene and post Nicene church, which was not seeping as suggested by Dan Brown in the Da Vinci Code, who seemed to believe that the Council of Nicea invented the Trinity, but rather, which clearly evolved over the course of the third century and the extreme persecutions that occurred therein into the more mature and spiritual faith that has continued until the present, which is nonetheless the faith of the Apostles, with all unanswered questions having been addressed.

  292. @ Doug:

    While you may not like the word Protestant, you sure did sum up your protestant beliefs. I just choose to worship the way the early Church worshiped.

    I would just caution you to pull the blinders off with regards to your happy house church community. They are just as ripe for abuse and sometimes even more so than “organized Christianity.” There are big red flags when you say your tribe doesn’t have abuse, nor ever has.

  293. @ William G.:
    No, i meant “holy.” Is it ok if you could just engage what i said, and leave it at that? I didn’t anticipate quite such a lengthy response, and think it might help to condense whst you say, even if only a little.

    Peace,
    numo

  294. To THC & William G:

    I’ve seen this movie before. Like it or not, there are a whole lot of people who do not want religious excrement in their lives. Most of the religious people I have run into can’t handle that. I am used to being criticized for what I believe, and how I practice. That’s ok. Keep doing what you have been doing.

    Actually, I think you are right about the protestant thing. I probably do stand in protest to religious excrement, as represented by the abusive religions that began with the ‘early church fathers” and continue to this day in the Mark Driscoll’s of the world, the ARC, and the SGM, et al. So yeah, I protest that kind of dung.

  295. THC wrote:

    your happy house church community

    Like I said, some of you don’t bother to read very well. It’s not a house church. We have an actual building with pews and everything.

    But that’s not the church….

  296. William G. wrote:

    As far as the other suggestions of Doug, as I predicted in my earlier post, there is no answer to the question of how one addresses Christ’s command to “be perfect, even as your father is perfect”

    Yes there is. The answer is Jesus, not your performance. If you read that and think, “Yeah, I can do that!”, you have not understood the gospel, imo. The law is your tutor to drive you to Christ. Working out your own salvation with fear and trembling means submitting to the Holy Spirit (God) who works in you to will and to do for His good pleasure. Cooperation, after the moment of salvation, is called discipleship.

    I am as holy as I am ever going to be, because I was set apart the moment I believed. No religion will change that fact.

  297. @ numo:

    I don’t quite comprehend your point then; someone is surely set apart, or made holy, by virtue of ordination, regardless of whether or not they posess genuine piety. In other words, being ordained does not guarantee that a person will act in a manner consistent with holiness, but rather they may procure condemnation upon themselves by unrepentantly daring to act impiously, by for example engaging in the sexual abuse of minors, but this does not altar the fact of their holiness, merely their unworthiness for the status they have acquired, thus warranting their laicization.

    The Orthodox Church interestingly enough has a concept of holy refuse. That is to say, as a result of errors or negligence, or natural forces, consecrated objects can become unfit for service. In the case of set apart individuals the procedure is to depose them, whereas inanimate objects are destroyed by being burned or in some cases buried. For example, if the reserved sacrament becomes mouldy, it is usually burned. Likewise the sponge used as a purificator in the chalice during the ablutions is burned. If the Eucharist becomes contaminated or is inadvertantly consecrated with some aberration, for example, if olive oil is consecrated instead of wine, the canons of the Assyrian Church of the East specify a similar procedure. They also require the altar to be re consecrated (in fact, a great deal of routine accidents in the Assyrian church require the altar to be reconsecrated, but Assyrian churches have an auxiliary altar in the form of what in West Syriac is called the tablitho, the East Syriac word being different, which I cannot recall).

    The point being holy does not necessarily mean good, or perhaps functional holiness does not imply authentic holiness. However the state of apparent holiness should be respected absent any information to doubt it in the interests of piety and ecclesiastical order.

  298. Doug wrote:

    Like it or not, there are a whole lot of people who do not want religious excrement in their lives.

    Just so we are clear, you going to a building for worship is religion. Raising your hands during singing is religion, taking communion is religion. If you are part of an organized community of believers, you are practicing your religion. Laying on of hands, baptism, ordinations, etc. are all religious practices in your faith tradition. The Bible that you read and believe is a direct result of the religion you despise. What you don’t like is the religious traditions that you don’t agree with/understand. But make no doubt, you are practicing religion.

  299. @ Doug:

    I have not referred to your denomination as excrement, and I find myself shocked that you’re dismissing 1,950 years of Christian history as “dung.” I daresay you ought to reject the New Testament, because it was the early church fathers, who in your mind are mere excrement, who compiled it and determined what is and is not scripture. So considering that you regard St. Athanasius as being excrement, then the Athanasian canon is excrement-of-excrement.

    The reality is that there is absolutely nothing other than the early church fathers that gives the New Testament any meaning as a coherent religious text. Their main input was to select which texts it should contain, and which ones it should not. If one literally does hold such a low opinion of them (which stops just short of regarding them as Devils), then surely the Gnostic Gospels they rejected should be read, and the material they selected dismissed as being, in your words, “dung.”

    As a matter of congeniality I would urge that we not refer to other denominations, religions or the sacred persons thereof as excrement, as this seems coarse even when talking about Scientology. I would be the first to say Scientology is evil, but it seems to me entirely wrong to call it excrement; we might start sounding like the doctrinaire atheists who can’t discuss religious topics without throwing in F bombs for shock value.

    When I was still in the world, fancying myself to be a Christian but living in a lax and hypocritical matter, I swore often and became proficient at it. I have since recognized this was a vice, but the disturbing thing is it is a difficult habit to shake, especially when ones passions are inflamed. It is for this reason I suspect that Christianity has historically advised against intemperate language as a matter of course; Martin Luther’s vulgarity being altogether exceptional among prominent Christian theologians.

    It is in fact objectively offensive beyond the realm of mere theology to see even the Roman Catholic Church, or even Calvinism, referred to as dung. For although the Orthodox regard Calvinism as a heresy, I find myself entirely unwilling to,regard it in such a way. After all, two of my favorite contemporary pastors have been Calvinists and functionally orthodox, if not theoretically. In like manner many of the great Anglican divines were Calvinist. And if it is offensive to refer to Calvinism as dung, how much more offensive is it to see early Christianity referred to in that manner. St. Ignatius, who was fed to lions, who did literally become, in part, excrement by virtue of the cruelty of the Emperor, being referred to in a spiritual sense as excrement is quite literally sickening, and is nothing less than an affront to the vast majority of Christians alive today. The majority of Christians dying for Christ at the hands of Muslims in Syria and Iraq venerate Ignatius, as the third patriarch of Antioch, which is their spiritual center, indeed they are Orthodox, Catholic and Assyrian. Are we to say that they died, and are dying, the modern martyrs of our time, for dung?

  300. Doug I don’t know if you’re an American so it may be called something else, but are you part of the emergent church movement? Does your church have a creed or a FAQ that I could peruse?

  301. @ William G.:
    If you look up the word “holy” in a dictionary, you will see that it has multiple meanings/shades of meaning. I was no referring to “consecrated.”

  302. I am shocked that calling someone’s faith “excrement” is not moderated on here.

    Yet, all of my posts go to moderation first.

  303. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    Doug I don’t know if you’re an American so it may be called something else, but are you part of the emergent church movement? Does your church have a creed or a FAQ that I could peruse?

    Yes, located in Wisconsin. We are an IFCA church, and decidedly not part of the emerging church movement. I might be closer to that line of thinking, in spite of my membership in a conservative Bible Church, in that I have personally rejected most of what goes by the brand “Christian”. One thing I liked about some in the emerging church was the rejection of the “Willow Creek” form.

    But, as the Moody Blues once sang, “Revolution never won, it’s just another form of gun to do again what they have done.”

    I could post a link to our doctrinal statement, but it’s pretty standard Bible church fare. Our church is a bit weird in that we are not really fighting with anyone for a fundamental Bible church. We are just trying to “be” and enjoy one another and worship God.

    The elders are pretty much just regular guys who see themselves as brothers. And I think they would say that we are who we are, and if you want to be with us great. If not, that’s ok too, just don’t try to change us to fit you. That’s what we faced with the attempted takeover this year. That really stunk.

  304. William G. wrote:

    I have not referred to your denomination as excrement, and I find myself shocked that you’re dismissing 1,950 years of Christian history as “dung.”

    Btw, I don’t know if you have access but you might want to spend some time down on the farm, where handling excrement is a daily experience.

    And I did not dismiss 1950 years of church history as dung. I dismiss religious excrement, not church history. We probably differ on what “church” that is. There is a vast difference between the church and religion. But you already knew that.

  305. THC wrote:

    But make no doubt, you are practicing religion.

    Sorry, try again. Only from your perspective is this true. I think I have the Bible on my side. But as you have already said, that does not matter anyway.

    What we “practice” (if you want to call it that) is faith, not religion. Big difference.

  306. Btw, the only reason I commented was that there was some remark about the holiness of priests. That really hasn’t been addressed, specifically, what difference that makes. It’s really difficult to get beyond the religious blast furnace and discuss what really matters, in the context of religious systems that abuse people.

    I think that it’s really difficult, for some, to come to grips with the abuses that are built into one’s own religious system and admit that there is not much “white space” between being a being a champion for those abusive systems and advocating the abuse that persists.

    People who have come out of those abusive systems, as I and other have done, had to go through a whole lot of spiritual terrain to get free and find peace. Forgive me for being too sensitive to the seemingly constant trumpeting of how wonderful these systems are. I find that offensive.

    So there. Now everyone is offended. Are we on equal footing yet? I have no difficulty seeing someone as an equal if they choose to trumpet their chosen religion, provided they are willing to be honest about the abuse inherent in their system. I seriously doubt that I am accorded the same courtesy.

  307. I assumed, when Doug referred to “religious excrement”, that he was alluding to Paul’s comment in Philippians 3 that he considered all things as “σκύβαλα” when set against Christ. Though it need not mean “excrement”, it can, and is often translated as such.

    In context, of course, Paul has just dismissed his own religious credentials. But he considered them to be “loss”, rather than “dog-throw” (however you care to translate that). He uses That Word a verse later, perhaps warming to his subject a little at that point. I don’t believe Doug was dismissing the Roman church, nor church history, as such, though I can’t say I’d have used the word myself.

  308. Again for sake of you young people I am going to say “back in the day” meaning when I was young. That was when the baptists were what they were before they became what they became, the latter being what the resurgers resurged against, when the resurgers had not yet quite become what they are now. Don’t ask me to repeat that.

    Anyhow it was common to teach and emphasize the idea that religion can keep one from God and religion must be seen as something to be avoided. They had relatively few religious practices, per se, compared to some protestant groups, but they did have some practices which were, in my opinion, clearly religious in nature. Many (most?) rejected various practices because the were “religious” in their understanding and use of that word. They said that following Jesus was not about religion but about relationship. There was also a strain of thinking that baptists were not protestants in the same way as lutherans and presbyterians and such because they rejected some typical protestant beliefs and practices. On the other hand they were clearly protestants in my thinking, with some thinking from the radical reformation which does have some differences from the Luther and Calvin strains of thinking. I was told at the time that some of their insistence that they were not protestants stemmed from the idea that some of their ideas pre-dated Luther and Calvin and they wanted to differentiate themselves in that way.

    Now, looking at the baptists I gather that this whole line of thinking is either entirely gone or vastly changed within baptist thinking, seeing the teachings and practices of the neo-cals.

    However, there are still some other groups (not baptists) who differ in theology to the extent that they really can’t be called protestants either based on doctrine or history, so there we go. It is popular in some circles to say that these groups are actually not christian, but I have some reservations about that. May I say that it is certainly possible to thwart a movement and stamp out a group and cut a path of convert or destroy/anathametize, but it is terribly hard if not impossible to make ideas just totally disappear. The old saying is, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

    So anyhow, Doug’s apparent thinking is not something new but perhaps is not voiced as much as it used to be.

  309. Hey all

    Dee here. I need to let you all know that I cannot moderate every word of every lengthy comment. I attempt to skim the comments on this particular part of the blog and I can assure you that I miss a whole lot.

    I started this page so that people could discuss, in length and depth, their particular brand of Christianity, the building of the Suez Canal or anything else your hearts desire. This is an open page which means that I do not determine what gets discussed here.

    I am going to need everyone to keep it cool. If this turns into a major food fight, I will shut down Open Discussion and that would be sad.

    I will not discuss how we moderate or who or why anyone goes into moderation. There is no conspiracy but I bet there are a couple of you who will not believe me. To you I say-go look at other blogs and see if any other blog owner in evangelicalism allows such lengthy discussions with little interference.

  310. Nancy wrote:

    So anyhow, Doug’s apparent thinking is not something new but perhaps is not voiced as much as it used to be.

    Thanks for this.

  311. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Philippians 3 that he considered all things as “σκύβαλα” when set against Christ. Though it need not mean “excrement”, it can, and is often translated as such.

    Yes, there it is. KJV uses that word in verse 9 I believe. And set against Christ, my own righteousness, as I understand it, is like filthy rags. And so we are to be pursuing the righteousness that comes by faith in Christ, which is antithetical to any good works or worked out righteousness to obtain eternal life.

    As I understand it, and maybe I am wrong, the whole religious world, or you could say the world of religion, stands in stark contrast to what Paul was urging his readers to seek here. The whole religious world is all about personal performance as the means to obtain eternal life, while the Word of God says that eternal life is obtained by faith alone.

    I find very few communities that have this kind of understanding about faith to be abusive, and I find the vast majority of communities who have personal performance as the means of salvation in their system to be most abusive.

  312. And now for something completely different:

    Recently I gave away my last Windows 8 machine and made the switch to Linux. I have been a Linux user for quite a few years, and slowly have found ways to eliminate my need to use Windows at all. The Mac OS and hardware are out of my price range, so Linux was the obvious choice.

    So, I migrated to a laptop from 2004 running the Puppy flavor of Linux. This past weekend I finished configuring it so that I can process the sound files we record each week, and keep the website up to date. I have noticed that this 10 year old laptop running Linux (2GB RAM, 80GB HD) is faster than my previous Windows 8 machine (8 GB RAM, 500GB HD) in every respect. It is fascinating really how an older computer can be re-purposed and saved from the landfill with just a little tinkering.

    And it is amazing how everything just works. All of my USB drives work just fine, I can burn CDs, work with photos, email, browse the web – just about everything i used to do with my previous machine. Just wanted to give a plug for Linux, especially Puppy Precise. It is very cool. It might be an option if you are looking for a different computing experience and don’t want to lay out a lot of cash.

  313. Doug wrote:

    while the Word of God says that eternal life is obtained by faith alone.

    Salvation is by grace, through faith.

    The only place in the Bible where the words faith alone are used together is James 2:24.

  314. THC wrote:

    Doug wrote:
    while the Word of God says that eternal life is obtained by faith alone.
    Salvation is by grace, through faith.
    The only place in the Bible where the words faith alone are used together is James 2:24.

    So nice talking to you. Be blessed!

  315. Doug wrote:

    THC wrote:
    Doug wrote:
    while the Word of God says that eternal life is obtained by faith alone.
    Salvation is by grace, through faith.
    The only place in the Bible where the words faith alone are used together is James 2:24.
    So nice talking to you. Be blessed!

    I am! Beyond measure!

  316. @ Doug:
    Interesting! I don’t like Windows 8.1 *at all,* and this sounds like a viable alternative, though i’ll wait to try it – just got a new laptop. For now, I’m using a program caled Classic Shell to create an alternative to the – UI. In my case, I’ve set it up to look like Win 7, but of course, I’m still running 8.1. (Like it or not, and i don’t.)

  317. I confess the last Linux distro I played with was Gentoo back in 2003 or so on one of those gumdrop Macs to see if I could, so it’s been a grip since I played with Linux. I’m thinking of making a media server and the idea of a Linux distro intrigues. How difficult is it to install and have they solved the Netflix on Linux problem yet?

  318. Oops my smiley face did not interface with keyboard. I was just kidding. Promise. I get a kick out of comments like yours. They remind me of how tech ignorant I am.

  319. @ Lydia:

    Linux is “free”, although the cost of Windows on new PCs is negligible; it’s more bother to get them without an OS than with Windows. I run a large number of Linux servers but I do not recommend it as an end user operating system, except in the form of Android devices. In addition, on a technical level I’ve been highly annoyed by he transition from SysV Init to systemd for startup process management, so where possible my servers run the OpenBSD operating system, which is more traditional, and also has advanced routing features that I have found useful that Linux lacks. I was at one time an enthusiast of desktop Linux but the GNOME 3 / Unity debacle alienated me. I also very much dislike desktop Linux users, who are kind of cult like in their obsession over the GPL and various matters of technology that are irrelevant.

    *****

    On another note, regarding Paul, whereas he did refer to his prior accomplishments as dung, he never attacked the faith of others using such language, nor did he liken any persons to excrement. At least not in the epistles that have come down to us. One cannot furthermore even argue convincingly that Paul was tangentially criticizing Judaism or even to a certain extent Pharisaism, as his comments imply a proper disdain for his prior religious pride and Pharisaistic excess, which was a form of spiritual delusion, or prelest as we call it in the Orthodox Church.

  320. Doug wrote:

    while the Word of God says that eternal life is obtained by faith alone.

    The New Testament (which is not the Word, that, rather, is Jesus Christ, according to John 1:1) does not say that; St. James explicitly states that faith without works is dead.

    Martin Luther interpolated the word “alone” into his translation of Paul, and it’s also worth noting that until Martin Luther, no one in the history of the church actually believed that. Luther also attempted for a time to have the epistle of St. james regarded as apocrypha becaue it contradicted his position. However he in time capitulated and begrudgingly included it in his translation. The New Perspective on Paul favored by scholars such as NT Wright, which really is more like the Old Perspective on Paul, furthermore casts doubt on the traditional readings of the epistles that are used as proof texts for sola fide. The Word Himself taught us many things regarding our salvation, none of which amount to sola fide, but all of which seem to place immense personal demands on us beyond a mere intellectual faith.

    Even Luther in his doctrine of sola fide had limits, holding baptism and holy communion as being necessary acts of faith, which is why Lutheran churches have a somewhat high sacramental theology. Indeed many Lutheran pastors hear confessions, and there is some evidence to suggest that Luther regarded confession as being almost a sacrament. Luther specifically taught that sacraments require matter, such as bread and wine or water.

  321. @ Lydia:
    Heh, I figured. ^_^ Linux is usually free, though costs may occur depending on what distribution you go with. I’m excited for Windows X. I haven’t been impressed with 8 enough to give it a real try.

  322. By the way, I should warn everyone that the distro wars that invariably accompany discussions of the Linux operating system put the doctrinal disputes we’ve been having to shame, so I urge us not to go there. I will say Windows X looks to be an improvement. Also in my earlier post I forgot to stump for what is in fact the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Operating Aystem, that being Solaris, which by virtue of its filesystem, it’s dynamic kernel debugging, and the array of sophisticated virtualization techniques built in, is sublime, a quasi-divine operating system.

    Even today Solaris users like myself remain a loyal cult. We maintain our SPARC systems, some of them state of the art Niagara machines, and others quite elderly UltraSparcs, as an act of veneration for the divine Solaris. We lament the collapse of Sun Microsystems and the schism between the open source and Oracle users. And like the Cult of Cthulu, we are busily plotting to avenge our platform’s demise should it go the way of BeOS.

    However where Solaris is too much bother, I just use OpenBSD. If you don’t understand this comment, review man (5) /dev/null Also. Im very fond of IOS (the real one by Cisco, not the iPhone/iPad OS). The apophatic nature of its user interface helped prepare my mind for the apophatic nature of Orthodox theology. For example, to turn on a port in IOS, the command is “no shutdown”.

  323. William G. wrote:

    On another note, regarding Paul, whereas he did refer to his prior accomplishments as dung, he never attacked the faith of others using such language, nor did he liken any persons to excrement.

    Exactly. There was some fancy footwork by (in the) Nick (of time) and adopted by Doug to use Paul as a scapegoat. However, the post was clearly meant to be derogatory towards Catholics/ancient Church (i.e., the “religious” institutional abusers)

    Don’t worry though. Dee cleared it all up by telling you and I (indirectly, of course) that we should just be thankful we get to post at all, because no other protestant evangelical blog would be so tolerant.

  324. @ William G.:
    However, it does seem that Paul was still a Pharisee, albeit also a disciple of Christ. There’s absolutely no indication that he abandoned normal Jewish practices, cf. references to his taking a Nazirite vow and the like. I don’t think he ever discounted the reality of his religious background, even though most xtians tend to read him as saying that. He was as adamantly Jewish as the rest of the apostles, the big difference being that he believed that all people were now able to participate in God’s kingdom via Christ.

  325.   __

    “Is Wartburg Watch Ripe For Abuse?”

    hmmm…

    THC continues to defend his version of a holy romp-a-room, on this blog, but never ‘defines’ it.

    At least Wm.G ‘defines’ his.

    (bump)

    THC, ‘we’ want a second opinion. 

    -snicker- 

    How about getting your ‘priest’ to come over to TWW for a ‘session’ or two?

    🙂

  326. @ numo:

    I think you’re quite right regarding Paul. What he was trying to say was not that the reality had changed in terms of the moral law of the Old Testament, but that gentile Christians did not have to halakhically proselytize in order to receive Christ. The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, which I believe to still be binding on Christians, did relax the dietary restrictions, but retained the requirement not to eat blood. Thus I do wish I’d never had any black pudding; it doesn’t taste that great and I’m fairly certain I transgressed, albeit unwittingly. I don’t think we need to eat Kosher meat and indeed there are some aspects of Kosher/Halal that have become controversial in terms of cruelty to animals. I believe the original intent of these laws was at least in part humane slaughter.

  327. @ THC:
    Err, her comment was aimed at Doug, too. At least, that’s how i read it.

    As for so much open discussion on most any blog, she’s cotrect – and it *is* the Deebs’ blog, not yours, mine, THC’s etc. Moderating comments on the regular posts is likely a job, let alone dealing with this page as well.

  328. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    @ Lydia:
    Heh, I figured. ^_^ Linux is usually free, though costs may occur depending on what distribution you go with. I’m excited for Windows X. I haven’t been impressed with 8 enough to give it a real try.

    Yeah, I installed a Windows 7 overlay to make it behave, but eventually the recipient’s needs outweighed my own so it was an easy decision to make.

    I use Puppy because it is small and fast, which is way more important on older hardware. It is also very easy to configure, and recognizes older peripherals. It is free, as in beer, and free to modify if you want to get into that. With the world going to subscription based everything, I don’t have to be online all of the time to work.

  329. Lydia wrote:

    @ Doug:
    Dumb question: is Linux free?
    I have seen nothing but complaints on Win 8.

    Yeah, it’s free. You can buy a distribution on a memory stick that will cost of course, and you can buy it on a cd, but almost all versions / flavors are free for download. I also use it to rescue broken Windows machines (that won’t boot to Windows), to save a users files. Works great for that, and for daily internet / email / word processing functions. And mahjong… 🙂

  330. THC wrote:

    The only place in the Bible where the words faith alone are used together is James 2:24.

    You might want to meditate on Galatians 2:16 when you have time. 🙂

  331. numo wrote:

    Interesting! I don’t like Windows 8.1 *at all,* and this sounds like a viable alternative, though i’ll wait to try it – just got a new laptop.

    You could download a copy of Ubuntu, burn a cd, and try it without making changes to your new computer at all. My largest obstacle for making the switch was the tax program I used to run. Since the Lord has seen fit to shrink our income so that doing them manually is faster now, I don’t need the software any longer. So…

    My 2015 Federal Income Tax Form:
    Line 1: “How much did you make last year?” ________________
    Line 2: Send it in.

  332. THC wrote:

    On another note, regarding Paul, whereas he did refer to his prior accomplishments as dung, he never attacked the faith of others using such language, nor did he liken any persons to excrement.

    Nor did I. You read what you want to read.

  333. @ William G.:
    I bow to the OpenBSD user, I am a mere dilettante and technical support for IT. I have no dog in the Linux fight, though I still love the idea of an open source operating system. It’s just never been easy enough to use as a gamer or as a web browser.

  334. @ Lydia:
    I have been a unix/linux user for >40 years and am most comfortable with a command line interface. However this is not by itself is not a recommendation. If you are contemplating switching to linux the first thing you should do is make a list of the programs you use and determine if there is an open source equivalent. Most providers of proprietary programs are loathe to make them available on an open system. If you are highly dependent on a particular one for a specialized task check very carefully if it or an equivalent open source program is available for linux. If you have files used by a proprietary application make sure the open source alternate can read them. The common things, email, web browsers, word processors and spreadsheets should not cause problems.

  335. Doug wrote:

    You might want to meditate on Galatians 2:16 when you have time.

    Absolutely. This scripture tells us that “works of law” will not justify. As I said, we are justified apart from works of law, which includes the Mosaic laws, both ceremonial and moral, but Paul is not teaching that “faith alone in Christ” is all that is necessary. Jesus told us what to do in Matthew 25:31-46.

  336. THC wrote:

    but Paul is not teaching that “faith alone in Christ” is all that is necessary

    Sorry, but I can’t have a conversation with you. Have a Merry Christmas.

  337. @ Doug:

    I understand. Sola Fide is an untenable doctrine of the reformation and hotly disputed among protestants.

    Simple faith is simple only if you believe faith is simple. When I look at Abraham, his faith was anything but simple.

  338. Looks like Mark Driscoll is already rising from the ashes before Mars Hill is even liquidated. Heavy sigh.

  339. Look at all his legalese for using anything on his website. And this from a guy who has plagiarized in 7 of his books. Unbelievable.

  340. The real tragedy is that with all he wrote, Driscoll probably never read the works of St. Dionysius the Aereopagite, whose locality gave his mega church its name. These works outline a mystical theology based on describing God using negation and can have a powerful effect. The remade Battlestar Galactica, which unlike the original (which was basically Mormons In Space) had a subtle and interesting treatment of religion, referenced it in describing the monotheistic Cylons offering prayers to the “cloud of Unknowing” which is a metaphor Dionysius used to describe God.

  341. Doug wrote:

    Albuquerque Blue wrote:
    I bow to the OpenBSD user
    Ditto. So glad you didn’t say SCO tho…

    By the way, speaking of BSD, I know a prominent member of the FreeBSD community who was for a time a member of the Temple of Set, which separated from the Church of Safan in a schism; the Sethians acrually are theistic Satanists, who worship the Egyptian God of Chaos who they regard as a proto-Satan, and also as being identical with Seth, who was worshipped in certain Gnostic sects; in contrast the LaVeyans were atheistic Satanists who regarded Satan in allegorical terms. When he discovered the Temple of Set took it literally, he joined the Rosicrucians.

    Such beliefs are tragically not uncommon among UNIX and Linux users. Consider Eric S. Raymond, who is an avowed witch. Larry Ellison is I believe a highly sophisticated Buddhist; Zen is held in high regard. There are a few who are Christian, like Theodore T’so. I believe that this community could be an active mission field for the Orthodox Church because of the exotic nature of our rites and our systems of meditation. Actually Orthodoxy has some similarity to Zen especially in the monastic context, but our aim is different; we desire salvation and eternal life and not annihilation.

    The tragedy of Indian religions is their absolute belief in reincarnation and their desire to escape it by what amounts to the loss of self. It would seem that if the atheists were right, the Indians would have accomplished their religious goal, but the extreme austerities they inflict upon themselves would have been for nought. The Pure Land Buddhists at least have a concept of a heaven rather than annihilation. I do very much like the Sikhs however; I wouldn’t want to be a Sikh but I like their egalitarian ethos, and the elephants and horses and swordsmanship of their holy warriors, the Nihang, are pretty cool.

  342. Doug wrote:

    THC wrote:
    but Paul is not teaching that “faith alone in Christ” is all that is necessary
    Sorry, but I can’t have a conversation with you. Have a Merry Christmas.

    This I believe is actually the Orthodox approach. I disagreed with you vehemently over your characterization of Patristics, but on this point your view is both scriptural and Patristic, in so far as we are advised by John and Paul not to get in drawn out arguments with those who preach a different Gospel. Without saying who is right and who is wrong, and in my case I disagree vehemently with both you and THC, I believe that quiescence and tranquility can be restored to the ODP by not further dwelling on divisive points of doctrine, which are leading us into a poisonous area.

    But please, let us not reduce the ODP to Linux distro wars. I had hoped never to see the letters “SCO” again. Surely there is a realm of mutual theological interest that we can discuss without descending into sectarian strife.

    I would very much like to discuss how we can help the persecuted Christians in Syria and Iraq. There was a heartbreaking article in the Telegraph about the depopulation of a Christian suburb of Baghdad. I fear for the loss of the Syriac language and of the ancient traditions and cultural heritage of the Syriac churches (the Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Catholics, Assyrian Church of the East and Chaldeans). I have grown to greatly love the liturgical music of these churches, much of which is preserved only by oral Tradition, and differs from village to village.

  343. It should also of course be mentioned the Protestant minority is endangered as well, as are the Arabic speaking Christians of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, which in the U.S. has had a very large American convert base since the 1980s. In Syria, the Church of South India, which was established by a merger of most of the Protestant denominations, uses a hybrid Syriac-Anglican liturgy that is quite interesting, that was also the origin of celebration versus populum rather than ad orientem or the traditional Anglican northerly orientation.

  344. William G. wrote:

    This I believe is actually the Orthodox approach.

    I think it is generally the Catholic approach as well. This is where I disagree with Scott Hahn and his New Pauline perspective. The problem, as I see it, is that Paul doesn’t make a distinction between the ceremonial law and the moral law. The new perspective says that Paul is referring to the ceremonial laws when he talks about the works of law. I believe he is talking about the entire old covenant laws- including the 10 commandments. If not, Judaizers have a foothold claiming that certain aspects of the old covenant are still in effect, such as Saturday worship, clean and unclean meats, holy days, etc.

    Interestingly, other threads on this blog talk specifically about tithing as a requirement for Christians. Not surprisingly, some evangelical groups still teach tithing as a requirement for Christians. Unfortunately for them, though, tithing is not required under the new covenant.

    I find irony in those who preach “faith alone” and then turn around and qualify it with “but you have to tithe.”

  345. @ THC:

    The founders of the Wartburg Watch have been consistently opposed to those megachurches and abusive pastors who threaten non-tithing parishioners with hellfire and damnation. Also the rate of tithing paid by Israel in ancient times was lower than the flat 10%.

    Now for those who can afford to give 10% it’s commendable to do so. I urge people,to use discretion though when donating it. Many Orthodox churches pass multiple collection plates earmarked for different purposes. At the Episcopal Church USA, for example, I suggest not putting anything in the collection plate until the church stops spending this money on lawsuits against parishes and dioceses that want to leave, and instead directly donate to charities attached to the church, such as the Samaritan Center. Many megachurches have a shockingly high staff pay:Charity ratio.

    In Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches, and presumably Protestant churches,married pastors with families do cost more than celibate hieromonks or celibate secular clergy in the case of Rome. For parishes that can afford them I think they’re worth it; the Eastern Catholics can readily tell any Latin Rite Catholic the benefits of having a married priest who has experience with family issues. For small parishes and missionary parishes though there is a huge cost advantage in using a monk priest, and archimandrites are also useful as the senior priest of parishes with multiple clergy; in the Orthodox Church an archimandrite is usually a bishop in training.

    Lastly, for all who are celebrating Christmas today according to the Gregorian or Revised Julian Calendar, have a merry Christmas. My main observance will be on the 7th but I will be attending a service today, as being a liturgical enthusiast I can’t miss the opportunity to “double dip” as it were. I’ll also be doing a Tridentine mass tomorrow at the local RC parish. I’ve had a hellish cold that’s kept me out of church since my monastic retreat, so this is a golden opportunity to attend some liturgies.

  346. William G. wrote:

    but the extreme austerities they inflict upon themselves

    By no means do the vast majority of Indians live in this way. Besides, Hinduism comes in a multiplicity of forms, even non-theistic (for a small minority). It is a very old religion, with a long history of regional variants and changes in belief and practice. I think you might need to take these things into consideration. Likewise with Buddhism, which has a *huge* amount of diversity in belief, practice and varies from somewhat theistic (in that local deities have been incorporated into its pantheon, as in Tibet) to entirely non-theistic – for the latter, think Zen.

    *

    William, I want to wish a most merry and happy Christmas to you and to all TWW readers, commenters, the Deebs, The Guy Behind the Curtain, and families. (Both human and animal.)

  347. William G. wrote:

    Sethians

    there is an entirely different – and much older – sect known as Sethians. They take their name from Seth, son of Adam.

  348. William G. wrote:

    annihilation

    I think you might not see this in the same way that adherents of Zen Buddhism see it. It isn’t “annihilation,” it is more like transcendence of the self. Same for Hinduism, but this is an incredibly broad-brush, over-simplified reply and I am certainly not competent to discuss these things in detail. There is a former practitioner of Zen (very seriously committed) who comments over at internetmonk.com, who has a wonderful breadth and depth of knowledge on Buddhism and can clearly explain its ideas and practice with great clarity and simplicity. You might consider watching the comments section there. They occasionally have an Open Discussion day, which is a good time to ask questions.

  349. @ numo:

    The Temple of Set synthesized in its form of theistic Satanism the Sethian doctrine. This is not uncommon by the way, because many Gnostic sects were actually in part Satanic. This is not to say they were devil worshippers, but rather they viewed the Lord of the Old Testament as an incompetent creator diety, or demiurge, and saw Satan imparting secret knowledge to Eve on how to escape from bondage to the Demiurge and into the purely spiritual Pleroma. In this theological model Christ was himself reconceived as a teacher of Gnosis, imparting to select disciples who had a sufficient divine spark within them the vital knowledge required to escape the evil material world and ascend to the spiritual realm. Thus Gnosticism naturally built on the related Marcionist and Docetic sects to create a sect which viewed the Old Testament God as the true devil. There are traces of Gnosticism in the Yazidi religion, combined with Sufi mysticism; I interpret Sheikh Adi, who had been a Sufi mystic, as rebelling against what he saw as the evil of the Islamic faith in synthesizing from Zoroastrian and other Kurdish and Iranian faith traditions a somewhat Gnostic, emanationist faith that revered the Islamic conception of the devil.

  350. @ numo:

    I have studied Zen Buddhism in detail. A noted Zen master advised his disicples not to bother themselves with thoughts about the state of an Arahant after death because such a state is beyond all ontological categories. Likewise Therevada Buddhism seems to promise oblivion and not any kind of eternal bliss. Only some schools of Mahayana Buddhism offer the prospect of eternal happiness for the deceased Arahant, and to my knowledge only the a Pure Land School offers any meaningful promise of the retention of identity. It’s worth noting that Nirvana literally means “blown out”, and it is debatable even if one interprets the blowing out to refer only to desire, how someone existing in a state absent of desires or what one might call “stimuli” could be regarded as alive. Indeed if one studies the more advanced Buddhist tests, in particular in the Chan or Zen Tradition, there is much discussion of the effort required to shut down intellectual activity. In some schools it is said that a great many who strive for Nirvana will be held back by this fear of oblivion or an inability to shut down their intellectual their intellectual processes; they will instead enter various heavenly realms for their efforts.

    Hindus, or at least some Hindus following the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, for their part desire to be reunited with the Brahmin God, but again, this moksha or liberation necessarily entails a loss of individuality, which is greater than the loss of identity or memory which typically accompanies reincarnation. The average Hindu does face not insubstantial austerity, in that most Hindus are either vegetarian or eat a restrictive diet when it comes to meat; beef is obviously off the menu, not just for Hindus but for virtually everyone in India. Jains live an even more austere life in terms of dietary restrictions. And a great many Hindus and Jains do become renunciates, living in a level of austerity that in many cases exceeds dramatically that of Christians. Jains will not infrequently end their life deliberately by slowly reducing their food intake.

    I would urge you to immerse yourself in the scholarship on all of the religions discussed here and not content yourself with Internet forums, which can be unreliable. Regarding Buddhism, some monasteries either take a heterodox view or else publish outright misleading information on the objectives of their religion which differs from the view of Buddhist scholars. Likewise it should also be noted that while the scholarly consensus of the moment is that Buddhism even in its superficially theistic forms is in fact non theistic, most Hindus are theistic and regard the non theistic minority as, essentially, a different religion, on a par with Buddhism and Jainism (which itself is probably non-Theistic). Jainism posits a pre existing cosmos whereas Buddhism tends to regard reality as a shared illusion, although different schools of Buddhism diverge on how this came to be. There is a definite similarity between Buddhism and Gnosticism and it is certain that Manicheanism was influenced. The last surviving Manichean temple is disguised as a Buddhist temple; just a few visual clues point convincingly to its true identity. For that matter one can interpret pure Taoism as non-Theistic, and Confucianism by itself avoids such cosmological speculation, concerning itself with more practical religious rites such as divination and ancestor worship; however most practitioners of these faiths also participated in the traditional Chinese religion and Taoist priests especially tended to play a key role in organizing observances of the traditional religion; thus one will often find the Jade Emperor presiding over the Taoist pantheon of Immortals in Taoist shrines. Zen or Chan Buddhism can be interpreted as a fusion of Taoist and Buddhist theology or philosophy divorced from traditional Chinese folk religion, forming a sort of purist school that in many respects seems to have returned closer to the original Buddhist faith than even Therevada Buddhism, which seems to have evolved quite a bit.

    Interestingly, Tibetan Buddhism is largely a syncretic fusion of Buddhism with the Nestorian Chrisrianity of the Assyrian Church of the East, and also with the Bon religion. Tibetan melodies resemble those of Assyrian chant, and the hierarchy of lamas was modeled on the hierarchy of bishops that governed the Church of the East, which had a large presence in Tibet and China until the genocide of Timur the Lame.

    I am by no means a fan of the Buddhist religion; I regard it as something that has led, and continues to lead, many Christians away from salvation, in pursuit of an escape from the stresses of this life through forms of meditation the Orthodox regard as extremely dangerous. We believe that any time you put your mind into neutral, so to speak, demons can gain access, and thus Chrisfians should remain wakeful and in control at all times. The Jesus Prayer is differentiated from a mantra based on the instruction to consciously and without mental imagery consider the meaning of each word, as opposed to automatically repeating the syllables, or the Catholic praxis of the rosary in which the specific mysteries are visually imagined with each decade. The Orthodox regard entering s trance, entering a neutral mental state, or using the imagination during prayer as being extremely dangerous activities. For this reason we also are very concerned about the Charismatic Movement and anything that smacks of mediumship. Our concern is based on a genuine desire to, in all humility, avoid any situation where we could be led into spiritual delusion. At a more advanced level, Orthodox teaching is that everyone is in varying states of delusion and one aspect of salvation accomplished through cooperation with God’s grace, and impossible otherwise, is the progressive stripping away of this delusion, which is defeated along with the passions. Thus one can see how Orthodoxy and Buddhism have a superficial similarity; the difference is both in terms of praxis and cosmology; we believe as do most Christians that by faith in Jesus Christ and through grace, with which we must cooperate voluntarily, we can go to Heaven, and then be resurrected unto life everlasting at the end of time. Orthodox eschatology is quite another topic though and one reason why I don’t expect anyone reading this to become Orthodox is due to how frightening it is, and unlike purgatory, it has both scriptural and Patristic support.

    I believe the Scholastic theologians who conceived of Purgatory were attempting to create a more hopeful reinterpretation of Patristic eschatology and resolve certain paradoxes it contains (for example the view that the conditions of those in Hell and their eschatological outcome at the Last Judgement can be improved through intercessory prayer), so in a sense, purgatory was actually about making Christianity less frightening, and Luther in turn made it still less frightening, and Calvin took that approach to an extreme with unconditional election. But our Lord does warn us of a large number of people being damned as it were. The Gospel is, even according to Orthodox eschatology, still extremely good news; before Christianity I can find no religion that offered as specifically reassuring an outcome in terms of the preservation of identity and bodily resurrection, available for all and not a specific tribe (it being debatable to what extent ancient Zoroastrianism was available to converts).

  351. @ William G.:
    The person i mentioned was a Zen monk for a long time. William, i have done plenty of reading myself, over many years, and grew up being somewhat acquainted with the art and culture of some Japanese Budfhist sects, as well as some small (very!) awareness of Shinto, whivh is very, very diverse, beyond my ability to comprehend, in gact.

    As for Tibetans and Nestorisnism, i have serious doubts as to the veracity of the sources (could you please note titles/authors, and i would like to read this material?) It sounds more like wishful thinking than fact, especially given Tibet’s geographical isolation and the difficulties of traveling ovrr harsh terrain, with extremely chancy westher for most of the year. Such stories informed Western fantasies about Tibet as Shangri-la, right down to the Nestorian priests. Bon (and shamanistic practices) have a lot to do with the way Vajrayana Buddhism developed, along with the prominence of tantrism, which is not something that i want tomget into here. And even though China has bern brutal to the Tibetan people, so has the Tibetan religious dominance of ordinary Tibetans been frequently harsh and exploitative (serfdom, rich monasteries but deeply impoverished population, etc.). I really wish it wasn’t such a popular thing here in the West, but the art, ceremonies etc. plus *long* history of Westeners creating various versions of a Tibetan utopia in popular literature, culture and in movements like Theosophy… it’s all made it difficult for us to see both Tibet and the Tibetan people (including the Muslim minority there) as they actually are. I suspect there is *ssome* influence from Nestorianism in the DNA of Tibetan culture, but it never really took hold in Central Asia in a more permanent way, and so many centuries have passed since then that it’s just about impossible to trace these things. One of the hats I’ve worn is that of a historian, so I’m very familiar with research methodology as well as the “see what we want to see” tendency that all,of us have in looking at the past.

    We tend to read back from our own pov – understandably – but the past is not some kind of prior version of the present. It is profoundly alien, whether we’-re talking about 6th c. Constantinople, Elizabth I’s reign or even the mid-19th c. here in the US. (And the 20th c. before and during WWI – our world today has bern influenced by WWs I and II in ways that we can’t even begin to comprehend.) Tibet was still a feudal society in the mid-20th c., and i think it would be necessary to spend a lifetime there to truly begin to comprhend what Tibetan culture is really like. Same with India – which is such an enormous, complex and diverse country that it’s very hard for us to even begin to imagine what life is like there. The contrast between the urbanized IT people and most of the rest of their countrymen serves to underline the disparate lives of multiple Indias, imo.

    And while i do appreciate your knowledge, i think
    it’s important to give other commenters the benefit of the doubt, in terms of what they might know and what they might not. At least, it’s true in this case. 😉

  352. @ numo: also keep in mind that Lhasa itself was off limits to outsiders for a very long time, supposing they actually succeeded in getying there in the 1st place. Talk about an arduous journey, even today! Ditto for Bhutan, Sikkim et. al. The geography is every bit as forbidfing as that of Afghanistan; the climate more so. (Well, climates, but that’s another story.)

  353. @ numo:

    Here is some history on the Church of the East in Tibet: http://www.aina.org/books/bftc/bftc.htm

    And some more:
    http://people.opposingviews.com/influence-assyrian-church-east-tibetan-buddhism-9404.html
    http://www.oikoumene.org/en/church-families/the-assyrian-church
    http://www.cnewa.org/default.aspx?ID=413&pagetypeID=1&sitecode=IQUS&pageno=1

    The Assyrian Church of the East prior to the persecution of Tamerlane, or Timur the Lame, in the 13th century, stretched right across Asia and was the first Christian church on most of the continent. My theory is it initially expanded through the vast network of Aramaic or Syriac speaking Jewish, Persian and Mesopotamian traders, and then from there expanded into regions like China and Tibet where Syriac was less well known. After Tamerlane only the Nasranis of South India (where there is also the ancient community of Kochin Jews, or what is left of it, as most moved to Israel in recent years) and the Assyrians of Iraq and Iran, mainly in the Nineveh Plains region and Baghdad, remained.

    Of the Assyrians who survived the grnocide of Tamerlane, they, together with the Syriac Orthodox, Chaldean Catholics (former Assyrians who joined the Catholic Church in what was basically a family feud between rival tribes; both the Assyrian Catholicos of the East and the Chaldean Patriarch of Babylon were for many years hereditary offices, passing from celibate uncle to celibate nephew, the last such Catholicos being assassinated in 1975 and succeeded by the current Assyrian prelate Mar Dinka IV, who I have had the pleasure to see in person), the Armenians, and the Pontic Greeks, suffered a horrifying genocide just about 100 years ago at the hands of the Ottoman Caliphate.

    Now it seems 100 years later, history is repeating itself and the Assyrians and other Christians in Syria, Iraq and possibly even Turkey could face another genocide under the ISIL caliphate and the increasingly dictatorial and unsympathetic Turkish president Erdogan. So I would urge anyone and everyone to donate or volunteer to or for one of the persecuted churches of the Middle East or organizations like the Voice of the Martyrs and others that provide them with relief. I also urge charity towards the Yazidis, who have always been allies of the Christians. During the first Year of the Sword, the Yazidis sheltered Armenians among them and as a result some settled in Armenia, where they comprise the largest ethnoreligious minority. Fortunately the Peshmerga has managed to retake the Sinjar Pass, so things are looking up for them, but the Christians remain greatly endangered. Under Tamerlane, Christianity was wiped out of places like Tibet and Mongolia with such thoroughness that people find it hard to believe there were churches there; let’s not let that happen in Iraq and Syria.

  354. By the way, here are two more links regarding the Assyrian Church in the Middle East:

    http://voynichimagery.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/paradoxical-history-of-balsam-2/
    Featuring a nice map of the dioceses and archaeological sites; Tibet was a diocese from Patriarch Timothy II until Tamerlane, a few hundred years longer than the US has been a nation amusingly enough. This Bishophric is contemporaneous with the Manichaen temple found in China.

    http://www.nestorian.org/the_nestorians_in_china_-_the_far_east.html
    A rather thorough treatment by a Nestorian apologist.

    One of my best friends is an Assyrian priest. We agree the Chrisrology of the so called Nestorian church is not actually Nestorian and never was; the Assyrians rather embraced the person of Nestorius to avoid being persecuted by the Sassanians.

  355. @ William G.:
    I will insist on the transcendent aspect of Buddhism. Transcendence of self, and of earthly desires. To us, it might appear like obliteration or annihilation, but there are many nuances and shades of meaning that seem to get lost or misunderstood in Western discussions of Buddhism and other South and East Asian religions.

    I must admit that I’m at a loss to understand the Orthodox abhorrence of imahination re. prayer or private devotional reading of Scripture. I don’t see how it’s possible to shut down the imagination, which is still active even when a person isn’t engaging in visualization a la Ignatius of Loyola’s spiritual exercises and the like. It seems to me to be almost a denial of our humanity, of the creativity that is part of us by virtue of being created in God’s image. Perhaps i am misunderstanding some of what you’re trying to say, rhough – ?

  356. @ William G.:
    As for Buddhism leading people into “escape from thestresses of this life,” really… i don’t understand why you make this claim, let alone what you’re basing it on. If you’re reading sources that are interpreting Buddhism through an Orthodox lens, then i would strongly suggest that you go to actual Buddhist sources instead, as what you wrote wbove, about Buddhism and other Asian religions, seems to me to be based on some serious misunderstandings re. the actual beliefs and practices found within those religions.

    Again, though, i would reiterate both of my previous statements regarding broad brushed comments (mine) as well as stating clearly that i am by no means a scholar of any of these religions, let alone an expert. Blog comments are, by nature, not a good venue for in-depth discussions of vast religious traditions. At most, we can make a few brief points and then move on. Which is, at this point, what i propose to do. (No offense; i just dont think we’re going to get very far in this discussion on this particular blog.)

  357. @ William G.:
    I was referring to a pre-modern European sect, actually, not gnosticism or Egyptian religion. I kind of think we are talking past each other here, and will let it go at that.

  358. William G. wrote:

    But please, let us not reduce the ODP to Linux distro wars. I had hoped never to see the letters “SCO” again.

    A few short comments to help orient a reader about how to start evaluating LINUX distributions hardly compares to the legal wars over control of UNIX as documented on groklaw.net which is apparently what your SCO reference is about. The SCO instigated wars included high stakes legal battles over the control of UNIX. The legal abuse in the SCO case is an interesting parallel to the various forms of abuse documented on TWW about megachurch wealth and control efforts.

  359. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    I’m thinking of making a media server and the idea of a Linux distro intrigues. How difficult is it to install and have they solved the Netflix on Linux problem yet?

    Netflix works with all recent distros if you use Google Chrome (>=37, I think).

    Using any Linux distro as a media server is simple – just install the “minidlna” package. It’s easy to configure a folder that it shares on your network for TVs.

  360. William G. wrote:

    the Eastern Catholics can readily tell any Latin Rite Catholic the benefits of having a married priest who has experience with family issues.

    Oh please oh please oh please stop it with the “married priests can address family issues better” MYTH. It is absolutely 100% bunk. First of all, by your standards, if you want married priests to be able to talk about FAMILY issues, you better first make sure that those priests and their wives are fertile and have children (more than one- at least a quiver-full, right?) otherwise, can they REALLY talk about family issues? You should also make sure that the priest is also of the same race and socio-economic status. Can’t have a white poor single priest discussing finances with a rich black married couple can we? Secondly, don’t forget that two of the most prolific writers on marriage and family in the new testament, Jesus and Paul, were not married!

    The logic of “you must be one to be able to council one” is absolutely garbage. Sorry.

  361. @ William G.:
    Thanks for the links and info. Still, it does seem as if the Church of the East never really made it into Tibet, and i seriously doubt that the Tibetan Buddhists woild havd allowed them to get very far with a mission if they had been able to reach the Tibetan plateau. I am very interested in the history of msny of the regions you mention, and realize that things changed prfoundly, or else the Church of the East might be there still. I like imagining alternative history (what might have happened if Alexander the Great had conquered northern India, or even a small part of it? etc.), but – as someone who genuinely was fascinated by the people of the high Himalayas when very young – i now know that we Westerners have shaped our own, imaginary (and highly orientalist) view of Tibet and the other countries around it. Must say that the colors used in Tibetan clothing, fine crafts, architecture and art are very appealing to me, though. Reminds me of the richly colored traditional clothing worn by the Navajo and many Pueblo people, as well as the love of turquoise jewellery, similar colors showing up in art and landscape, etc.

  362. @ numo:

    Firstly, my study of Buddhism has been through Buddhist sources. And it does dismay me to see you defending it as a religion while expressing shall we say a mistrust of Orthodox critiques of it. I would think Christians would trust their coreligionists in such matters. At any rate I have always found it helpful to refer to original sources when analyzing other religions, thus my disdain for the Baha’i faith is based primarily on the horrors of their Book of Splendor and the various remarks made by Shoghi Effendi, the last authorized interpreter of it. In like manner my distaste for Buddhism is fueled by the numerous scholarly accounts of it in my library from its practitioners such as DT Suzuki. My distaste for Hinduism is based on direct observation of Hindu rites, reading the works of Hindu apologists such as Swami Vivekananda, who was truly a nightmarish figure, and a deep familiarity with the range of Hindu sects. There are some Hindus such as the Bishnoi that I like, but most Hindu sects seem to perpetuate evil aspects of Indian society. Just a few months ago a Brahmin severely injured a Dalit boy who wandered into a Hindu temple, where their caste is forbidden, by beating him on the head. He was arrested but the fact that such an incident could occur is unsettling. Some Hindu sects are more egalitarian, but then you also have heterodox sects like the Aghouris whose religion appears to consist of death worship. Then you have the deity of Kali, the murderous incarnation of Durga, who seems to be proof positive of Psalm 95 vs 5 (according to the LXX and the Vulgate, “The Gods of the Gentiles are demons”; in the Masoretic and MT derived Bibles the Pslams are numbered differently and that verse was watered down).

    Now, why do the Orthodox reject the use of visual imagination in prayer? Because it’s our experience that it leads one into spiritual delusion or insanity. Google St. Symeon the Theologian on the Three Methods of Prayer; practically the entire Philokalia warns against the uncontrolled use of the imagination at prayer. Orthodox iconography is a major help in this respect in so far as looking at an approved picture of a Jesus is better than allowing one to form in your mind. Orthodox commonly pray written prayers of some complexity rather than ex tempore and this is a major help, as reading the words of the prayer out of your prayer book, psalter, or Horologion (an Orthodox Breviary of sorts; the name means “clock”) keeps the mind focused on prayer.

    The Orthodox do not have an abhorrence of imagination in private devotional reading of scripture, so I don’t know where you got that. On the contrary the Orhodox will frequently use something like Lectio Divina but less structured. In addition the Orthodox tend to interpret the Old Testament allegorically or typo logically rather than literally. This is partially offset by St. John Chrysostom, our most important exegete, who was of the Antiochene school and favored literal interpretation. So usually Orthodox exegesis is multi layered based on a holistic interpretation of all parts of,scripture in context with each other, seen through literal, prophetic typological, Christological, and allegorical lenses. The result is rather straightforward; I strongly recommend the Orthodox Study Bible which provides as much as anything an explanation of Orthodox beliefs.

    However it is in the Philokalia and in the Latter of Divine Ascent where you will find the warnings regarding the dangers of imagination during prayer and spiritual delusion. The writings of Fr. Seraphim Rose, who like me was no fan of Eastern religions, but who unlike me overcame living in the worst state of decadent sin on the North Shore of San Francisco in the 1950s, to found a fantastic monastery near Redding, California which is one of the small number that eschews modern conveniences like electricity in order to provide a more intense tranquility (I do hope that people voluntarily living in old fashioned 19th century style houses without electricity or indoor plumbing won’t make you scream “excessive asceticism!!!” since many of the brethren up there joined that monastery precisely because of a desire to live in such a manner, and many people even among us routinely camp in rugged conditions due to the appeal such removal from the creature comforts offers them; I should add that I personally prefer electric power and the monastery I visited recently had all modern conveniences and was rather like a hotel with lots of churches and a farm attached), cover in great detail the Orthodox concern over mediumship and trance like states while also outlining the most traditional views regarding Orthodox eschatology. I would urge you to give him a Google.

  363. @ numo:

    The Assyrians did reach Tibet and artifacts of Assyrian origin have been found there as well as in China. Catholicos Timothy II did appoint a bishop of Tibet. Most of the lamas of Tibetan Buddhism postdate the genocide of Tamerlane.

  364. @ THC:

    The canons of the ancient church prohibit clergy from getting involved in the financial affairs of laity, so that argument is a bit of a red herring. The experience of both Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, who are your do religionists, is that married priests are worth the expense. I am very thankful that the long standing ban on married Eastern Catholic clergy in North America is finally being lifted. If the Latin Rite continues to desire a celibate priesthood that is its prerogative, but I don’t think its healthy for celibate priests to have secular status; I think things would be better if they were at a minimum canons regular or Friars, wherein a degree of close monastic supervision exists. In particular I find tragic the number of celibate secular priests who recite the divine office by themselves because there’s no one to recite it with, who live somewhat lonely lives albeit with a reasonable degree of creature comfort. It’s like a nightmarish satire of monasticism. I don’t think diocesan secular clergy in the Latin Rite have as good a quality of life as their religious brethren or their married brethren from the Eastern Sui Iuris churches. Still I will say I personally find the idea of being a secular priest not bound to either monastic or matrimonial vows but merely to a vow of celibacy to be in many respects appealing; a certain subgroup could potentially function well in this state and the current Orthodox approach wherein the only single secular priests are usually widowers is probably excessive and misses the opportunities. Of course our idiorythmic monks who have their own private property are not entirely unlike diocesan seculars.

  365. @ THC:

    Time was when 1 Timothy 3 was understood by certain fundamentalists to require that pastors be married, with children if possible, and be people who had demonstrated the ability to manage their households well. I don’t recall how much they enforced that on the deacons, but deacons are also mentioned in that chapter. An unmarried preacher would have had an extremely difficult time in finding a pastorate. No such requirements were in place for evangelists. The mission board has vacillated from time to time as to whether to require that male missionaries be married, but as far as I know they have consistently favored married men.

    Jesus was, of course, Jesus, and Paul called himself an apostle, was obviously a missionary, and made mention of the fact that he chose his own singleness/celibacy and that the had the right to marry and noted that (some?) other apostles were married.

    By the way, Jesus was not one of the “most prolific writers …in the New Testament” never having written anything that we know of.

    The RCC can do what it wants with its own rules, but it would be an error to think that those who favor marriage/children for the pastorate based on scripture were totally without an argument for their thinking.

  366. @ William G.:
    I have an abhorrence of typology. It comes from studying Westetn medieval art and history, in my case, as well as from having been around observant Jews from an early age. (My background is a bit unusual on the whole, though it had nothing to do with me and everything to do with my father’s career and interests, my mother’s passionate love of both music and history, the neighborhood and some neighbors who became very close family friends, etc.).

    I do want to apologize for sounding testy today; i can do better than that.

  367. @ William G.:
    Yes, because of trade, not because of major missionary efforts. I do wish more on ghe history of the Vchurch of the East was available in English.

  368. @ William G.:
    If i could go back to school at my age, comparative religion might be a major focus for me. Also, i used to be one of those evangelicals who had both inordinate biases against many world religions as well as toward the people who practice them. I think it is *very* important to separate honest discussion of what people believe from our emotional reactions, or at least try to. Some of the kindest and most morally upright people I’ve known are most definitely not xtian, btw.

    Sometimes i feel like you and lots of the rest of us tend to highlight that which we find reprehensible while forgetting to speak of that which is good. I may not be (am vety often not) exactly comfortable with many things found in these religions, but… the same can easily be said of xtianity and xtians. To bring it closer to home, do you have friends, neighbors or colleagues who are practitioners of any of these religions? I’ve found that it really, really helps to be able to get to know people rather than looking at their belief systems (religious or not) from a solely theoretical standpoint. I also think there is some truth in all religions.

  369. numo wrote:

    @ William G.:
    I have absolutely NO fondness for mediumship of any kind. (Putting it mildly.)

    And neither do we. Our whole approach to meditation and prayer is based on avoiding inadvertantly becoming a medium, because the experience of the early ascetics was that certain forms of meditation and prayer caused demonaic infiltration leading to spiritual delusion. For example one 6th century monk after praying using a technique that was later prohibited, was convinced that he has been asked by God to sacrifice his son, who was also a monk, so he could be like Abraham. The son wisely fled when he saw his father sharpening a knife, and the other monks were with some difficulty able to subdue and stabilize the deluded monk. In many cases monks who became deluded threw the,selves off cliffs in the mountainous areas where the Desert Fathers dwelt. St. John Climacus, in the Ladder of Divine Ascent, and the various Fathers whose works comprised the Philokalia arudied these disasters and also the successes of other monks, and based on these compiled texts and manuals on ascetic praxis, the best of which were anthologizzed into the Philokalia by St. Nicodemus in the late 18th century. Nicodemus also compiled the definitive collection of ancient canon law, the Pedalion, which is invaluable in understanding the moral code of the early church, and was a leader of the movement which championed weekly communion.

    One unpleasant thing that happened in the church in the second millennium, which was largely Rome’s fault, is that people were scared out of communicating frequently. Most of the time Catholics attending mass focused on beholding the consecrated host rather than eating it, and for this reason the Low Mass, which was briefer and afforded a better view, was the most commonly attended; all of those side altars in European cathedrals were to accommodate silent low masses concurrently, and this is still common at St. Peter’s Basillica. The Protestant Reformation was unable to correct this problem, and in fact Calvinism institutionalized it by reducing communion to a quarterly affair; one can also lament the bothersome restrictions on communion the Church of England imposed, which led to ante-Communion being the norm.

    Thus I have a great love for St. Nicodemus and also for John Wesley, who strove to encourage weekly communion. I am not a proponent of casual communion; Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 11:27-34 should be heeded, and one of the biggest reasons I’m opposed to the three year lectionary of the Pauline Mass and the RCL is because it deletes those verses from the Maundy Thursday service. However we should not be afraid to receive the Eucharist; we should simply seek to forgive everyone and assume a repentant attitude before approaching the chalice. The Orthodox praxis of confession beforehand and of fasting the night before, health permitting, is invaluable, in that it turns the weekly communion service into a complete spiritual purification, and those who are able to attend the midweek Presanctified Liturgies in Lent benefit even more during the Great Fast.

  370. By the way, lest the name Mars Hill be forever poisoned for us, let us contemplate the splendor of the Aereopagus in Athens, where Paul proclaimed the Gospel, and where St. Dionysius founded an early church and wrote beautiful things about God:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Areopagus_from_the_Acropolis.jpg

    I hope everyone celebrating their Christ,as according to the Gregorian calendar has enjoyed it. Please pray for the persecuted Christians in the Middle East.

  371. numo wrote:

    @ William G.:
    I have an abhorrence of typology. It comes from studying Westetn medieval art and history, in my case, as well as from having been around observant Jews from an early age. (My background is a bit unusual on the whole, though it had nothing to do with me and everything to do with my father’s career and interests, my mother’s passionate love of both music and history, the neighborhood and some neighbors who became very close family friends, etc.).
    I do want to apologize for sounding testy today; i can do better than that.

    You should read the Orthodox Study Bible to understand the typological scheme we use. I don’t see by the way what impact having Jewish friends would have on typology. The Orthodox do not reduce Israel to being a mere type of the church, and a large number of Antiochian and Syriac Orthodox Christians are of Jewish descent, as are many Assyrians. The idea of Orthodox exegesis is based on the conclusion of Luke, where the resurrected Christ shows his disciples where all the Scriptures, meaning the Old Testament, speak of him. Thus Orthodox exegesis is based on an oral tradition that presumably originated there, combined with additional contemplation by later divines, particularly of the Alexandrian school. The goal is to understand the continuity between the Old and New Teataments and the Christological prophecies and types in the OT. The use of the Septuagint is a major help in this, and much Important content is to be found in hose books some regard as apocrypha, especially Wisdom and Tobit.

  372. numo wrote:

    @ William G.:
    Yes, because of trade, not because of major missionary efforts. I do wish more on ghe history of the Vchurch of the East was available in English.

    For a general introduction take a look at The Nestorians and their Rituals which is on Google Books.

    For more advanced work you have to delve into the field of Syriac Studies. The current luminaire in that area, Sebastian Brock, has published a comprehensive bibliography which can be found here: http://www.doaks.org/research/byzantine/resources/syriac/brock

    I myself have been privileged just to scratch the surface on this wondrous field. Most larger Assyrian parishes will have a bookstore which usually carries some English language historical material on their church, so that can also be a source of info.

  373. @ Nancy:

    The ancient church always interpreted the passage in question as prohibiting polygamous or divorced and remarried clergy. It was never viewed as a requirement for married clergy based on the fact that some bishops were celibate almost from the start. A fully celibate episcopate did not become required until the fourth century however if memory serves; if I recall as early as the Quinisext Council the Greeks rebuffed Latin suggestions to make the Priesthood celibate as well. The Deaconesses were always celibate; the minimum age was 40, later raised to 60, before the office was effectively abolished.

  374. @ William G.:
    William, i have tried to discuss this with you before. Perhaps it’s better to just let it go. I feel like we keep going around in circles on a number of topics, and I’m not certain that it’s helpful or productive.

  375. @ numo:

    Numo, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Please understand, I Love talking theology with you, but it hurts my feelings when you brush something aside like that. If I recall our earlier discussion of,typology,had something to do with Mariological types. I very much wish you’d take a look at some of the Orthodox source material so,we,can go over in greater detail,and in a fun, loving manner those aspects of the theology you like and dislike it. My goal is for,us to be able to uncover those gems in our respective interpretations of,Christianity that would otherwise remain buried in the sand of sectarianism.

    One thing I’ve been working on for a while, as a parting gift to the Methodists, is a traditional Methodist service book,which combines John Wesley’s Sunday service book with the excellent liturgies from Devotional Services by Rev. Hunter, and for those holidays such as Palm Sunday that are missing from Wesley’s recension of the BCP, these are restored, in some cases using text from newer editions of the BCP that are in the public domain. Additionally, a set of alternate Eucharistic Prayers is provided, and these nine prayers include the traditional Anglican prayer, together with ancient Anaphorae including those of Hippolytus and Serapion, and those from the ancient liturgies of Ss. Mark, James, Basil, Addai and Mari, the Twelve Apostles and John Chrysostom. Many of these were commented on by Dom Gregory Dix in the Shape of the Liturgy. The UMC has a program whereby liturgies can be published using an open source license and this I intend to contribute to that. Most importantly it restores the traditional one year lectionary.

    From this I want to do a more generic version targeted at emergent evangelicals who want a traditional worship experience. This version would remove the Methodist specific content. It would also add material specifically designed to discourage pastoral abuse and a condescending view of women. I’m not prepared to use gender neutral language, which I see as a mere bandage that makes prayers awkward without actually doing anything for women, and my personal view on women’s pedination, which is not reflected in the Traditonal Methodist Service Book, as there are some very good traditionalist pastors of the female gender who may want to use it, remains unchanged. What is more, my view specifically has to do with the Eucharist, and historically so much in Methodism has been done by lay speakers, and I see no reason why women shouldn’t preach. But none of that will be reflected in the evangelical service book; I want it to promote a balanced love between men and women and set the question of the ordination of women aside. To that end I propose to structure the lectionary around traditional lectionaries but include stories of the great holy women of the Bible therein. Also many Emergents like to blend in high church aspects to their worship; for example, many use Orthodox icons and venerate various sainta. I’d like to tap into that by adding material for this purpose. So perhaps there might be two editions, one for traditional evangelists who are squeamish about such things but want their traditional worship back, and one for emergents who enjoy actively borrowing diverse elements.

    One emergent congregation I have a love hate relationship,with is St. Gregory of Nyassa Episcopal Church in San Francisco. I love the effort they put into doing thr liturgy and making it beautiful. On the other hand their theology is in many respects dangerously unsound. What I’d like to do is publish what amounts to a liturgical cookbook rooted in the Patristic theology which many emergents have expressed such an interest in.

  376. Question- we changed the church we normally attend on Christmas Eve this year. It is a SBC Church my in-laws attend and they have done away with communion. We went to church, also SBC that had so called ” open” communion, as we had family members from 5 different churches attend.
    The in-law’s church did away from communion to keep non-members from taking the bread and cup.
    This is a recent event. They have a new pastor who went o Criswell…don’t get me started there….in-laws are not thrilled with him.
    Anyway, just curious, how many of you attend a church with ” open” communion?

  377. @ William G.:
    I have stated before that I have serious problems with both anti-semitism and anti-Judaism in the church, Orthodox and otherwise. I have also previously stated my objections to most typology, but I’m not sure if that was here or on internetmonk (I think maybe both, but can’t recall – it was a month or two ago).

    Equally, the examples you are giving of delusional people sound like descriptions of people experiencing psychotic breaks. I do not believe that demons had anything to do with these cases, though at the time they were written about, it was normal for people to assign a supernatural cause/s to things they didn’t understand.

    We have had a lot of back and forth on all of these topics, both on the open thread and elsewhere on the site over the past few months. Right now, I am not sure if my getting into another go-round about it will help – at least, not until we’ve both had some time to look at sources, and very possibly sources that give viewpoints that neither of us like.

    I am often baffled by the fascinations of many Orthodox, both cradle and convert, with things like aerial tollhouses, incorrupt bodies, wonder-working icons and the like. That even goes for much that I’ve read about hesychasm, visions of the Uncreated Light, etc. It is like it’s a whole alternate universe to mine – at this point, understand that I’m not assigning “right” or “wrong” to anything or anyone – only saying that it’s *very* different and takes some getting used to. I spent a fair amount of time when I was younger learning about icons and iconography, and while I don’t necessarily agree with all of the theology, I can appreciate it. But that took time, and the semantics that one runs up against in Orthodoxy (such different terminology, even when you guys and us Westerners are talking about the same thing and/or similar things) can be awfully tough to struggle through.

    Right now I’m reading James Carroll’s latest book, Christ Actually (the title comes from a phrase in one of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s prison letters). I liked Carroll’s book Constantine’s Sword, even though I have some problems with it, but they’re minor. As a former Catholic priest and one who is still keyed into a lot of aspects of both Catholicism and Western xtianity, I think he’s very much worth reading.

    As for the Tibetan stuff… I would suggest reading some basic material about Vajrayana Buddhism and then seeing if you think *any* of it has Nestorian influences. I suspect maybe there is some in the DNA of the various Tibetan Buddhist sects, but keep in mind that the Nestorians were on the fringes of western Tibet, not up on the Tibetan plateau, and I just don’t see anything at this point (based on what little I know about a VERY complex set of religious beliefs and practices) that could ever convince me that Tibetan Buddhism as we now know is at all related to any form of xtianity. I’m not saying this to defend Vajrayana Buddhism (I feel deeply uncomfortable with it, personally, especially what little I know about the tantras), but I think it’s important to separate fact from the kind of fiction perpetrated by writers like James Hilton – his “Lost Horizon” has xtian priests presiding over the valley of Shangri-La, etc. etc. and I don’t think that has anything to do with reality, any more than the legends of Prester John do (insofar as there was no actual person who corresponds to Prester John, that is).

  378. @ William G.:
    I like talking with you, too, but I do sometimes feel like theology gets in the way! (On my part, too.)

    I would like to read some very basic meditations or exegesis on the Gospels and especially the parables from an Orthodox standpoint. I think it might be best to try and start from common ground, rather than diving right into all of the things that, err…. separate us. You see what I’m saying? I think it could be extremely helpful to start from there.

    Thoughts, ideas, book recs and more – very much appreciated.

  379. @ K.D.:
    My Lutheran synod (the evangelical Lutheran Church in America, or ELCA for short) has open communion, which I like. I cannot see turning people away at the Table if they truly believe in Christ. (Other Lutheran synods aren’t nearly so accommodating!)

    I feel badly when churches bar the altar to people, no matter the denomination. But I have no experience whatsoever with any kind of baptist church, let alone the SBC, so I really can’t say much more than what’s in my 1st graph.

  380. @ William G.:
    as an aside (sort of), there is a lot of discussion these days about sexual abuse in Tibetan Buddhist monasteries, especially the sexual abuse of very young children who are sent there. There is a documentary (hard to find!) called “Tulku” that directly addresses this, in interviews with young men who experienced it – in at least one case, the interview subject is American.

    The title needs some explaining, but that in itself is a HUGE topic, and again, not one I know all that much about.

  381. @ numo:
    There’s a problem with that with the local Zendo and teacher here in Albuquerque. It put my cousin off attending and participating. I wanted to attend more but now won’t. Nothing new under the sun though right? Same problems seem to crop up wherever people have a religion with power structures.

    Of course for all the bad religions have happen, there is good as well. Checking out a local Sikh temple soon and if I ever hear back from the local mosque I’ll be able to hopefully attend one of their meetings.

  382. @ numo:

    I suggest The Orthodox Way by Kallistos Ware. Or, as they still apply, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by John Damascene and On The Incarnation by Athanasius,,and also the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, and the hymns of the Triodion and Pentecostarion, and the text of the liturgy itself. That can all be found online for free. Kallistos Ware, the Orthodox Study Bible, and the Philokalia cost money, but your local library should be able to get them, and at least the OSB should be in stock at your local Orthodox book shop, at your local Orthodox Church.

    The OSB is quite nice to have anyway as its a modern language translation of the Septuagint with some lovely icons. I have a KJV Study Bible with premillinerian literalist Calvinist fundamentalist commentary that includes such gems as “Christianity is in no respects an ascetic religion” which have a certain comedic value, but it’s a useful Bible anyway and has an elegant appearance. I also have a Douay Rheims with various Catholic things in it regarding indulgences. I prefer having a diversity of Bibles. Being a Syriac enthusiast on my iPad I enjoy reading the interlingual Peshitta, and the Peshitta is actually my favorite textual tradition. So it’s good to have multiple Bibles, and the Orthodox Study Bible will give you are perspective.

    Now Indo realize that when it comes to the more unusual aspects of Orthodoxy compared to Western Chrisroanity, some things are quite a bit of a shock. I will say both Catholics and Orthodox have a thing about incorrupt relics, but the Orthodox tend not to exhibit them as a rule in such a manner so that the idle visitor to an Orthodox Church will stroll across a dead body, whereas in St. Peter’s Cathedral a glass coffin encases the gruesome embalmed body of St. John XXIII, who is not held to be incorrupt, and whose remains are beginning to exhibit the deterioration typical of embalmed bodies not kept in shape via a Lenin style regime of chemical treatments. What is more Dostoevsky correctly diffused a growing fascination with incorruptibility that was infectig the Orthodox Church in the 19th century. The destroyed remains of poor Tsarevich Alexei and his sister Anastasia and their family are obviously not incorrupt, but they were glorified as being martyrs, along with all other 20 million or so New Martyrs; this glorification was even extended to martyrs who the church disagreed with on doctrinal matters such as Fr Pavel Florensky. It did not extend to Rasputin, who was not actually an Orthodox monk but a religious charlatan who misled the Romanovs and was detested by the bishops, and whose actions contributed, like those of some demonic dark wizard character from a Stephen King novel, to the rise of the Bolsheviks. Rewarding the aerial toll houses, not all Orthodox believe that, but it’s worth noting their most ardent champion, the late Fr. Seraphim Rose, stressed they should not be interpreted literally but as a metaphor for the soul being confronted with its actions after death, but not by God, but by agents of the accuser, with Angels on the other hand being there to defend the soul of the faithful.

    One interesting fact also about the Orthodox Church was expressed by the late Metropolitan Anthony Bloom, of the Russian Orthodox Church in the UK. He pointed out that the traditional Orthodox view is that if you think you have had a religious experience, it was most likely in your imagination. The realm of fantastic occurrences in Orthodoxy is generally limited to the realm of ascetics, and we regard actively seeking for visions or the supernatural as being extremely dangerous, like playing Russian Roulette with your soul. I read of a elderly monk who had prayed to God that he would never have any kind of religious vision or experience, and towards the end of his life was very glad that wish had been granted.

    Lastly, all Orthodox Patriarchs now serving, and all Orthodox bishops in the US, oppose anti-Semitism. There is only one anti-Semitic bishop that I know of, Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus, who was attacked by virtually the entire church a few years ago for launching a tinfoil hat style conspiracy attack on Zionists unworthy of the Art Bell show. He has survived only because of the conciliar structure of the Church of Greece, which lacks a primate who can depose malfeasant metropolitans who in effect have tenure, and also by exploiting anti-Semitic sentiment of certain far right parties that are particularly powerful in his diocese; if you’ve been reading about Greece in the news you’ve doubtless read of he rise of such parties since their economy melted down with alarm. Metropolitan Seraphim is exploiting that to keep afloat, but in the broader Orthodox Church he has made himself a pariah.

  383. @ numo:

    Regarding sex abuse in Tibetan monasteries, this doesn’t surprise me. There was a notes Hindu Swami whose devotees included the founder of the Hard Rock Cafe. When he was exposed as a molester of boys, they took the attitude of not caring on the basis of his alleged holiness, in fact manifested through various fakirs tricks. There was a good documentary on the Beeb (BBC) about him which you can find on YouTube.

    The canons of the Orthodox Church prohibit children being admitted to monasteries (they can visit but not become monks until adulthood) and also prohibit a celibate monk or bishop from having a woman or a beardless young man as housekeeper (see the Pedalion, which is a free download, and contains our canon law, which I maintain if Protestants followed, would help reduce the scope of sexual abuse in the church as well as financial exploitation by clergy). The canons also prohibit monks sleeping two to a bed. So within Orthodox monasteries there are multiple safeguards to prevent sexual abuse. The late Fr. Seraphim Rose had been gay before becoming Orthodox, attaining complete celibacy and becoming an abbot, and his monastery near Redding has no record of any departure from celibacy. Note that these remarks should not be interpreted as referring to consensual homosexuality but rather to pederasty and the rape of younger monks by older monks.

    The Orthodox Church does of course take a traditional view regarding human sexuality but I am not keen to discuss it for obvious reasons and will not in fact reply to any posts questioning our views on marriage et cetera. The last thing the ODP needs is to become a battleground over that most divisive of issues.

  384. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    Of course for all the bad religions have happen, there is good as well. Checking out a local Sikh temple soon and if I ever hear back from the local mosque I’ll be able to hopefully attend one of their meetings.

    I myself love the Sikhs, in fourth grade one of my friends was a Sikh boy whose parents owned a grocery store. We had much fun building castles out of empty shipping containers. I have wanted to visit a Sikh gurdwara for some time, and there is not one far from here. When it comes to Islam I have to say I find their worship rather boring, aside from melodies Quranic recitation, the musical traditions of the Mepuezzin, and the semah or cem ceremonies of the Mevlevi and Alevi/Bektashi Sufis. The latter are Shia and have a worldview that is highly compatible with Christianity; their worship suggests syncretism with Christianity and Turkish and Kurdish folk religion. A minority of Alevis deny they are Muslims, but rather claim to be Ishikists, and claim to be Ina continuum of esoteric religions also including the Yazidis and Tajj ‘e Haqq. Now *those* would be interesting to visit but alas they are scarce in the US. You can visit a Zoroastrian fire temple and see the Mandaeans here in Los Angeles.

  385. William G. wrote:

    @ numo:
    The canons of the Orthodox Church prohibit children being admitted to monasteries (they can visit but not become monks until adulthood) and also prohibit a celibate monk or bishop from having a woman or a beardless young man as housekeeper (see the Pedalion, which is a free download, and contains our canon law, which I maintain if Protestants followed, would help reduce the scope of sexual abuse in the church as well as financial exploitation by clergy). The canons also prohibit monks sleeping two to a bed. So within Orthodox monasteries there are multiple safeguards to prevent sexual abuse. The late Fr. Seraphim Rose had been gay before becoming Orthodox, attaining complete celibacy and becoming an abbot, and his monastery near Redding has no record of any departure from celibacy. Note that these remarks should not be interpreted as referring to consensual homosexuality but rather to pederasty and the rape of younger monks by older monks.
    .

    The Orthodox church, despite well-meaning safe guards, also has child sexual abuse cases. http://www.pokrov.org/ (Note: I spent part of my childhood in the Orthodox church since my father was Orthodox.)

  386. @ Michaela:
    Yes. I had been intending to post that link myself.

    As for Seraphim Rose, he was still gay after becoming a monk. Vows of celibacy do not alter anyone’s sexual orientation. Orientation in and of itself is what itmid – and is *not* the same as secusl activity. The Lord alone knows how many people have been harmed by the ex-gay movement and so-called “reparative therapy.”

  387. @ William G.:
    William, there is no “local Orthodox church” where i live. The few Greek people who are local have to travel a long distance to get to an Orthodox church. We do have some Russian immigrants in this area, albeit many are Protestant. I live in the boondocks!

    Have read a fair deal by Kallistos Ware, btw. It seems to me thst many books on the O churches tend to focus on the liturgy, icons, asceticism etc. while saying little about the things i specifically asked about, which is in one sense underdtandable, but in anothe, pretty baffling (to me, at least). Is there no basic catechism of any kind? Having grown up in a church that has a catechism, and knowing that other liturgical churches use them, it seems like it would be a given, but i could be wrong.

    We have gone around and around on anti-semitidm among the Orthodox in Russia in the past, as well as John Chrysostom’s damning (imo, and I’m not alone) tirades against Judaism (including his flat-out vilifying of Jewish houses of worship as the haunt of devils), so i don’t see how the claim that the only anti-semitic/anti-Judaic elements in the O churches can be reduced to one Greek clergman plus the Golden Dawn party members and sympathizers. But I’m not certain we will ever arrive at true common ground on this, at least, not in the immediate future.

    It trounles me when you cite things like the prohihition of monks sleeping two to a bed as if that in itself would stop sexual activity. People who want to have sex are going to find a way, regardless of the rules. Rules in and of themselves cannot guarantee that *nothing* is going to happen.

  388. I would cite An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith as a definitive statement of Chalcedonian Orthodox doctrine; lamentably there is no single work prior to St. John Damascene that could be used to illustrate Orthodoxy inclusive of the Oriental Orthodox. I am a view that they are Orthodox and the Chalcedonian schism was a tragedy resulting from the translation of a Latin document into Greek and its subsequent misunderstanding by people who natively spoke Coptic, Syriac and Armenian, that was perpetuated by political factors. My local Coptic parish has laminated flyers with the pre communion prayer of St. John Damascene, so if you read the Exact Opposition and simply disregard the anti-Monophysite bits as being applicable only to the Eutychians, who are not accepted by the Oriental Orthodox, then it does work.

    Now that being said, we do have catechisms. I myself am working on building a comparative catechism website that will let people compare the catechisms of different denominations and religions, and was just working on some preliminary coding for it, so you’ll be able to select paraphrased questions from a drop down menu in order of the frequenxy they appear in different catechisms and see how different religions answer them.

    Now as regards Orthodoxy, I do have to observe that the idea of a question and answer catechism is largely of Lutheran and Protestant origin, and thus the catechism as a concept is not actually Orthodox. So I discourage the use of catechisms for purposes of catechesis within Orthodoxy; they are not a part of Sacred Tradition and the ones we do have were written in response to Protestant and Catholic catechisms. The Orthodox liturgy itself is the best form of catechism; by participating in the services and learning the prayers and hymns, one understands the Orthodox faith, because more than any other denomination, the Orthodox believe in Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. In fact the liturgy consists largely of scripture references; it is also massive. Whereas the traditional Anglican services require a KJV with Apocrypha and a Book of Common Prayer, and whereas Catholic services generally require only a missal and Breviary, the Orthodox liturgy is more expansive. The well organized Coptic Rite requires a Euchologion containing the Divine Liturgy, an Agpeya containing the Psalter and the daily prayers, a Psalmody containing the Saturday night vespers, which are similar to Matins in the Byzantine and Syriac Rite in terms of complexity, a Khiak Psalmody containing the vespers for the month of Khiak, which corresponds with Advent, and which I’d like to attend tonight bronchitis permitting, a book of services for Holy Week, a lectionary, an ornate Gospel Book usually bound in gold, and additional books for special services like weddings, funerals and so on.

    The Byzantine Rite is almost fantastically ornate. It consists of priests service books for the liturgy and for funerals and so on,, an Horologion or book of the hours, a Psalter, multiple lectionary books including the obligatory ornate Gospel Book with icons of the four evangelists, the Octoechos, which is the main hymnal, the Menaion, a twelve volume behemoth containing the propers for fixed feasts, and the Triodion and Pentecostarion which contain the hymns for Lent, Holy Week, Eastertide and Pentecost, culminating on All Saints Sunday, which corresponds with Trinity Sunday on the Western calendar. About 20 books worth of material. Fortunately, the most important parts are available in a book by Isabel Florence Hapgood, which I believe is entitled The Divine Services of the Orthodox Church and can be downloaded from Google Books or the Internet Archive. Also, Fr. John Whiteford maintains a large set of Orthodox texts on his site Orthodox Liturgical Resources, at saintjonah.org. The Coptic books are also free downloads, I can link you to them if you wish. The Syriac Orthodox liturgy is hopelessly disorganized but large chunks of it are on the website Margoneetho – Syriac Orthodox Resources.

    But we do have catechisms. Bearing in mind that I advise against them for actually learning Orthodoxy, here is one of the more respected: http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm

  389. Here is a directory of additional Orthodox catechisms: http://aggreen.net/catechism/catechism.html

    Why don’t we have one? Well, these catechisms aren’t a part of Holy Tradition. Orthodoxy is defined primarily apophatically, based on unacceptable beliefs. If you avoid those, you have quite a bit of freedom. For example, some Orthodox are creationists and some are evolutionists. Some believe ecumenical reconciliation to be extremely important to the mission and witness of the church and others view it as a monstrous error. Some believe the current situation of overlapping dioceses in America to be uncanonical and a hindrance, and others like ROCOR believe it to be acceptable and even desirable. Some support the Western Rite, others feel we should only use the Eastern liturgies. These are not essentials of faith. The catechisms as a rule will avoid this, but just as Kallistos Ware for example represents the left wing of Orthodoxy, if you can call it that, others like Fr. Seraphim Rose, represent the right wing. Thus, these catechisms all accurately reflect Orthodoxy, but none of them are absolutely official, agreed on by everyone or authoritative. So read St. John Damascene if you want that; his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith is universally accepted.

    I have a print copy of the Catechism of the Syriac Orthodox Church which is a delight and probably the closest to Luthers small catechism but I don’t think its online.

  390. numo wrote:

    It trounles me when you cite things like the prohihition of monks sleeping two to a bed as if that in itself would stop sexual activity. People who want to have sex are going to find a way, regardless of the rules. Rules in and of themselves cannot guarantee that *nothing* is going to happen.

    The point of these rules is not that they act as some infallible barrier to sin, but rather that they prevent situations that could give rise to temptation. The rules are designed to create an environment whereby the exposure to temptation is reduced. And I will say it’s blissful being in a place where those rules exist. The monastery was a paradise; in our society we are constantly assaulted by advertising and other media that seeks to sell to us by appealing to the passions, seeking to stir up our desires for sex, money, power, social status, fine food, alcohol,and so on. Just being in an environ,ent entirely devoid of such assaults is blissful. Very to visiting a national park only with more churches. Indeed many Orthodox monasteries such as that of St. seraphim are the last places where one can stay in a rustic cabin of the sort that used to be common in national parks like Sequoia, where all the cabins closed some years ago. But whereas the national park is generally but not entirely free from the intrusions of secular world, it itself is largely secular, whereas at the monastery the continuing prayer services are fantastic. Take a hotel, a farm, some fascinating workshops, a bunch of truly holy men or women, and fantastic rural countryside, and you have an Orthodox monastery. Of course not all monasteries are that great; I have grace reservations about New Skete and would not want to even consider a vocation there. But the point remains.

    The canons of the Orthodox Church, many of which were handed down from the Apostles, are designed to create in the church a purified environment where avenues of sin are reduced. They will not prevent sin or abuse but they will eliminate certain vectors by which it can occur. It should also be stressed that the Orthodox Church is the second largest denomination and accounts for the majority of Christian martyrs (the Catholics come in second, but unlike the Catholics the Orthodox have never had an inquisition or crusades; the worst violence was in the Nikonian schism). It deserves respect from every Christian, and Orthodox and other Eastern Christians are being killed right now in Iraq and Syria. My private view is that as egregious as clerical abuse in churches like Mars Hill is, it is utterly insignificant in light of the genocide being conducted against Christians in Mosul and elsewhere. True abuse would be the forced circumcision of 500 or so Christian prisoners without anaesthesia at the hands of ISIL.

  391. On another note a nuno if we might reverse the usual direction of our conversations, there are two things about the ELCA that have been profoundly troubling me. The first was on my most recent visit to an ELCA parish, in Solvang, where the pastor, on Easter Sunday, decided it would be a good time to speculate about the possibility of Jesus being married. He discussed this more than the joy of the resurrection, and one could sense the discomfort among those present. It was in all other respects a beautiful service, but I found myself profoundly troubled by a pastor on Easter Sunday engaging in speculations worthy of Dan Brown rather than preaching the joy of the resurrected Christ and our own future resurrection from the dead. He was replaced not long thereafter at that parish,malthough I haven’t been since. I liked the people and the traditional liturgy but I couldn’t stand to hear a sermon like that again. I believe sermons designed to shock, frighten or unsettle a congregation rather than lovingly strengthen them in their faith are a form of psychological violence; on this basis I consider John Edwards “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” to have been in some respects an assault. Now if a pastor acquires a reputation as a fire and brimstone preacher and people go to him for that, that’s one thing, but sermons that do not reflect the fact that God is love, but which are instead based on unsettling people, even people who want to be unsettled, seem to be in opposition to Christ.

    The other thing occurring in ELCA that deeply bothers me is the case of Ebeneezer Lutheran Church, or herchurch, which has abandoned all semblance of traditional Lutheranism and which dares to sell “goddess rosaries” depicting Aurora. I find this to be intolerable in a Trinitarian denomination. In the Unitarian Universalist church it would be acceptable, but in a church that claims to be Lutheran, its shocking. I myself went to an LCMS elementary school and have a great love for the Missouri Synod, and also the Wisconsin Synod; the Missouri Synod is happily about to begin ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox and is close to a formal relationship with ACNA, which thrills me, because historically LCMS was a bit isolationist. My dream is an ecumenical reconciliation of all the sacramental churches which seek the apostolic faith, as opposed to the distorted faith of the Schoolmen or the further distortion of some branches of Reformed Christianity, which study Reformed theologians in preference to the fathers.

    What is really sad about the ELCA though is my godfather Eugene was a priest in one of its predecessors. Yet he would be horrified by what it has become. The ELCA represents primarily the heritage of Scandinavian Lutheranism in the US, whereas the LCMS represents those Prussian immigrants who decided to reject the Calvinism opposed on them and separated from another denomination that later merged into the UCC. Now I believe that Swedish Lutheranism in its high church variety represented the theological apex of Lutheran praxis, so seeing the ELCA descend in this manner is a bit heart wrenching. Just because Im Orthodox doesn’t mean I don’t love or care for other Christians, and people like the insane pastor of herchurch are leading their flocks to damnation and at the same time dancing on the graves of pious Lutheran pastors like my godfather. I consider this to be a horrible form of abuse. If herchurch weren’t part of the ELCA or another mainline denomination I wouldn’t care, but the fact that it’s Lutheran and connected to my flesh and blood wounds me. You have no idea how sad my alienation from the Methodists is for me; I still have not renounced my membership although I probably will at some point once I finish my Traditional Methodist Service Book and make it available online through GBOD.

  392. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    @ William G.:
    Oh that would rock to visit a Zoroastian fire temple.

    Indeed it would, although perhaps not for me, as fires give me a headache. Although I don’t believe anyone other than the priests are allowed in the room with the most sacred Fire. The temple in LA is a liberal one that accepts converts, but in India the Parsis, due to their ancient promise not to convert anyone into their religion, will not allow anyone into their temples.

    It would also rock seeing a Baha’i House of Worship with the gardens, but alas the actual worship services that occur within are uninteresting; I have seen videos of them. The ban on ritual and preaching has a chilling effect on the expressiveness of the services, and even the excellent choir of the Baha’i temple in Chicago is unable to compensate for this.

  393. numo wrote:

    I feel badly when churches bar the altar to people, no matter the denomination. But I have no experience whatsoever with any kind of baptist church, let alone the SBC, so I really can’t say much more than what’s in my 1st graph.

    On this point, I profoundly disagree. The Orthodox believe that we are what we are in communion with; if we intentionally admitted non Orthodox to the chalice we would be embracing their faith. Anyone who agrees with the Orthodox can become a member though, and interestingly due to a quirk in the canon law of the Eastern Catholic Churches this provides limited access to the sacraments from the Catholic Church. Membership in the Orthodox Church can require re baptism but usually Chrismation is all that’s needed, and the process of being received takes at most a few weeks. In my case it took days.

    The Assyrians allow any baptized Christian who believes that the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ to take communion. This in my mind is a valid approach for a church that is trying actively to reconnect with the other apostolic churches; the beliefs of the modern day Assyrians generally incline towards a Orthodoxy, Catholicism or high church Anglicanism, and this position aligns them with where they want their faith to go, no longer wishing to be regarded as an isolated church of Nestorians but as a national church of the Assyrian people.

    There is also the question of preparation for communion. Most Orthodox churches require communicants who are able to fast beforehand. Others require confession beforehand. I think this approach is desirable in that it reduces the risk of someone communing Unworthily and partaking condemnation under 1 Corinthians 11:27-34, although some priests are ignorant of the rules that allow the sick to forego the Eucharistic fast. If someone can confess, take communion, and health permitting, fast from Saturday night, every week, the spritual benefits will be immense.

  394. @ William G.:
    go and live in a monastery for 6-8 months and your feelings of bliss are guaranteed to wear off as you settle into the daily life of the monastery. istm that you’re facing the same thing that happens when people 1st fall in love, where the one they love is almost perfect, and love itself is bliss. that wears off – it *has* to, and nobody can live in that state permanently.

    you view monasteries as utopias, and they are anything but, because all monks are human beings and conflict, petty jealousies and the like are part of life on this earth, no matter where one lives. if no religious have ever made this clear to you, then they are at fault. you need to ask some hard questions and be asked hard questions yourself in order to see this more clearly.

    i know you probably won’t believe me, but there it is. things happen, and life goes on in a normal fashion inside a monastery. as for being sheltered from temptation, we take ourselves wherever we are, be it in a monastery or a Fortune 500 CEO’s office.

    what are you running from? That is something youo need to ask yourself, and it is a private thing. (i would never anticipate a public reply to such a question!) monasteries aren’t meant to shelter those fleeing from difficulties in their personal lives and/or in the wider world in general. They have their own problems, and nobody can escape his/her own mind and desires by entering one. This is precisely why most RCC religious orders are so much more careful now about discerning vocations – and having prosepective monks/nuns go through psych. evaluations and the like. People who want to enter an order because they’re running from something are generally BAD candidates, and spiritual directors aren’t gun-shy about telling them so.

    Maybe the O monks aren’t as upfront about this, but if not, they ought to be.

    I have said all this before, though, so will let it rest.

  395. @ William G.:
    we call them ministers or pastors, not priests.

    As for the congregations you mentioned, I understand your qualms, but we tend to take an approach that is closer to that of the Anglican communion, where dialogue is very important as an attempt to come to some kind of agreement and reconciliation. But as you know, it doesn’t always work. The places/sermons you mention are on the fringe, at best, of what most of the ELCA believes and is about. But I would not want to see some awful ban come down on these folks, especially the herchurch women, because a lot of them have been severely harmed by men and by patriarchal religion, and by abusive people, and… while I don’t agree with what they do, I can completely understand why they do it. I suspect that they will leave the ELCA of their own accord at some point – which is OK, and would be far better than the kinds of alternative punitive measures that some denominations would levy.

    * Thank you for the links to various documents, etc. Will take some time to read them, but you know, most people have a kind of FAQ thing going on in their heads, and I don’t see that telling people that a church is defined by what it *isn’t* is going to be much help in answering anyone’s questions, you know?

    btw, your website project sounds very interesting!

  396. @ William G.:
    the ELCA is VERY much about descendants of early German and Swedish immigrants to what are now the mid-Atlantic states. The Swedish settlement in DE and the Philly area was small and soon absorbed into the mainly German and English mainstream. (i’m descended from 18th c. German and Swedish immigrants myself – there were still German-language services here until well into the 19th c.)

    the ELCA is a result of the merger of the LCA (in which i was raised) and the ALC, which was much more Scandinavian. keep in mind that there were, until pretty recently, lots of tiny synods comprised of people who came here from Finland, Norway, etc. Even Slovaks, like the late Jaroslav Pelikan. Not having a common language made for fragmentation here in the US.

    0
    0

    0

  397. @ William G.:
    I think you might want to back off a bit from words like insane and saying that x people are being led to damnation. For one thing, that’s way above and beyond our ability to truly know (i.e., it’s God’s purview, and only he knows the hearts and minds of human beings), abd for another, it comes across as hellfire and brimstone.

    people from all kinds of backgrounds come to this blog, so it’s better, imo, to err on the side of caution, or at very least be clear that this is your personal take. makes it less harh and also allows conversation to flow more easily, imo.

  398. William G. wrote:

    Just being in an environ,ent entirely devoid of such assaults is blissful.

    aren’t you referring to taking a voluntary retreat, though, rather than committing to living there for the rest of one’s life? That is *very* different, no matter whether the monastery is Orthodox, Catholic or whatever (Anglican, Lutheran, etc.). For people on retreat, it provides a brief escape, yes. But living in a place where you cannot get away from all of the other committed members of the community is another thing entirely. And our minds and selves are wherever we are – there is conflict, even if petty, and dislike and more in any enclosed community. It just simply is that way – because all members are human beings.

    It is not the blissful lifelong escape that you are imagining, believe me. Please keep in mind that I lived in a small convent for a year, and knew monks, etc. who lived in far more constrained (isolated from the outside world) houses. It is just not what you imagine, even though yes, the TV and internet and whatnot aren’t part of daily routine, nobody has to suffer through commmercials that use sex as a selling point and all the rest.

    Being enclosed with the *same people* for years at a time brings its own set of extremely challenging relationships and circumstances. Anyone who says otherwise is either uniformed or lying.

  399. K.D. wrote:

    Anyway, just curious, how many of you attend a church with ” open” communion?

    The methodist church where I am still a member and the episcopal church which I attend with the children both practice open communion.

  400. @ numo:
    Meant to add that nobody out her in the wider world is being forced to watch TV. 😉

    A tad more seriously… I’m not much for TV anf i think had the actual cable hookup in use for only a couple of hours last year. (Huge waste of $ – it’s gone.) I haven’t watched TV news for years, and commercials are sensory overload for me, so I’m a lot happier with a streaming bix wher i can choose what i want to wstch. In my case, it’s mostly PBS-type stuff, Doctor Who, some comedies and occasional British and Scandinavian detective shows plus an occasional movie. Mostly, I’d rather read, listen to music, play music myself, hang out a bit on the internet and suchlike. All that to say one very simple thing: we all have more control over what we see and hear than we tend to think we do, and I’m willing to bet that a person can live happily with the TV turned off or just plain gone.

    This is especially true given the availability of newspaper websites and similar. I have been reading the news rather than watching any TV news since 9/11, and have much greater peace of mind because i can entirely avoid distressing stories/images/footage
    (I lived very close to the Pentagon in 2001, and the climate of shock and fear afterwards made it impossible to cope without keeping the TV set off entirely. I don’t think i turned it back,on until late November, and even then, only for one weekly show.)

  401. Several Protestant churches I have been a member of permit any professing Christians to take communion.

    I was recently excommunicated and ordered to be shunned from my Protestant church for opposing the access to children that my pastors/elders gave to their friend, a convicted sex offender on Megan’s List at our church, without safeguards, telling parents and adults about him. The pastors/elders said he was “coming off Megan’s List” of sex offenders. His supervising law enforcement agency and the California Attorney General’s Office (they run Megan’s List here in CA) called that “a total lie”. My pastors/elders demanded that I apologize to them and have no further contact with law enforcement; I refused.

    I now buy the matzoh crackers and grape juice (or wine) at the store, confess my sins to the Lord, and take communion at home.

  402. @ William G.:
    I’ve been to the Baha’i temple in Chicago. Beautiful, just beautiful. Most worship services tend to bore me on an entertainment level, though always fascinating to observe. An Asatru blot is a hoot though if you ever get a chance.

    Zoroastrians fascinate me since they were among the first monotheists, if not the first. The prohibition on new converts certainly hasn’t done them favors when it comes to expanding like Christianity or Islam but they manage to hang in there. That really seems to have been one of the major evolutions that allowed the later monotheist faiths to really kick it into high gear with recruitment and membership expansion.

  403. @ numo:

    There would be nothing punitive about granting herchurch freedom from the strictures of ELCA while declaring “This is not a Lutheran congregation.” That said, the sickest patients warrant the strongest medicine, and a female missionary who loves Jesus Christ and who wants to lead the people of herchurch away from idolatrous worship of Aurora and Sophia would be sent in by the ELCA if the local diocese or whatever you have cared about the Gospel. You can’t sit there and tell me that worshipping Aurora is even remotely compatible with the religion taught in the New Testament. If someone really feels that the Gospels and Paul etc are Patriarchal, then they will reject Christianity, which is what is occurring at herchurch, What that congregation needs is a missionary who can show them how Jesus loves them.

    I also reject outright the phrase “patriarchal religion.” The Orthodox Church has always had a male hierarchy, but venerates a woman more than any other naturally born human. Sociologists now agree that the early growth of Christianity was primarily driven by women who were attracted to this patriarchal religion, which valued them as human beings in a way that Greco Roman society did not. No forced exposure of infants was a major selling point. From the start Christianity liberated women, which is why so many women chose to die for Jesus in the Roman arenas, fed to beasts and otherwise subjected to cruel tortures (St. Lucy comes to mind).

  404. @ Albuquerque Blue:

    The Persian Zoroastrians do accept converts, and the Temple of Zarathustra in Los Angeles in particular has Enseamed many converts to Zoroastrian. The form of Zoroastrianism practiced by the Parsis is closed to converts because, in order to secure the right to live in India, fleeing Islamic persecution, they had to agree not to evangelize the Hindus, meant here in an ethnic sense. Also among the Parsis there is a view that anyone Enseamed after the age of 15 will be under the influence of the Daevas, the demons of Angra Mainyu who interestingly correspond in many cases to Hindu Gods or manifestations, also called Daevas. Zoroastrianism can be regarded as a Persian rejection of Indian religion. I do believe it is possible Zoroaster was a true prophet of the God of Abraham who we worship, although I cannot be certain of this and have no desire to leave the Christian Faith. But among religions outside Judaism and Christianity, Zorpastrianism and Mandaeism, with which it shares commonality, are among the most interesting, in particular because like Judaism and Christianity, they are liturgical religions. The Mandaeans venerate John the Baptist; their ancient mystical baptismal ritual would be fascinating to watch. I can’t imagine baptiIng weekly; I have often wondered if their priests are required to be good swimmers.

  405. @ numo:

    There can be no doubt that the monastic life is challenging, but the Orthodox monastic life is not quite what you describe. At a a larger monastery with 60 – 200 monks, like those on Mount Athos or many of the Coptic monasteries, the pressure is eased somewhat. Also the more sociable monks develop special relationships win pilgrim families that visit the monastery at least once a year. These relationships in a sense give each monk who wants one a large family. And the purpose of the novitiate, which is a minimum of three years and can be longer, is to ensure that the novice is cut out for life at that monastery. After three years if the novice is happy it’s a safe bet they can remain happy indefinitely, but monks don’t make formal vows until their ready, which is at least three years from the novitiate. I know of some monks who remain perpetual novices and are tonsured on their deathbed. Other monks are widowed clergymen who join the monastery to escape loneliness after the death of their wives; one of the brothers at the monastery I just visited was a an elderly Deacon (a full permanent Deacon, not a “transitional Deacon”) who retired to the monastery on the death of his wife. He did not take the full monastic tonsure but wore his diaconate choir dress and liturgical vestments. In Ethiopia this is particularly common for all widows and widowers, some of whom take vows while living in their house; they are subsequently fed by the community.

    It’s extremely important not to generalize about Orthodox monasticism based on the experience of Roman Catholic monasticism, which is radically different. Catholic monks of the OSB and its derivatives tend to be very quiet and withdrawing, whereas many Orthodox monks are gregarious and live to talk to the pilgrims. Also,,the frightening cages that exist in the chapels and visiting rooms of cloistered convents are, to my knowledge, unknown in Orthodoxy; I know of no case where Orthodox convents or monasteries were used as political prisons or as places to lock away the lovers of royalty deemed unsuitable etc. There is nothing stopping a monk or nun from leaving; were not talking about Scientologys Gold Base with its elaborate security and detention blocks. Some monks and nuns do leave.

  406. numo wrote:

    @ William G.:
    I think you might want to back off a bit from words like insane and saying that x people are being led to damnation. For one thing, that’s way above and beyond our ability to truly know (i.e., it’s God’s purview, and only he knows the hearts and minds of human beings), abd for another, it comes across as hellfire and brimstone.
    people from all kinds of backgrounds come to this blog, so it’s better, imo, to err on the side of caution, or at very least be clear that this is your personal take. makes it less harh and also allows conversation to flow more easily, imo.

    The Orthodox Church does not claim to know with certainty the eschatological status of anyone. However any Christian with a sincere love of the Gospel, who believes in the warnings uttered by Jesus and his disciples, and who takes the Ten Commandments seriously, should be able to say without hesitation that for an alleged pastor of a Christian church to introduce the worship of pagan deities such as Aurora, and for her congregation to follow her in this idolatry, is to put their salvation in jeopardy. One cannot worship Aurora or Sophia without ceasing to be a Christian. This is my firm conviction. What herchurch does endangers the souls of it’s members; they are being led like sheep to the slaughter, and only great fasting and prayer at present stands between them and the abyss. If the ELCA won’t depose the wolf in sheets clothing who leads that congregation, there is an urgent need for another denomination to send in missionaries, who can show these women how much Jesus loves them, and call on them to turn away from pagan idolatry and embrace Christ.

    The Orthodox Church would, in welcoming back so one who did that, apply to them the sacrament of Chrismation.

  407. William G. wrote:

    One thing I’ve been working on for a while, as a parting gift to the Methodists, is a traditional Methodist service book,which combines John Wesley’s Sunday service book with the excellent liturgies from Devotional Services by Rev. Hunter, and for those holidays such as Palm Sunday that are missing from Wesley’s recension of the BCP, these are restored, in some cases using text from newer editions of the BCP that are in the public domain. Additionally, a set of alternate Eucharistic Prayers is provided, and these nine prayers include the traditional Anglican prayer, together with ancient Anaphorae including those of Hippolytus and Serapion, and those from the ancient liturgies of Ss. Mark, James, Basil, Addai and Mari, the Twelve Apostles and John Chrysostom. Many of these were commented on by Dom Gregory Dix in the Shape of the Liturgy. The UMC has a program whereby liturgies can be published using an open source license and this I intend to contribute to that. Most importantly it restores the traditional one year lectionary.

    Please do finish this wonderful project soon!! We UMC folk (well, a lot of us)are mired in Anglican & Catholic prayerbooks, whilst awaiting this kind of wonderful gift for our worship. (And I treasure my BCP–older & newer, & many of the lovely litanies from Rome, but I want to pray from a book that keeps the beauty of Wesley’s work, whilst offering me more of the richness that you EOs have to offer).

  408. K.D. wrote:

    Anyway, just curious, how many of you attend a church with ” open” communion?

    The UMC offers the elements to all who “do truly repent of your sins”, & my pastor always adds, “including those of you who now believe in Jesus as your Saviour for the first time this morning”, for which I am often tempted to hug him. I refrain, but the feeling remains.

  409. Michaela wrote:

    Several Protestant churches I have been a member of permit any professing Christians to take communion.

    My dear friend, I believe that any UMC congregation in your area would most likely be pleased to allow you to communicate. (Not that I can speak for them all, but we are a pretty good place to find such folk for when you desire to receive our Saviour’s body & blood).

  410. @ William G.:
    William on the issue of Zoroastrian converts, there definitely seems to be a few differing takes on that depending on the sect. Like Judaism there seem to be various strains that allow or don’t allow outsiders to join, though the Z’s are patrilineal as opposed to the Jewish matrilineality. I find it fascinating that you consider them possibly connected to the same pantheon Judaism, Christianity and Islam share. Is this particular to you or more of an Orthodox trend? I find the way religions grow and change when encountering other faiths or splitting off from their root stock intriguing to study. Thanks for adding to my knowledge of Orthodox Christianity, William.

  411. zooey111 wrote:

    My dear friend, I believe that any UMC congregation in your area would most likely be pleased to allow you to communicate. (Not that I can speak for them all, but we are a pretty good place to find such folk for when you desire to receive our Saviour’s body & blood).

    Thank you, so much, for your kindness!

  412. In other news, the New Horizons space probe is now (to within a day’s travel) exactly as far beyond the orbit of Neptune as the Earth is from the Sun.

    I hope this is helpful.

  413. Nancy wrote:

    The RCC can do what it wants with its own rules, but it would be an error to think that those who favor marriage/children for the pastorate based on scripture were totally without an argument for their thinking.

    You missed my point. Sure, one can say that it is OK for a priest to be married from scripture. No doubt. The RCC has married priests. It is wrong to say, though, that only a married priest can effectively pastor married people, which I believe was what William was trying to argue. That was my point. I think the unmarried priest can even do it BETTER, because he is “married” to MANY naggy, needy people every day and understands human relationships. I believe priests know that they could never care for and nurture a relationship as deeply as needed in marriage because of his commitments to the Church. (Married mega-pastors don’t have to worry this at all because they delegate the real work to the lowest elders so they can go home to their botoxed, dyed-hair, mechanically enhanced Stepford Wives at the end of their 5-hour day.)

    I *know* some Fundamentalists make the argument that ministers must be married, which is nowhere in the Bible. William already addressed 1 Tim 3. Fundamentalists are also first to say that abusive priests are a direct result of priests not being allowed to marry, which is also hogwash. Proof? This blog shows plenty of married “heterosexual” men/ministers/monsters who have abused children or allowed it to happen, mostly within Protestant communities.

  414. numo wrote:

    @ William G.:
    I wonder how you are able to say that leaving is an option when it involves the breaking of vows?

    That didn’t stop Martin Luther. Also, monks in the Orthodox Church can request to be laicized. Or if they engage in repeated misconduct the abbot can release them from their vows. It is also possible in most cases for a monk to transfer from one monastery to another. Note all this applies only to those who have lived in the monastery for three years minimum and decided to commit to it for their lifetime, which is a purely voluntary decision. Many of the monks are extremely introverted by nature and even within the monastery avoid contact with pilgrims or leaving their cell that much. Others are hieromonks, archimandrites and bishops who spend most of the time living outside the monastery. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware is a member of St. John’s monastery in Patmos but has spent the majority of his monastic life teaching at Oxford and running the Oxford parish church. In the Syriac Orthodox Church the majority of monks are assigned to parish churches; only a minority that doesn’t exceed 100 in number live at the monasteries, such as Dayro d’Mor Matthias, which has for the past few months sheltered several thousand refugees from Mosul.. There’s also the case of Fr. Lazarus, who was a Serbian Orthodox monk (although I believe he was a novice), who left to move to Egypt where he was a monk at St. Macarius, then a missionary in Tanzania and finally an anchorite hermit at St. Anthonys.

  415. @ Albuquerque Blue:

    The Persian sect and the sect which runs the Zarathustran Center in Paris and the Temple of Zarathustra in LA are of more liberal sects that do take converts, whereas the Parsis are “Orthodox Zoroastrians.” Both parents have to be Parsi in order for their progeny to be recognized. This has led to an inbreeding problem, and there is a Parsi dating website that was written up some years ago in the WSJ that takes kinship into account. The Samaritans have the same problem but on a larger scale; their marriages are planned by a geneticist at a top Israeli university. It is particularly tricky for their family of Kohanim, which can’t intermarry with the three families that claim descent from Ephraim and Manessah. The Samaritans have in recent years brought in some brides from the Ukraine.

    Regarding my speculation on Zoroaster, this is a mere guess; Zoroastrianism in its present form certainly does not reflect truth in the manner of Christianity or Judaism, and the Orthodox Church certainly can’t say Zoroaster was a prophet. My thought is that he may have been, or he may have been an enlightened philosopher on religious matters in the manner of Plato or Confucius. It’s also worth noting that the Zurvanists, a sect of Zoroastrianism regarded by the others as heretical, which is now extinct, but which was the state religion of the Sassanian Empire, severely persecuted Christians for a time.

  416. numo wrote:

    @ William G.:
    Well, on “patriarvhal religion,” we willmhave to agree to disagree.

    I can’t agree to disagree on the subject of Aurora worship. I really hope that you are capable of seeing that the New Testament is not misogynistic, and that the paganism being practiced at herchurch is wrong. These women need someone to show them that Jesus, who was male, loves them, and instead they’re being led astray into worshipping pagan deities, in a Lutheran church! Given the intense degree to which you criticize Orthodoxy I really can’t ignore this issue. I need to know: do you regard the New Testament as misogynistic, and the Goddess worship at herchurch as an acceptable or desirable substitute, or do you agree with the majority of Christians in saying that it’s wrong?

  417. @ Michaela:

    What you’ve experienced is a horror and an abuse of excommunication; its uncanonical according to the canon law of the early church or the Orthodox Church. This is not to say that people sometimes aren’t excommunicated without reason (but in a canonical Orthodox church one can always appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople under Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon if that occurs). I would urge you to write the deebs with a full account of your story including the name of the church, because people need to know the identity of that church so they can avoid going there.

    I would urge you to find a decent church with oversight mechanisms. This seems to be a problem with churches using a congregational polity but it can occur even in other types of polities, wherever there is a lack of proper oversight. In the UK, the successor to the Vetting and Barring system would make such a scenario inconceivable.

  418. @ zooey111:

    The service book I’m working on is primarily a liturgical service book for use by the Pastor, and the liturgist which some larger churches have. However, it contains the Anglican Psalter and the hymns from Wesley’s Psalter (and a table showing how they fit together), and three forms of Morning and Evening Prayer, and also an order of Sunrise Prayer (Prime), Midday Prayer, and Compline (Night Prayer), so my thought is it should be usable as a personal prayer book as well; however unlike the BCP it lacks a catechism, forms of prayer to be used at sea, et cetera. If you want a personal prayerbook derivative of it, please let me know, as it would be easy enough to create one; I would probably delete the ordinal and the liturgical notes, and add in private prayers and a copy of a catechism that reflects Wesleyan theology (which is probably the 1662 BCP Catechism).

  419. Man Camp
    http://mancampnw.com/

    “The Purpose of Man Camp is multifaceted… First, it is our desire to see Acts 29 churches in the Northwest partner together in tangible and practical ways. Second, with Acts 29 being a single-issue network to plant churches that plant churches, it made sense to create an event aimed particularly at the development men.”

  420. @ THC:

    What you say is not the experience of the Orthodox Church, which has found that whereas hieromonks and monks in general tend to make the best starets and confessors, married priests are specifically good at offering guidance to families on those aspects such as marital situations and the raising of children that monks have no experience with.

    As further disproof of your argument, consider that the Ruthenian Catholics were so enraged when their married priests, on coming to the US, were asked to put away their wives, in the late 19th century, that a great many left the Roman Catholic church and formed the American Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox Diocese, which continues to thrive until the present; this was after several hundred years of union with Rome, for the Ruthenians or Rusyns were among those who acceded to the Union of Brest-Litovsk.

    Also, on a related note, one disturbing trend has afflicted Ruthenian Catholic and other Eastern Catholic parishes, that being that while in theory, all Rites in the Catholic church are equal, in practice, converts are discouraged from joining the Eastern Rites unless they are converting from an Orthodox church. So as a Russian Orthodox I could, by means of mere confession, become a Russian Catholic; as an American seeking to join the Catholic church I would most likely be referred to RCIA at a Latin Rite parish. And what is worse, there have been many vibrant Eastern Catholic parishes that have grown to consist mainly of converts, that have either closed or been faced with closure. Given the positive attitude towards the Eastern churches fostered by Vatican II and the de-Latinization of the Eastern Rites, I was rather surprised to read this, and troubled by it, for it suggests that the old biases are still extant. Will we ever have a Pope who hails from the Eastern Rites, or was Paul VI, who was of the Ambrosian Rite (a fact which largely saved the Ambrosian Rite from going the way of the Lugdunese, Dominican, Carmelite and Bragan Rites after Vatican II) as close as we’re likely to get? I for one would love to see an Iraqi or Syrian Pope of the Melkite, Syriac or Chaldean Rites, especially after the horror of ISIL; if anyone deserves to be Pope, it should be one of the persecuted Bishops of those churches.

  421. @ numo

    By the way, please do not refer to me as “Young man,” or make further patronizing comments, which I find hurtful and condescending. You complain of patriarchal religion, while conducting yourself in a manner that could be described as “matriarchal.” Just as it would be deeply offensive if someone called you “Little Miss” or “Old Woman,” your remarks have the same effect on me, and you have made them many times. You know very little about me, my qualifications, or my background, and as such it would be most in keeping with netiquette if you referred to me by my username.

  422. By the way Numo, in addition to the creeds I refered you to, here is a good article from the Greek Orthodox on the sources of tradition: http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7064

    The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, and the Orthodox Church in America, which are both at the “left wing” of the church, if you can call it that,,have very good catechtical websites. Mystagogy by John Androupolous and the Orthodox Christian Information Center represent excellent “right wing” resources; the website fatheralexander.org is also worth a look. The Orthodox Wiki, to which I contribute, is a good neutral resource. The main difference between the left and the right revolves over the calendar, and ecumenism; there are very few modernists in the church and they are becoming rarer, although they remain a vocal minority. The monks at New Skete, the Churches of Finland and Estonia, and the OCA host most of them; the Ecumenical Patriarch is sometimes accused of being modernist but is really centrist and includes ultra conservative elements like the Athonite monks, and the Patriarch of Antioch is solidly middle ground (and probably my favorite jurisdiction). My own jurisdiction, ROCOR, and the Church of Georgia, are the most conservative, but I’m in ROCOR for reasons of convenience, and I like the music.

  423. @ William G.:
    I think the Orthodox system is far more practical and humane, on the whole, than is typical of Rc religious orders. Thanks for expaining a bit!

    Btw, Luther came to believe that the vows demanded by religious orders did not have any validity. So, as far as he was concerned, he broke no vow on leaving.

  424. K.D. wrote:

    Question- we changed the church we normally attend on Christmas Eve this year. It is a SBC Church my in-laws attend and they have done away with communion. We went to church, also SBC that had so called ” open” communion, as we had family members from 5 different churches attend.
    The in-law’s church did away from communion to keep non-members from taking the bread and cup.

    This is a recent event. They have a new pastor who went o Criswell…don’t get me started there….in-laws are not thrilled with him.
    Anyway, just curious, how many of you attend a church with ” open” communion?

    ****************************************

    Many Protestant churches that I have attended have open communion. But they do announce that only believers should taken communion and people who have confessed their sins.

    I was recently, however, ordered to be excommunicated and shunned from my independent Bible-believing church because I opposed the pastors/elders not telling the adults in our church about a convicted sex offender on Megan’s List in our midst. They insisted he was “harmless” and was “coming off Megan’s List”. His supervising law enforcement agency and the California Attorney General’s called that “total lies”. My pastors/elders didn’t like that response from law enforcement – and kicked me out for “bringing an accusation against an elder without cause.”

    It occurred to me…wait a second..why do I think that I have to ‘have’ communion at church. I went to the grocery store and bought Jewish Matzoh crackers and grape juice.

    I confessed my sins to the Lord at home and had communion by myself at home.
    (Some times if I don’t have grape juice on hand, I just use a bit of red wine. It depends on ypur preferences.)

    Your family may want to buy the elements (Matzoh crackers and grape juice) and take communion together at home if it’s not being offered at church. Just have someone lead you in prayer, make sure that you’ve confessed your sins, read a verse of Scripture or two. There’s nothing stopping your family from doing it.

    Other Christians who have been through horrific church experiences and don’t go to church because they got burned…were stunned that I had taken communion at home. I said that should do it too. They will. (Why do we treat it like it’s gold being stored behind locked doors at the U.S. Mint?)

  425. @ numo:

    The Orthodox don’t even have religious orders per se. Each monastery is autonomous, ruled by its abbot, but subject in most cases to the diocesan bishop; just a few stavropegial monasteries and the autonomous St. Catherine’s Monastery which is also the Church of Sinai exist outside episcopal jurisdiction. Some monasteries are their own dioceses. Each monastery has its own rule, but these are usually the so called Rule of St. Pachomius; the idiorythmic monasteries and sketes lack a strict cenobitic rule and consist of hermits who work independently and own their own property, but worship in common. There are a handful of Western Rite monasteries which follow the Rule of St. Benedict and one, which consists of one monk at the moment, the Rule of St. Columba.

    There are no Friars, no cloistered nuns in convent prisons, and no Canons Regular. The Copts do have a religious order of sorts for women modeled on the Sisters of Charity, but most Coptic nuns live in ordinary convents. In Southern California there is a convent run by the OCA, the nuns of which visit different a Orthodox church in the region each Sunday for Communion, and say the divine office in their chapel daily. I suppose on occasion a priest may visit them and serve a liturgy. There are no bars in the chapel keeping the nuns from the priest, with a slot through which communion is passed, and the nuns operate a bookstore and guest house and the monastery is a center of family life for the Orthodox.

    Orthodox monks and nuns can chose a private secluded existence or one of active contact with the laity. For the latter, they are like grandfathers and grandmothers, surrounded by families and children who develop a relationship with a particular monk. Coptic children call their monastic fathers “Uncle.” Sometimes they are biological relations but not necessarily. In becoming an Orthodox monk, one exchanges sexual relations and altruistic love for ones wife, with the status of being a mother or father to hundreds of spiritual children, or alternately, of being a hermit who acts as an invisible guardian, protecting the world through prayer. Those monks who do dedicate themselves to being caretakers of pilgrims commit themselves to the role with a passion; I met a 70 year old monk who had been awake for nearly 24 hours preparing the monastery for an influx of guests and attending to them. The ideal of Orthodox monasticism is service, either through prayer or hospitality; every visitor is to be received as though they are Jesus Christ, on the basis of “What you do to the least of them you do also to Me.”

  426. numo wrote:

    Btw, Luther came to believe that the vows demanded by religious orders did not have any validity. So, as far as he was concerned, he broke no vow on leaving.

    I’m not sure why you cited that as an impediment for monks leaving then. Note that in the Catholic Church there are religious communities, notably the Oratorians, whose members do not profess formal vows, but which are rather a free association of clergy and laity.

  427. THC wrote:

    You missed my point.

    I did not miss your point. I added another dimension to the conversation. You and William seem to be doing the same thing in this area. You seem to think that once you “explain” the RCC or the orthodox position on something that ends the matter. But just look at how neither of you has been able to convince the other of the “rightness” of various positions no matter how many such statements you all make.

    Now look at what William said about the 1Timothy 3 passage. He said “The ancient church always interpreted the passage in question as …… It was never viewed as …..” Then you said, and again I quote, ” William already addressed 1 Tim 3.” I am assuming that you agree with the statement by William. No doubt his history is correct. What he (both of you) are saying is that the passage is not explicit in and of itself and that it requires being “interpreted” and “viewed as.” That is certainly correct. But both of you seem to assume that protestant fundamentalists think that there is a necessity to “let” either the early church or the RCC interpret scripture for them in cases where interpretation and viewing as are needed for application of some passage.

    This is where the conversations bog down. You and William do not agree as to who may/should interpret scripture, and neither of you agree with the protestant approach as to who may/should interpret scripture, and the fundamentalist protestants do not agree with either of you.

    I have something more to say about married clergy, but I will put it in another comment, for the sake of avoiding confusion.

  428. @ Nancy:

    I am not any authority on people and how they do or why they think what they think, but like a lot of people that has never stopped me from having a few ideas based on observation. Observation is admittedly a poor way to form opinions and ideas. (Just look at the legal problems with eye witness accounts for documentation of why I think observation is a poor way to evaluate things). None the less, we all do observe and conclude.

    I heard about the fundamentalist idea about married clergy because I grew baptist. Not IFB style, but seriously baptist none the less. Then I listened to the conversations from a catholic viewpoint during my time in RCIA. The catholics were not saying “the bible says” but they did mention that this particular church had lost some (how many?) priests due to dropping out of the priesthood in order to marry, and they thought it was a pity to lose those people. The catholics also seemed be be disturbed that there were no women priests. They were coming at it from a quite different angle than the baptists. So, is there anything that may be a work in both these approaches to the issue, or are they entirely different?

    I am thinking that in this argument there is an element of who is my kind of person, who speaks my language, who understands what I am saying when I say it, and how can I relate to someone who has not been there and done that the way I have (marriage, children, gender among other things.) And there is this dimension to human communication. The flip side of that would be that if I do not “relate” to the other person (priest, pastor) then the priest/pastor does not relate to me and my situation. If I cannot understand where the other person is coming from, and basically feel that I relate only when they are more like me, then they must think/feel the same way about me.

    Now, before we just dismiss that whole thing out of hand, let me mention two things. one a common idea and one biblical.

    Some years ago there was a movie about a surgeon who was good at his craft but only thoroughly professional, and then he got very very sick and then saw the issue of illness from a different perspective. He came out of that experience a different person. One does not have to have been sick in order to be a doctor, but it helps. This is my observation of myself and others in health care. Been there and done that is a tremendous advantage in understanding some aspects of what patients and family go through; stuff you just don’t “get” in the same way just from reading books or listening to lectures or observing patients. Similarly, Dee knows what it is to have a desperately sick child in ways that one cannot know if one has never faced that. So it is, and so we know in life, regardless of what the bible or some church or some early fathers say or do not say about it one way or the other.

    But then, the bible does say this same sort of thing in Hebrews 4: 14-16 in the passage about the high priest who understands us because he has been there and done that. Surely nobody including the author of Hebrews would think that God would not understand or that there were gaps in God’s understanding either with or without having been there and done that. None the less, the writer says the following: “15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”
    Amazing idea. I am thinking that God does not need that in order to understand us but we need that in order to trust that understanding with a greater degree of confidence in the fact that we are understood.

    This idea, then, of who speaks my language and understands my situation seems to me to be the emotional and human need that may be driving the differences in “understanding” of 1Tim 3, and the ongoing unrest and disagreement about married clergy and the issue of female priests and such.

    Personally, I do not relate at a certain level of understanding with people who have never married or never parented children or never had the necessity of working outside the home rather than starve, or never had life kick them in the teeth, or never had to face down aspects of the culture in order to accomplish something or other. I may like them, agree with them, hold them in high regard, even quote them and perhaps copy some things about their thinking, but we do not speak the same language or come from the same starting point.

    This, I think, is a driving force in how one wants to understand quite a few things in the bible, or in how one feels about what the early fathers or the current churches think and do in this matter. And what one wants to think affects what one does think. And here I veer a bit, but some imaging studies show that often when we think that we are thinking, we are not using the part of the brain that thinks cognitively, but rather we are becoming aware of things that arise in the part of the brain that operates below the level of consciousness (until it makes us aware of something) and then we think we thought it (cognitively processed it) when indeed we did not exactly do that. Sure, the next set of studies may show something different–I do not worship science–but right now this is interesting and probably part of what drives much of our religious “thinking.”

    It seems to me that both Jesus and Paul made room for both married and unmarried people. And it seems to me that both assumed that the married state would be the one most prevalent among people. The intensity with which some on both sides of the argument throw themselves into the fracas suggests to me that the argument is emotionally driven for reasons other than the specifics of the argument. As they would say in one psych way of thinking, what is the payoff? Perhaps the payoff is just that the basic biologic reality is that we are essentially alone but that we do not survive well alone and we crave others to whom we can relate. Thus, relatedness is crucial. And this is one of the enormities of emmanuel, god-with-us.

  429. Nancy wrote:

    You seem to think that once you “explain” the RCC or the orthodox position on something that ends the matter.

    I think that’s a bit unfair. I have consistently acknowledged the legitmacy of non Orthodox churches, which differ with us on questions of interpretation.

    That said, there is a legitimate question as to how scripture should be interpreted and who has the authority to do it. I believe the Church as a whole should interpret scripture, consistently with how it has always interpreted it, following the rule of St. Vincent Lerins (“That which everywhere has been believed always and by everyone is properly called Catholic”). The reason why I believe this is that sola scriptura has never been practiced exclusively by the denominations that ostensibly embrace it, and the proliferation of divergent interpretations of scripture under sola scriptura has produced literally thousands of denominations. Sola scriptura combined with the anti ecclesial sentiments of the Radical Reformation has produced a recursive schism whereby certain Protestant churches continually divide on doctrinal matters, and in which the fulfillment of Christ’s command that “they may all be one, just as You and I are one” is impossible. This in turn leads to anti-dogmatic pietism and latitudinarianis, which produces a progressively weakening faith.

    Sola scriptura is fatally flawed, and the mere existence of extremist sects like Sovereign Grace Ministries that are able to justify their doctrine using it is proof of that. The successful Protestant churches have always stopped short of actually implementing it, and have fallen back on Tradition. The most theologically formidable Protestant denomination, the Anglicans, acquired its wondrous stature by explicitly embracing tradition alongside scripture and reason, the so called “three legged stool.” This view is actually compatible with Orthodoxy; we view Holy Scripture as the heart of Holy Tradition, and reason is required to comprehend it.

    Now the Catholics have a workable system centered around the Pope. I don’t agree with it, but it at least avoids the recursive schism of the Radical Reformation. The Lutherans have a system centered around the Book of Concord, and the traditionalist Calvinists, a system centered around the Institutes and various confessions. The Methodists in which I grew up inherited much of Anglican wisdom, in addition to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral and the 25 Articles. These churches have generally been able to maintain coherency of doctrine and praxis. The American Methodists in particular only had two major schisms, one involving segregation, which has been partially healed with the restoration of communion between the UMC and the Black Methodists, and one between the pro slavery and abolitionist elements which was healed following the Reconstruction. To my knowledge, the Moravians never has a schism, due perhaps to an excess of pietism.

    So when I say what the Orthodox view on something is, I am not doing so with the authority of a prophet, “Thus saith the Lord.” Likewise, when I say what the early church believed, while I can’t imagine why people don’t want to understand the early church and its exegesis of the New Testament, considering that it wrote and compiled it, I do so knowing that in rare instances the faith has changed. For example, most major saints of the second century were premillennialists, but this view was seen as heretical in the fourth century. It wasn’t until the Seventh Ecumenical Council we had a consistent theory of iconography, and prior to the Idonoclast heresy, while the majority of saints who discuss icons have good things to say about them, some, like St. Epiphanius of Salamis, appear to have been against them.

    The Orthodox Church is a living tradition that starts with Christ and his Apostles, continues through their immediate successors like Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, and stretches through each subsequent tradition until today. I believe we have a lot of useful information based on that that we can share, especially when it comes to exegesis, and in particular, we do study more than most Christians the writings of the early church.

    Roman Catholics historically focused on the Latin Doctors, especially Augustine, and made only a cursory survey of the pre Nicene and Greek Doctors before moving on to the Scholastic Age, where Latin theology proper begins. Anselm and Thomas Aquinas are the crown jewells of traditional Catholicism. Protestants tend to start at the Reformation, especially those of the Radical Reformation; those who do study Patristics with some exceptions tend to focus on Augustine excessively and follow Luthers course of studies. In their defense, both Calvin and Cranmer were extremely well versed in Patristics for their time, as was the neutral mediator of the Reformarion, Erasmus. The Caroline Divines also studied it, and the non Juring Scottish Episcopalians were huge fans of the Orthodox, as were many of the great high church Anglicans, and the most successful reformer, John Wesley. So for those Protestants who do make themselves friends of the Orthodox and join us in studying the Fathers, there awaits a rich bounty: unity, dogmatic clarity, inspiring stories of pious martyrs and heroes of the Christian Faith, and fellowship in the love of Christ. Those on the other hand who just dismiss Patrisric theology out of hand as Popery and write the Orthodox off as idolatrous drunks, like the 9Marks people, cut themselves off from the wondrous fountain of antiquity.

    Meanwhile, as an Orthodox, I actively seek to learn from other traditions. I find much in Scholastic theology of value. Calvin’s Institutes is a well researched work that contains lots of useful information. The works of John Wesley and the other Anglican divines are a paradise for the mind and the soul. I love the liturgical writing of Rev.Percy Dearmer and Dom Gregory Dix. Rev. John Hunter of the Kings Weigh House, a Congregational church in the city of London that sadly closed about 40 years after he retired, and now hosts a Ukrainian Catholic congregation, wrote one of the finest liturgical service books I’ve seen, Devotional Services, loosely based on the Book of Common Prayer, but with immense beauty and variety in its prayers and litanies. It features 13 gorgeous orders of morning and evening prayer, a set of litanies, services for all the sacraments and pastoral needs, and an exquisite Eucharist modeled on the Anglican service, but with a stunning invitation to Communion: “Come, not becaue you must, but because you may; not because you are strong, but because you are weak…” I used it with proper credits as the basis for some services in my Methodist Orayer book, and am planning on adapting it for possible use within Western Rite Orthodox communities (although whether or not it sees the light of day in that form depends on the bishops, who I trust to make sound decisions regarding our own liturgy, which more than in other denominations, is also our rule of faith; the importation of Western liturgies has been controversial and accomplished in each case with great care).

  430. @ Nancy:

    On your second post, I agree with what you have to say, and so do the Orthodox. We only insist on celibacy for the bishops, and the bishops in turn are monks. Some Orthodox churches such as the Syriac Orthodox in India have married Chorepiscopi, or Choir Bishops, who can ordain to the minor orders. The Assyrian Church of the East also has these, and I’m good friends with one.

    In the early church there were married bishops, and I do not believe there is a theological problem with having them; the preference for celibate monastic bishops was driven by popular piety in the fourth century. There were cases of anchorites being dragged out of their hermitages and installed with violent force as bishops. There are also hints of episcopal celibacy being a compromise between Latins who demanded complete clerical celibacy, and Easterns who were at least somewhat indifferent.

  431. @ Nancy:

    If you want to believe that’s what 1 Tim 3 is teaching, it is of no concern to me. I have stated that it isn’t teaching that priests must be married. It is just your preference that priests are married. Priests in the RCC aren’t meant to be the mainstay of counseling for people. I know that is prevalent in Protestant arenas where the pastor is the one stop shop for everything. The RCC recognizes the value of having professional psychologists and counselors that can meet your needs.

    Someone’s opinion might also be that a MAN can’t understand a WOMAN parishioner’s needs, so then should we also have women priests? Again, no.

    Unmarried priests isn’t a dogma of the RCC and could change. However, if it changes it isn’t because they suddenly had an epiphany about 1 Tim 3.

  432. @ Michaela:

    I do suggest against communion at home; I would also point out that a great deal of tradition points to the use of leavened bread. It’s also most likely Jesus mixed water with the wine, as this was the Jewish custom at the time; people in the Roman Empire including the Jews regarded drinking straight wine as characteristic of barbarians. The early church used leavened bread until the Armenians began using unleavened bread in the 6th century, and the Latins followed suit. The root of the confusion stems from whether the Last a Supper actually occurred during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, or just before it; the timeline of the Synoptic Gospels which suggests unleavened bread doesn’t quite make sense due to the issue of burying a Jesus on the sabbath. The timeline of John which would indicate leavened bread does make sense.

    Now that all being said, the abuse you’ve described sounds HORRIBLE. Please write to the Deebs and give them the details. And find a safe mainstream church with oversight mechanisms to prevent against child abuse.

  433. @ THC:

    In the Orthodox Church many women look to the Matushka (the wife of the priest) or an elderly nun as their spiritual advisor. Only a priest with a faculty to hear confessions )usually signified by the diamond shaped ornament, the epignation, worn on the vestments) can administer the sacrament of repentance, but many lay men and women of advanced years, especially monastics, serve as informal confessors and spiritual advisors. This is generally encouraged by the church; the only exception is when such a confessor teaches heresies or is a fraud, for example, Rasputin. The bishops tried to remove him from the Court repeatedly, but after the Czar became convinced he saved poor Tsarevich Alexei’s life through intercessory prayer, reinforced by a “prophecy,” Rasputin became invincible, and contributed to the downfall of the Imperial regime.

  434. @ THC:

    Most protestant pastors are not priests. Some catholic priests are pastors and some are not. Let’s not confuse apples and oranges here.

  435. Michaela wrote:

    Other Christians who have been through horrific church experiences and don’t go to church because they got burned…were stunned that I had taken communion at home. I said that should do it too. They will. (Why do we treat it like it’s gold being stored behind locked doors at the U.S. Mint?)

    Jesus had this to say on the matter:

    But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
    ~ Matthew 23:13 ~

  436. @ Michaela:
    I think communion is intended to be a fellowship meal, shared with other Christians.

    That said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with any group of geniuine believers or just a family taking communion, providing it is done reverently. I remember after being given the left boot of fellowship years ago continuing to meet informally with a few other believers for a bit of fellowhip and bible study, and continuing to take communion on an ad hoc basis.

    There is a whole load of religion and churchianity that has been added to communion. It’s the Lord’s invitation, and it doesn’t matter who ‘does’ communion, there is no priesthood required, nor is there any set of details as to what form it should take, meaning there is no liturgy prescribed. As far as I can see, the only qualification is that you are a genuine believer.

    So I think you should have a pefectly clear consciences on this, and not let the religious hang-ups of others deter you, those maybe who have erected a huge edifice on top of what should be the simple ceremony depicted in the NT. It is not up to others to deprive you of this means of grace.

  437. William G. wrote:

    The rules are designed to create an environment whereby the exposure to temptation is reduced. And I will say it’s blissful being in a place where those rules exist. The monastery was a paradise; in our society we are constantly assaulted by advertising and other media that seeks to sell to us by appealing to the passions, seeking to stir up our desires for sex, money, power, social status, fine food, alcohol,and so on. Just being in an environ,ent entirely devoid of such assaults is blissfu

    If people have self control, they don’t need to be in a special environment.

    I’m still a virgin past the age of 40 on will power alone.

    I did not need a special environment to avoid having sex, and I live in the USA and watch and read secular movies, television, and news, and I see lots of sex or sexualized content in these venues.

    I’ve had opportunity to have sex. I was engaged for several years to a man, and we sometimes spent time alone together, but we didn’t have sex. I told him at the start of our relationship I wanted to save sex for marriage.

    Your view can and does lead to some odd views about sex and dating, as well. Some evangelicals and Baptists have similar ideas to yours.

    They then come up with weird ideas, such as, all men, single and married, should not hang out with single women, and/or certainly not be alone with single women.

    Some married Christian women fall for this, too, so they end up viewing un-married Christian women as threats. This means single Christian women often end up isolated and alone. And the older one gets, the harder it becomes to make friends.

    Then we get into the weird idea that all men are visual (as if women are not, but we are), so Christian men teach men to avoid temptation by shaming women into “modesty.”

    In some segments of Christianity, women are then blamed for men’s sexual failings, because Christians say, “If only women would cover up, men would not have naughty thoughts and affairs.”

    This completely dissolves the sinning man of all responsibility and ignores the fact that men are capable of self control. It’s also similar to how some Muslims think, hence, they believe women should wear coverings.

    Anyway, men do not need to avoid women, being around women, or living in everyday society and live in a monastery to avoid committing sexual sin.

    Jesus Christ hung out with prostitutes, and he had sex with zero of them – and he is the role model for Christians, so please, don’t get into the special pleading of, “But that’s okay, that’s Jesus!!,” as if Jesus gets a special pass here but every day Christians do not.

  438. @ William G.:
    still, Nancy has a point -it always seems to come down to “this is what the [insert name] says…” as if that settles everything. I know it does for you, but for most of us out here, it doesn’t. No offense intended; am not certain you can see how this reads to non-Orthodox.

    You mentioned Luther a bit upthread, in the beginning of a reply to me, which is why I mentioned him in turn.

  439. William G. wrote:

    Now the Catholics have a workable system centered around the Pope. I don’t agree with it, but it at least avoids the recursive schism of the Radical Reformation.

    This was the view of Christendom until the schism in the 11th century. How could be anything other than workable? It is what Jesus established.

  440. @ Daisy:
    But some people feel called to a monastic life, and it’s a lot easier to do that in a community of like-minded people that all alone.

  441. Nancy wrote:

    @ THC:
    Most protestant pastors are not priests. Some catholic priests are pastors and some are not. Let’s not confuse apples and oranges here.

    I am not confusing anything. Your point here isn’t obvious.

    If you want to believe that the Bible teaches that pastors MUST be married that’s OK! You are Protestant, I am Catholic. I believe in the authority of the Church, you do not. There’s really nothing to argue about here.

  442. THC wrote:

    It is what Jesus established.

    According to some interpretations of scripture. But scripture does not say that Jesus proclaimed a pope and a succession of popes to follow.

  443. @ Daisy:

    Alas you completely failed to grasp the gist of my argument. Most Orthodox monasteries have female visitors, and the opportunity for monks to violate their oaths of celibacy exists. The point of Orthodox monasticism is to create an environment where the actual exposure to temptations themselves, not just for sex, but for other vices, is reduced or eliminated. The reason for this is that we sin by thought. Looking at someone with lust is committing adultery, in the words of our Lord. Our Lord, not being subject to original sin, and posessing both a human and divine nature, had the ability to resist all temptations thrown at his human nature by the devil. We human beings are subject to original sin and temptation.

    The Orthoodox Church is also the second largest in existence. Millions of boys and girls in Greece, Russia, America, and other lands go on dates every day and every night, and there are no peculiar restrictions on dating. Premarital sex is a no no, but it happens and is forgiven. The Orthodox even allow the remarriage of divorced couples, which historically not only Rome but many Protestant churches denied. For a time, in England getting a divorce required an act of Parliament.

  444. @ numo:

    Numo, I’m still deeply confused and troubled with your views on herchurch. Are you of the opinion that it is acceptable for a Christian church, a Lutheran church no less, to distribute “goddess rosaries” depicting Aurora and to worship various female Pagan dieties.

  445. THC wrote:

    William G. wrote:
    Now the Catholics have a workable system centered around the Pope. I don’t agree with it, but it at least avoids the recursive schism of the Radical Reformation.
    This was the view of Christendom until the schism in the 11th century. How could be anything other than workable? It is what Jesus established.

    The schism did not occur in the 11th century, but was rather a process that began with the Frankish subversion of the papacy, which led to the illicit insertion of the Filioque in violation of the canons of the third and eigth ecumenical councils; then there was the Leavened Bread controversy and other incidents. The final nail in the coffin was the crusades; after thousands and thousands of Orthodox were murdered by Crusading soldiers, any hope of reconciliation collapsed. The Council of Florence was a desperate attempt by the Byzantine Empire to save itself, but St. Mark of Ephesus widely knew preserving the Church to be infinitely more valuable than preserving a military dictatorship, and the Ottoman Empire in due course also ceased to exist.

    It should also be noted that whereas the Orthodox Church has remained more or less united since the Schism, the misconduct of the Catholic Church engendered the Protestant Reformation, and in particular the anti-ecclesial sentiment that, combined with sola scriptura, produced the recursive schism that continues to spawn new iterations of itself like a work of fractal geometry, or a computer program stuck in an infinite loop. That was you guys, not us, who triggered that. A bit less greed and a bit more compassion on the part of Leo X and that may have been averted…

  446. William G. wrote:

    It should also be noted that whereas the Orthodox Church has remained more or less united since the Schism, the misconduct of the Catholic Church engendered the Protestant Reformation

    Or, maybe the Orthodox Church paved the way / greased the wheels, for the Protestant reformation? Both, at its core, rejected the authority of the Church. The Orthodox Church are regional/ethnic Churches which maintain apostolic succession and have the seven sacraments.

  447. @ William G.:
    I don’t agree with them, but i don’t want to see them get hammered from on high, either. They are on the fringe and not really hurting anyone, though their still being a Luthersn church in name is pretty odd.

  448. @ numo:

    The problem is they’re hurting themselves by practicing idolatry. God forbid that anyone should be “hammered from on high”, but the ELCA ought to replace the pastor with a loving missionary who can explain to these women the Gospel. Or at least remove the church from the ELCA, lest it be a stumbling block for children and recent converts (not alas that the ELCA has many of either these days; like the other mainline congregations, there is a real tragedy in he steadily rising age of your congregations and their steadily shrinking nature; if a church is healthy it will have all generations represented in equal proportions; many Orthodox churches are blessed in this respect, but some, especially in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, have demographic decline problems and are slowly dying out).

  449. @ THC:

    Again, what caused the schism was the Roman Pope breaking the rules of the church in the form of the canons of the council of Ephesus and inserting the Filioque. The rupture was cemented by the blood of those killed in the Crusades.

    And let’s visit that issue which in your polemics has thus far gone unmentioned. Why should anyone listen to the authority of a patriarch who would sanction such bloodshed? No Orthodox Patriarch, not even Nikon, has as much blood on his hands as the Crusader Popes.

    The crusades had no positive effect on the security of the Holy Land, since they failed. What is more, by fatally weakening the Byzantine Empire and the Two Armenias, they eliminated the last line of Christian defence protecting Southeastern Europe, which fell under Ottoman rule until the 19th century. So we can account the victims of that rule, such as those of the Bulgarian massacres perpetrated by the Bashi Bazouks in the 1870s, as indirect victims of the Pope.

    When we consider the sheer amount of bloodshed caused by the Papacy in the Crusades, the Inquisition and the military defence of the Papal States, and other intrigues (the massacre of 16,000 Waldensian men, women and children in ways to horrible to contemplate comes to mind during the Piedmont Easter), the legitimacy of the Popes since their subversion by the Franks collapses. No Orthodox patriarch, and for that matter no single Protestant leader save perhaps the British monarchs, who are technically the Heads of the Church of England, have soiled their office with so much human blood. So I can’t fault people like Doug for falling into the recursive schism trap, for to many it must seem preferable to the blood soaked papacy, and the Orthodox simply because we preserve the ancient rituals of the Church that a minority of Catholics still observe, in the form of the Eastern Rites and the Tridentine Mass, are unable to make traction with these people in many cases.

    Where the Catholic Church has been successful in recent years in the New Evangelism has been through adopting an attitude of repentance, humility, love and real respect for other Christians, for example, through allowing limited intercommunion with the Eastern churches and the PNCC.

    This is helping, but I think what would be best would be if the Roman church could form the courage to simply anathematize most of the Popes starting a few centuries after St. Gregory the Great and before St. Pius X. Pius X seems to have been the prototype of successful recent popes like John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and was entirely untainted by the various wars of the Varican city state. Thus, the period from 900 through 1900 would,be marked off as the Dark Millenium which it really is, a period in which individual Roman Catholics acted with grace and piety, such as St. Francis of Assisi and St. Catherine of Sienna, but the Popes with a handful of exceptions were at best, greedy scoundrels, and at worst, bloodthirsty tyrants, worthy of at most the same begrudging respect we accord to Caesar Augustus, who seems to have been their role model (I do love the hagiographic story of St. Gregory through his prayers releasing Trajan from hell; also if we accept the Orthodox doctrine of the Harrowing of Hell we might legitimately hope to encounter Augustus in Heaven, but that is another matter).

  450. @ William G.:
    Look, i am not comfortable with this topic, partly because i dont know what’s going on behind the scenes re. herchurch, nor what the reasoning is as far as why they’re still affiliated with the ELCA. I am sure the people who attend are aware that belief and practice there is very different to that of most other member congregations. But beyond that, i am just not qualified to comment on it, because i dont have sufficient information.

    In any case, they are very much the exception rather than the rule as far as i know.

  451. This is long. I have divided it for length purposes only.

    Part 1

    About schisms, apostasies, heresies, organizational disruptions, reformations and such, to the extent that it relates to some of the more recent comments here. There seems to be an idea being presented that at one time there was one big happy family (OBHF) of christian belief and organizational structure (and perhaps political power?) and that such would still be the case except for certain disruptions noted in my first sentence above. Along with that is the idea that it would be a good idea if that mythical kingdom could have lasted or now could be re-established. All in the name of Jesus, of course.

    It must be observed, however, that perhaps the myth of the historical one big happy religious family is a myth. Maybe one must come to some reconciliation that there really were groups from the get go who were not so happy or so conforming and who were called heretics and determined by the winners of the early debates to be outside the family. Maybe the myth of OBHF maintained itself by excluding people rather than by convincing people? Or even by coercing people rather than by convincing people? Way back in the beginning, that would be.

    And later, maybe people “converted” by political decree or coercion or threats/wars/intimidation or “converted” for their own personal gain as opposed to converted for religious reasons, maybe these people outwardly conformed but never were convinced and were not “happy” and at heart never were “family.” Spain certainly suspected this with the conversos, and they were probably correct. Note also the conversion by decree to rome of the early arian christians in spain way back when. They are gone but arian ideas are not gone. (I am not defending arian ideas, only mentioning that OBHF does not seem to be an accurate description of the evangelization of europe.) I only mention these two situations for illustration and only mention spain because the events were huge and are in everybody’s “child’s book of history of religion in the west” as it were.

  452. Part 2

    What it looks like to this non-historian is that religious history and political history are siamese twins, and when politics (the human condition) changes then the outward aspects of religious practice change and the political affiliations within and between organized religions are sometimes torn apart. But to even think that back in the days of OBHF everybody (that would include the masses) actually thought and believed alike on religious issues does not hold up to inspection even on a superficial level. Conformity has many causes; it does not require any actual level of belief.

    Now one may say that the older historical church organizations who were the “winners” in times past somehow lost political/social control of huge chunks of the masses. That is certainly correct.
    To say that control/influence of/on the kings/leaders/tyrants was either lost or greatly diminished that is also true. Before deciding that this is bad, however, one has to consider that political religion never was about the welfare of the masses so much as it was about power at the tops of the political and religious structures. Please don’t bother with saying what about medicine, education, charity and such. The muslims also did these as did the chinese. These are human things, not exclusively christian things.

    I am thinking that perhaps the current divisions among christians may be our only protection from the political/religious wars, crusades and oppressions that we have seen in the shameful history of christian evangelization of the west. Perhaps these current divisions keep organized religion from gaining political control and may be absolutely necessary to force organized christianity to focus on the gospel instead of power and money at whatever cost and whatever it takes.

  453. @ numo:

    Well I have to confess I’ve been uncomfortable with many of the repeated objections to Orthodoxy you’ve raised, in particular, objections to our monasteries, our ascetic disciplines, our views on medical care, where at times you seemed inclined to believe that we shunned it like Quakers or Christian Scientists, when in fact Orthodoxy, as the second largest religion, has in its ranks many doctors and psychiatrists, and provides free healthcare services in many poor and distressed regions, your criticism of St. John Chrysostom, and many other things. And in each case I have sought to patiently and indeed lovingly answer your concerns and show you how the Orthodox Church is a loving church, a tolerant church, that has much to offer Protestants, and that recognizes that while some Protestants have joined us, many find crossing the Bosphorus a bridge too far. For this reason I have endeavoured to make the treasures of Orthodoxy available to Protestants without the expectation of their conversion, for them to use in their own church, as for example, Thomas Cranmer did, when he adapted the beautiful prayer of the Second Antiphon for use at the conclusion of Morning and Evening Prayer in the Book of Common Prayer. Indeed, at the recent Memorial Vigil for WW I held at Westminster Abbey, I was thrilled to note the presence at the altar of Byzantine icons. At the same time, I have sought to avail myself of the treasures to be found outside of Orthodoxy, which I am doing with my present Traditional Methodist Service Book, and am planning on using my knowledge of Anglican liturgy to compile a similar series of books for Continuing Anglicans, and a stripped down liturgy following a simplified, traditional one year lectionary for use by Evangelicals.

    Now, I actually can supply you with the reasoning as to why herchurch is still a part of ELCA, from the words of Bishop Burk of the Southeastern Iowa Synod, discussing a conversation he had with the bishop of the Sierra Pacific Synod: ““After visiting with the bishop and with another synod staff member who knows the congregation and the pastor well, there is an acknowledgement that this congregation ‘pushes around the edges’ on matters that make some of us uncomfortable. Things like what they refer to this ‘rosary’ are seen by many to be outside the bounds, but don’t rise to level of anything in the disciplinary arena. Speaking explicitly about the pastor and regular worship experience there, when folks have ‘dropped in unannounced’ they have experienced preaching that is decidedly within Lutheran orthodoxy and worship that is familiar and done with integrity. It was said that this small congregation is serving the local community very well, especially when it comes to reaching out to the local community.” Source: http://www.exposingtheelca.com/exposed-blog/category/goddess%20worship/2

    The same website has much additional material on the pure horror that is the pagan worship being conducted at herchurch. As far as I am aware, herchurch is in fact the most “revolutionary” parish church of a mainline denomination in the United States in terms of its routine worship practices; the various Episcopal cathedrals occasionally get headlines for doing disturbing things (such as the “Plague Mass” at St. John the Divine in 1990, or more recently the Islamic Prayer at the National Cathedral in Washington DC, where peaceful, non-violent dissenting Anglicans were persecuted and arrested by the Cathedral’s own twenty member accredited police force, the members of which are LEOs with full peace officer powers; it seems to me that for any cathedral or religious organization in the US to have its own police force is a huge violation of the First Ammendment and the Doctrine of the Separation of Church and State, and while the National Cathedral is undeniably a high profile target for terror attacks, the Constitution demands it be protected by the DC Police, and not by its own police officers, who in this case appear to have been used to further the religious agenda of the Presiding Bishop), herchurch consistently worships in a manner that exceeds even the most unusual practices one sometimes reads about at parishes in the United Church of Christ or the ECUSA. Given that the ELCA as a whole is at least somewhat traditional, the case of herchurch is particularly shocking, and its also shocking this has been going on for many years, well before the ELCA approved gay marriage, for example, causing the growing schism with the NALC.

    So I would urge you Numo, if you do care about the Gospel, to write to your Bishop, and ask them to do something. The parishioners at Herchurch need love, and what is being done to them is hateful; they are Lutherans who are being directly led into engaging in Isis worship, Aurora worship, Sophia worship, and various idolatrous practices which Jesus Christ himself warned us not to engage in. We have no less a witness than our Lord that we must send missionaries to correct such errors. The ELCA, even if it wants to be a progressive Christian denomination, is still morally obliged to be Christian, as long as it puts crosses on its churches and holds itself out as Lutheran, otherwise, they make themselves like the Scientologists, who use a cross as one of their logos but are anything but Christian. I am an extreme proponent of honesty in religion, and people who honestly do not believe in Christ or the teachings of Martin Luther shouldn’t call their churches Lutheran.

    Near where I live there is the Ecclesia Gnostica, which is a Gnostic church which worships Jesus Christ according to the Gnostic gospels. They worship Sophia but in the context of the Gnostic comprehension of her. And I daresay they’re better Christians than the pastor of Herchurch, because at least they believe in Jesus and worship Him; they may use another Gospel, and have doctrines that are radically different from those of mainstream Christianity, but they are Christians, and they are honest about their differences; no one attending a service at the Ecclesia Gnostica can realistically have any expectation that they are attending anything other than a Gnostic service. And as far as I’m aware, the dignified worship of most Ecclesia Gnostica services, conducted by the learned and affable Bishop Stephen Hoeller (who actually does have apostolic succession, amusingly enough) which apparently resembles the Latin mass, and which follows a lectionary they publish online, which makes for interesting reading, is more dignified and more authentically Christian in every sense than the disturbing pagan rites reported at herchurch. So the case of herchurch does seem to me to be a very specific transgression; it is a legitimate case of pastoral abuse, which I would say is in some respects on a par with the abuse of Driscoll. For whereas Driscoll engaged in gross moral failings and was verbally and physically abusive of his staff and his parishioners, the pastor at herchurch is spiritually deceptive and engages in an abuse of their souls, by attempting to pass off pagan mysteries as being a legitimate form of Christian worship and a legitimate expression of the Lutheran faith. And whereas Driscoll corrupted his congregation with false doctrines regarding spiritual gifts he allegedly possessed, and other errors, the pastor of herchurch corrupts her congregation with idolatrous practices. In both cases, the pastors are unambiguously guilty of preaching another gospel from that of Paul and his Apostles.

    So I would urge you to confront this issue; you may be uncomfortable with it, but perhaps that’s because its a serious wrong, and needs to be addressed. There are serious wrongs in the Orthodox church, such as the recent blog post of Fr. Robert Arida on the OCA’s Wonder Blog, which I have addressed, as have many other Orthodox, in spite of the fact that these made us deeply uncomfortable. Not addressing that which makes us uncomfortable is what causes denominations irreparable harm; look at how much the ECUSA has contracted because in the polite, WASPy society of Episcopal congregations, no one wanted to raise a fuss, and now we have the gruesome spectacle of a church that is being forced to sell off churches and in some cases cathedrals to stay afloat, while spending more than $40 million that could go to helping the poor, on preventing dissenting congregations from leaving. And congregations that do leave aren’t allowed to purchase their buildings, on the basis of an evil policy instituted by the presiding bishop herself, that church buildings may not be sold to groups that “seek to replace the Episcopal Church.” So families are cut off from the places where their parents and grandparents worshiped, which are then sold to fund the continuing legal campaign of the Episcopal Church. Right now millions of Syrian refugees including many Christians are starving in refugee camps on the Turkish border and in mountain passes in Iraq; $40 million could have gone a long way to improving their situation. My message is, don’t let that happen to the ELCA. Recognize that evil exists, and confront it.

  454. William G. wrote:

    Where the Catholic Church has been successful in recent years in the New Evangelism has been through adopting an attitude of repentance, humility, love and real respect for other Christians, for example, through allowing limited intercommunion with the Eastern churches and the PNCC.

    Don’t forget that the ecumenical councils in 1274 (Lyons) and 1439 (Florence) where the Eastern Church, duly represented there by bishops sent from the Constantinople, accepted on behalf of the Eastern Church the decrees that came out of it, including that the Pope had divinely ordained jurisdiction over the universal church, not just mere primacy of honor. They were ineffective at putting the decrees into practice throughout their churches.

    And, you can name this pope or that pope and point and say look how bad that person was, but the simple truth is, that does not discredit the continuation of the seat of Peter to this day. That authority has always been and always will be

  455. William G. wrote:

    Where the Catholic Church has been successful in recent years in the New Evangelism has been through adopting an attitude of repentance, humility, love and real respect for other Christians, for example, through allowing limited intercommunion with the Eastern churches and the PNCC.

    Don’t forget that the ecumenical councils in 1274 (Lyons) and 1439 (Florence) where the Eastern Church, duly represented there by bishops sent from the Constantinople, accepted on behalf of the Eastern Church the decrees that came out of it, including that the Pope has divinely ordained jurisdiction over the universal church, not just mere primacy of honor. They were ineffective at putting the decrees into practice throughout their churches.

    The schism exists today, in my opinion, in large part, because the Eastern Churches ARE schismatic. Unity will only come when there’s humility on both sides, but it appears for now only one-sided based on your demands.

  456. @ numo:

    Also you are right to say that herchurch is the exception and not the rule. And just so you don’t think I’m “picking on them,” there are other parishes in the US that engage in things that I’m opposed to. St. Gregory of Nyassa Episcopal Church in particular I am very much opposed to. Their overarching worship, of making liturgy beautiful, I support wholeheartedly. I also do not object to their eclectic blending of different traditions to achieve beautiful worship; in this they have actually been somewhat successful. What I object to is their doctrinal and dogmatic looseness.

    Their patron saint, who was doubtless selected due to his alleged universalism (in fact he believed in apocatastasis, which is not quite the same thing), is also one of the most moralistic saints, even by the strict standards of the Cappodacian Fathers (he was the younger brother of St. Basil the Great). He was one of the few Fathers to address the issue of homosexuality directly and explicitly, and he did so in a manner that I would imagine the congregation of that parish would not agree with. The disturbing lack of doctrinal prudence at that congregation involves the poorly conducted historical “research” of the rector, whose ludicrous article “Jesus Wants to Dance With You in Church” reads like a sexual fantasy, and whose alleged historically based liturgies are complete fabrications. The church uses other even more disturbing liturgies, such as an Anaphora of Cain, in which the first murderer is held up as a model of Christian repentance.

    One of the most disturbing facets of the parish that dares to put itself under the patronage of Gregory of Nyassa is this mural, which depicts next to St. Isaiah the Prophet, the Kangxi Emperor: http://www.allsaintscompany.org/icons/alcove-panel

    Their rationale is that the Kangxi Emperor allowed Christian missionaries into China and was a model of religious tolerance. But this is a huge distortion. While it is true that Kangxi allowed Christian missionaries in, he also kicked them out, following the Chinese Rites Controversy, and his official statement on the remark displays a distinct lack of religious tolerance and indeed some degree of racist prejudice: “Reading this proclamation, I have concluded that the Westerners are petty indeed. It is impossible to reason with them because they do not understand larger issues as we understand them in China. There is not a single Westerner versed in Chinese works, and their remarks are often incredible and ridiculous. To judge from this proclamation, their religion is no different from other small, bigoted sects of Buddhism or Taoism. I have never seen a document which contains so much nonsense. From now on, Westerners should not be allowed to preach in China, to avoid further trouble.”

    So we see that the Kangxi Emperor was not only a figure who ultimately proved to be a persecutor of Christianity, and not an ally, but he was also a persecutor of Buddhists, Taoists, and probably anyone who did not participate with enthusiasm in the official Confucianism and Heaven-worship of the Imperial court. And it was not until the 19th century that Christians were allowed back into China; my heart is pained by all the millions of Chinese who died in ignorance of the Gospel due to Kangxi’s intolerance. What prompted this was the decision of the Pope, later reversed, that Confucian rites were incompatible with Christianity; one can see that, like the Roman Emperors who tolerated all religions provided incense was offered to the Emperor, the Kangxi Emperor had no tolerance for religions which did not accept Confucian rites. So for an Episcopal Church under the patronage of Gregory of Nyassa to dare to paint an image of this man, who also presided over a Department of Punishments, later in the 19th century renamed the Department of Justice, which inflicted cruel tortures on those convicted of crimes, ranging from various forms of whipping, to the dreadful means of execution known as the “Death of a Thousand Cuts,” and whose regime, the Qing Dynasty, systematically discriminated against an underclass of so called “Mean People”, analogous to the Burakumin of Japan, next to St. Isaiah, the holy Prophet of God who directly foretold the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, is nothing short of blasphemy.

    It is not the complete apostasy we see in the idolatry of herchurch, but it is nonetheless a sacrilegious affront to Christianity, and an affront to the Christian martyrs who died in China in between the reign of the Kangxi Emperor and the legalization of Christianity.

    So I am opposed to this, and I am opposed to herchurch, and I am opposed to everyone who distorts the Gospel and glorifies those who persecute Christian. The First Ammendment gives them the absolute right to do it, and it gives me the right to call them out on it. And the Deebs have very generously provided us with this wonderful forum, on which we can discuss those forms of church abuse which trouble us the most. And I find the abuse that occurs at herchurch, and the abuse that occurs at St. Gregory of Nyassa (which is the abuse of misleading the congregation into believing in the sanctity of someone who was a sworn enemy of Christianity and a cruel and wicked military dictator who fancied himself the Son of Heaven and presided over a particularly despotic regime), to be of particular offense.

  457. Nancy wrote:

    It must be observed, however, that perhaps the myth of the historical one big happy religious family is a myth. Maybe one must come to some reconciliation that there really were groups from the get go who were not so happy or so conforming and who were called heretics and determined by the winners of the early debates to be outside the family.

    Have you in fact studied the history of the early church? There was no violent persecution of Christians by other Christians until the end of the Fourth Century, when Emperor Theodosius ordered the burning at the stake of Priscillian. And St. Ambrose of Milan and other leading bishops vehemently opposed this action.

    Until the death of Emperor Constantine, the Apostolic Church was in fact one big happy family, and those called heretics by Ss. Irenaeus, Athanasius, Epiphanius of Salamis and other early heresiologists were outside the church, separated from it. The vast majority of Christians were part of the Catholic Church. Then the Arian Schism occurred, which in parts of the East resulted in many becoming Arians, but without violence, except on the part of the Arians, it was defeated, and by the year 400 Christians were again united. They remained united until the Council of Ephesus, in the aftermath of which a small minority of Persian Christians separated to form the Assyrian Church of the East, in the first permanent schism in Christendom. A more severe schism occurred in the wake of Chalcedon. However, nearly all Greek and Latin speaking Christians remained in one church until the Great Schism between the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Unfortunately, violence was used against the Oriental Orthodox who separated at Chalcedon, and the Roman Catholics inflicted terrible violence on the Eastern Orthodox.

    This does not change the reality of the unity of the Apostolic Church, and its a modern myth invented by the likes of Elaine Pagels that this church used violence against the Gnostics and so on; indeed, it endured persecution by the Roman Empire, whereas the Gnostics practiced dissimulation. Also, the fact that there have been schisms throughout the history of the church does not alter the fact that the recursive schism existent in the sects of the Radical Reformation, by making schisms seem normal and natural, causes a continual formation of new sects at a much faster rate than before the Radical Reformation began, and it does nothing to detract from the very convincing arguments made by a number of Orthodox and Catholic theologians that the Body of Christ is indivisible. After all, our Lord promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church.

    Note that in saying this, I am not declaring an opinion on which church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (although if I were pressed on the issue, which I really hope I won’t be, I’m sure you can guess how I would answer). I believe that in studying the past we must draw a distinction between schisms of a political nature, persistent schisms, and fleeting doctrinal schisms such as the Gnostics, which did not withstand the test of time, and we must in all cases condemn the violent persecution of those of different faith.

  458. @ Nancy:
    Very good points, and you’re correct re. the fusion of church and state once xtianity was recognized as a legit religion by the Roman Empire.

    Your posts remind me of the opening line of Tolstoy’s novel Anna Karenina: All happy families are alike, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.

  459. Nancy wrote:

    I am thinking that perhaps the current divisions among christians may be our only protection from the political/religious wars, crusades and oppressions that we have seen in the shameful history of christian evangelization of the west.

    I absolutely disagree with this characterization of the “shameful history of Christian evangelism.” The crusades were defensive wars against a Muslim onslaught. Sure, there were those who went too far with it, but the reasons for the crusades were just. The inquisitions are also grossly mischaracterized by the media and sloppy historians. Again, some real atrocities, but no where near how bad it has been portrayed. Of course, it FEELS good to believe the lies when it is against a Church you want to hate.

    Don’t be fooled, though. Go back into the old testament and see how God used people and nations. It isn’t always pretty, but sometimes God uses war for his means.
    I think, if anything, the current divisions in the church obscure the gospel. You sound an awful lot like Christopher Hitchens and other modern-day atheists (Sam Harris, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, etc.) To agree with their point of view is losing the battle. Don’t give in so easily.

  460. Nancy wrote:

    Or even by coercing people…?

    If you read carefully, you will find out that this did, indeed, happen on more than one occasion. Includes people literally being forced to take communion – see Philip Jenkins’ book Jesus Wars for starters (though probably best to follow up on sources used in his notes/listed in his bibliography, since his book is a very general overview).

    One of my least favorite parts is about the council where a lot of Coptic monks acted like Mafia enforcers so that people attending said council would affirm certain doctrine – though the idea of monk-enforcers is kind of amusing. What they did was, however, not at all funny, and basically was terrorism.

  461. @ William G.:
    William, I do see a lot of good in the O churches, but the areas I’ve mentioned trouble me extremely. So please don’t think I am being critical for the sake of being critical; I see serious problems and would be lying if I said otherwise.

    As for herchurch, it is not up to me to make these decisions and frankly, I would rather just leave well enough alone at this point. I am facing a lot of challenges in my own life and at this point, am clinging to very basic tenets of faith (including some Scripture, especially the words of Christ) in order to get through. I am also not nearly as much of an absolutist as I was when younger, though I can see myself writing immediately if it was 20-25 years ago. But I’ve got a very full plate right now, and just don’t have the mental/emotional space to deal with that, let alone the energy or time. (Literally – I have health challenges as well.)

    Please understand that I’m not trying to brush you off, and yes, what they do bothers me, but I don’t think it’s in my purview. If I lived in SF, I might feel differently, but I don’t, and that’s that.

  462. @ William G.:
    I have to ask: why do you focus so much on isolated instances of strange/weird/non-xtian practice? Why is it som important to you that these things get the spotlight?

    Can you find anything *good* in the ELCA, or in TEC? Is there anything at all that you see in these churches that would be worth talking about, in a Paul-inspired “think on these things” comment, or series of comments?

    I have to admit that it would be a relief for this discussion to take a positive direction/multiple positive directions. I am weary of the condemnation that seems to come up again and again in “the [insert name] church says…”-type comments, and just general sniping by some commenters here. It’s not something I want to be a part of – Facebook’s the place for that, isn’t it? [j/k, but not entirely]

    I feel beaten down right now by some things that are happening in my life, which has been extremely stressful for the past 5 months, and not just for me – relatives that are critically ill, etc. The discussions her are beginning to feel like they are too weighty for me, almost oppressive – perhaps due more to how I’m feeling and what I’m facing right now than anything else.

    but gosh, could we *please* lighten up a bit?

  463. @ William G.:
    Until the death of Emperor Constantine, the Apostolic Church was in fact one big happy family

    Nonsense. If the NT is anything to go by, there was plenty of dissension, disunity and strife from the get-go. I find it hard to understand why you go right past that as if it didn’t happen.

  464. numo wrote:

    One of my least favorite parts is about the council where a lot of Coptic monks acted like Mafia enforcers so that people attending said council would affirm certain doctrine – though the idea of monk-enforcers is kind of amusing. What they did was, however, not at all funny, and basically was t

    That’s a libel against the Coptic church spread by the Nestorians, and it sickens me to see you quote it as fact. Coptic monks have always taken vows of non violence. I’ve had the pleasure of knowing several, and of reading the Paradise of the Fathers, which is a compendium of their writings. One Coptic monk said that even raising the dead would be wrong if done in anger. Violence is foreign to their nature. This fact is demonstrated by the fact that the Copts have for nearly twelve centuries endured violence from the Muslim rulers of Egypt without reciprocating in kind. This is in spite of accounting for 10% of the population. Compare this with the Maronites, who with much smaller numbers used excellent military strategy to control key forts in Lebanon and became Christian warlords, who routinely attacked non Maronite Christians. The Armenians also, though outnumbered by the Byzantines and the Ottomans, were for many years a great military power. It is also not true that St. Cyril orchestrated the murder of Hypastia.

    The Nestorians on the other hand did use violence against the Syriac Orthodox, with the aid of the Persian Empire. On the basis of the Ephesian schism, they persuaded the Persians they were the only trustworthy Christians, and all non-Nestorians were expelled from the Sassanian Empire or killed.

    So please, get your facts straight before you slander the Coptic monks, who are among the most non violent members of one of the most non violent peoples to ever grace the planet. Really, your remark there was quite sickening; I’m very disappointed in you. Up until now in our dialogues you have avoided the kind of unhistorical Elaine Pagels style mudslinging.

  465. numo wrote:

    Nonsense. If the NT is anything to go by, there was plenty of dissension, disunity and strife from the get-go. I find it hard to understand why you go right past that as if it didn’t happen.

    Every big happy family has its disagreements, but if you read the Epistles of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, and read the NT epistles in a Patristic context, it’s clear there was great love and unity in the apostolic church. The strife involved those who, starting with Simon Magus and Deacon Nicolas, from whom the Nicolaitans took their name, and continuing with Marcion, the Docetists, the Ebionites and the Gnostics, caused schisms and separated themselves and their followers from the apostolic church. Have you actually read Agaisnt Heresies by St. Irenaeus? If not, it’s a vital work, in that it offers the perspective of the Catholic Church (and by this I mean that entity which split to become the Roman Catholic and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches) on the religious sects that had arisen since the time of the apostles. I believe it to be true, but even if it contains falsehoods, it provides the opinion of the early Catholics themselves, which is invaluable in understanding the origin of Orthodox doctrine. In the Orthodox Church, it remains a major part of our Holy Tradition; we differ from the doctrine of St. irenaeus of Lyons only in rejecting a belief in a literal Millenium, considering that the Millenium is either an allegory for now, or refers to the kingdom without end we confess in the creed.

  466. numo wrote:

    @ THC:
    I think it depends on a highly selective reading of history. You can find other, better sources.

    Actually, I have found better sources and that’s why I call baloney on much of the criticism of the Church over the crusades and inquisition. Some of it is justified, much is not. You are free to read and believe whatever you want. However, my position is as it always has been – that whatever bad you may find, and you CAN find bad, it doesn’t take away from the fact that Jesus maintains his visible Church- the Catholic Church, as he always has done through the centuries, based on his promise.

    Honestly, if the RCC weren’t built on Jesus, it would have died a long time ago. What a testament that it has lasted all this time. Not to mention that over half of all Christians in the world are Catholic.

  467. numo wrote:

    I have to ask: why do you focus so much on isolated instances of strange/weird/non-xtian practice? Why is it som important to you that these things get the spotlight?

    Because the fact that the Bishops of the ELCA and ECUSA permit them is an intolerable breach of their Episcopal duty as shepherds of Christ’s flock. Christ said “feed my sheep”, not “let my sheep be devoured by wolves in sheep’s clothing.”

    There is very little in the ELCA that I find inspiring other than the architecture of some older churches and the traditional hymns. My Godfather Eugene was a pastor in a precursor of the ELCA but in another era. I do like the old green Augsburg Fortress hymnal. I also like the Augustana Hertiage services broadcast on YouTube. But on the whole I find very little spritual nourishment in the ELCA; the one tome in recent years I attended a service there I was treated to an anusive parish. This is lamentable because I believe the episcopal polity of the ELCA to be superior to the congregational polity of the LCMS and the WELS.

    This does not mean I have nothing positive to say about Lutheranism. I have very fond memories of growing up in a Missouri Synod school, and there are local churches from both of the conservative synods I’d like to visit. I also have fond memories of a Sunday service at a Church of Sweden parish somewhere near Oostersund with the adopted daughter of Godfather Eugene, her husband, her two young boys and my parents in 2000.

    In the ECUSA there are some good conservative dioceses and pastors, including a friend of mine who is retiring this Sunday. If the Diocese of South Carolina is allowed to leave I suspect these dioceses will join the ACNA en masse. There are aspects of the 1979 BCP that I like. I have nothing positive to say about the Presiding Bishop though, who is a cruel, arrogant and bigoted woman, who is every bit as bad in her own way, if not worse, than Mark Driscoll, in terms of the hurt she has caused people right across the Episcopal Church. Whereas the bishops of ELCA seem to be just too darn nice, the presiding bishop of the ECUSA is not a nice person; she is actively intolerant of all who disagrees with her and is prepared to use every legal means at her disposal, including her own private police force, to accomplish her objectives. You complain of the actions of Cyril at Ephesus, but he has nothing on the Presiding Bishop, who is more akin to Eusebius of Nicomedia.

    Now let’s turn the table a bit. If you want to take this conversation in a positive direction, I’m fine with that. But do you have anything positive to say about the Orthodox Church? I am prepared to set aside my distaste for herchurch and the leadership of the ELCA and focus on the positives, if you are as well. This means we don’t bash figures considered holy by our respective churches, we don’t accuse Coptic monks of violence, and if one of us describes a mystical experience that we doubt, we keep it to ourselves. I would love to have a positive conversation with you about things that are uplifting: the sacred liturgy, the hymns and sacred music we both love, vesrments, church architecture, and devotional stories of piety. And I beg of you to begin this conversation with me and to start afresh.

    You mentioned that in your eyes, the Orthodox Church does a lot of good. Why don’t we start with what you like about the Orhodox, and then circle back to a discussion of what I like in the ELCA?

  468. @ THC:

    I am shocked to see you try to justify the crusades and the inquisition. How can you possibly justify the Fourth Crusade, in which the Byzantines were the target and the objective was the economic gain of the Venetians? The crusades failed anyway; the Byzantine Empire asked for help, but the crusaders plundered it indiscriminately. The Albigensian Crusade was a bit of a genocide.

    Also, regarding the violence in the Old Testament, you’re tsking a very literal, Antiochene/fundamentalist view. There are allegorical interpretations of many violent incidents described in the Old Testament that make more sense given the archaeological evidence. What is more, if violence occurred, it occurred before Christ came in glory to redeem the world, and was a necessary and tragic consequence of the world being subject to demonic influence since the fall, which was alleviated to a great extent with the coming if Christ. The doctrine of the harrowing of hell further suggests that any who suffered physical death in the Old Testament may have been saved by Christ when he despoiled Hades. So that argument does not work.

    If anything, your fanaticism fuels the fires of people like Dawkins. The atheists must be seen as the aggressors, which historically they were, in Russia and elsewhere. Dawkins and other militant atheists have given less than subtle hints as to what they would do to religion if they were in power. So to keep them out of power, we must stress how the Catholic Church of today has apologized under Pope John Paul II for the violence of the crusades and the Inquisition, and desires that men live in peace, with religious liberty as a universal right, in keeping with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, Dignitas Humanae, et cetera. Your views seem not to reflect the current teaching of the Roman Catholic Church but rather the views of the SSPX, whose opposition to religious liberty is frankly abhorrent.

    I myself can’t imagine how any Christian could support religiously motivated violence given that our Lord was crucified in an act of religious intolerance. The fact that this allowed him to redeem us and that he rose from the dead does not change the fact that the three sins that caused his death to occur were the greedy treachery of Judas Iscariot, the religious intolerance of the Sanhedrin, and the moral indifference of Pontius Pilate, who, fearing an insurrection, permitted an act of evil to occur that it was within his power to prevent, an indifference demonstrated by his famed question “What is truth?” The poor man alas was looking at Truth, but was blind to see it. There are apocryphal accounts of his conversion to Christianity, and I hope they’re reue, because I’ve always felt a certain empathy with Pontius Pilate, in that were I in his shoes my great fear is I would likewise capitulate.

  469. William G. wrote:

    we must stress how the Catholic Church of today has apologized under Pope John Paul II for the violence of the crusades and the Inquisition

    Let’s take the inquisition first. St. John Paul II apologized for the inquisition, but not until after the Church did a formal investigation into what occurred. He didn’t apologize for the farcical 50-90 million people supposedly killed during that time. In reality, it was a few thousand. No matter, it was terrible.

    However, it doesn’t diminish the RCC as the one true church. The Church isn’t discredited by a few errant people.

  470. William G. wrote:

    I am shocked to see you try to justify the crusades and the inquisition. How can you possibly justify the Fourth Crusade, in which the Byzantines were the target and the objective was the economic gain of the Venetians?

    I am wondering why you can’t accept any apology from the Pope? I don’t speak on behalf of the RCC, but the Pope does. You seem to hang on to old wounds that weren’t even committed against you personally. Is that the stance of all Orthodox Christians?

  471. @ William G.:
    We have reached an impasse, i think, and i am going to take a break from the OD page. It isn’t working for me, and i hope you understand that this isn’t personal. I would love to discuss something other than religion, and perhaps some of us have some interests in common? Hobbies? Art? Sports?

    Just *anything* that is not about religion and theology. Where we actually talk with one another instead of arguing about whose church is “best.” And aiming little barbs at each other. I can go to who knows how many other websites and get into pointless arguments with nasty, dnark-filled comments. That’s not why i come here, nor is it anything i care to participate in.

  472. numo wrote:

    I would love to discuss something other than religion, and perhaps some of us have some interests in common? Hobbies? Art? Sports?

    Sounds like a idea for… Pinterest!

    I always think it is good to know your limits and if you feel you are getting to emotionally upset over things, then by all means step away. I don’t think William is pushing your buttons or trying to be abrasive.

    I don’t know much about modern Lutheranism except to know that it was born from one man who decided to change Christianity to fit his needs, and he was aided by the powers that be at the time. Amazing that politics played an enormous part in the reformation, isn’t it?

  473. @ numo:
    I would like to add that the constant “My church is better!” comments don’t seem to be doing anything other than repeating the same points over and over. It’s like waiting for Godot, with religion as thd chief subject of the dialogue.

    I know there are forums for Catholics and Orthodox of every persuasion; perhaps there are better venues for this never-ending argument than here?

    Gentlemen, you are only convincing yourselves of that which you already believe. You have not persuaded, cajoled, convinced or otherwise been able to get your “opponents” to come over to your way(s) of seeing things, and the longer you keep at it, the less likely any agreement – over anything at all – becomes.

    It is frustrating from an observers’ standpoint, and most definitely from that of a participant.

  474. @ numo:

    Numo, I proposed taking the conversation in a positive direction, with you going into detail on the things you liked about the Orthodox Church,,and myself reciprocating about the ELCA.

    The fact is you’ve been very disparaging about my religion since I started participating in Wartburg Watch. I find it distressing that when faced with a very legitimate criticism of a serious problem in your own denomination, rather than taking my offer of a more positive discussion, you’re opting to not participate any longer. It suggests a certain inflexibility and unwillingness to engage with criticism. I also lament that you lump my posts into the category of “my church is better”, when I have consistently praised other denominations, declined to take the triumohalist position regarding Orthodoxy as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that many of my coreligionists take,,and that THC takes, and have spent much effort seeking to move the conversation away from comparative religion and into other areas like liturgical theology.

    So I’m going to restate my offer: I want to have a positive dialogue with each other. Tell me what you like about the Prthodox Church,,and I’ll tell you what I like about Lutheranism. Tell me what you like about ROCOR and I’ll tell you what I like about the ELCA. And ,Anne we can build so,etching from that. But please don’t shy away from the conversation without giving positivity a chance.

  475. @ THC:

    It was 3,000 to be precise. And I do accept the Popes apology. However on account of the Inquisition, the Crusades and the Piedmont Easter, which all had Papal approval, I cannot accept the Papal claims of universal jurisdiction and infallibility, when the other ancient Patriarchs have no comparable a,punt of blood on their hands. Patriarch Nikon killed quite a few, but he was an aberration. What is more, during my tenure with Orthodoxy I have also been under the Patriarchate of Antioch, which has a remarkably good record; the only really nasty holder of the office being Paul of Samosata.

  476. @ zooey111:

    By the way, later this evening I hope to post an early draft of the traditional Methodist service book on scribd, featuring the Sunday lectionary,,the Psalter, Morning and Evening Prayer, Holy Communion and some occasional services. Those incomplete sections will be pbvious but include various pastoral prayers, the Ordinal, sections on church music, et cetera. I will look forward to your feedback.

  477. William G. wrote:

    position regarding Orthodoxy as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

    That’s interesting to know you don’t consider Orthodoxy as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

  478. @ William G.:
    William i honestlyam facing a lot right now (as stated a bit upthread) and need a break from the discussion. Also, i wonder if you see me as i flexible because i do not agree with you? I have had a lot of positive things to say, but find myself more than a little bewildered by the way you tend to prsent everything Orthodox as the last word. You are an educated man, and it troubles me to see you seemingly accepting everything at face value, like the examples of what appear to be mental illness and delusions resulting from mental illness a few days ago.

    I spent a LONG time in churches (not Lutheran) where questioning of any kind simply was not allowed. Ultimately, i was kicked out of the ladt of those churches, disfellowshipped, lost all my friends. It was a terrible time, and it has taken yeats to recover (a decade +, in fact). Unfortunately – or not – one of the reasons i got the boot was for asking what i though were innocuous question, such as “Why isn’t the Nicene Creed part of our church’s statement of faith?” That was perceived as threatening by the ordained in the C of E guy who ran the place. (I wish i was making this up.)

    As for history, if t some point *some* Coptic monks *did* in fact play the role i stated at an early church council, then they did. Afik, that is fact. It is nt and was never intended to be a slur regarding Coptic monks in all the intervening centuries. The same is true of things like Luther’s antisemitism – it’s fact, and i can’t mke it go away. If someone is angry at Luther and other xtians becuse of that, well they have every right to be. It’s not about me or fellow Lutherans today so much as it is about monstrous attitudes and centuries of unspeakable cruelty carried out in the name of Christ, promulgated by men like Luther.

    Ok, enough for now. I keep letting myself be drawn back into this and need to stop for now. Also, i can’t keep retreading the same topics. You already know my thought, and rehashing it all isn’t going to change anything in either your views or mine.

  479. numo wrote:

    Gentlemen, you are only convincing yourselves of that which you already believe. You have not persuaded, cajoled, convinced or otherwise been able to get your “opponents” to come over to your way(s) of seeing things, and the longer you keep at it, the less likely any agreement – over anything at all – becomes.

    By the way, just to be absolutely clear, my intention on the ODP has never been to convert people to Orthodoxy, but rather to exchange information about theology, and explore the richness of different faith traditions.

    There is one elephant in the room that I should perhaps touch on before we part ways, if you decline my invitation for a discussion on the positive aspects of our respective churches. I am a theological and indeed political conservative. I support the LCMS and the WELS for taking a stand for tradition, whereas you have described them if I recall, with some derision, as being fundamentalists. I support the ACNA and the efforts of parishes and diocese to leave the ECUSA and join it or other Continuing Anglican bodies. I supported the PCA and the SBC, but my opposition to the growing influence of abusive 9Marks pastors within these denominations has made me reconsider that support. Within the Roman Catholic Church I was a huge fan of Pope Benedict and am troubled by the apparent laxity of Pope Francis. And within Orthodoxy I favor those jurisdictions like ROCOR which stress preserving the integrity of the faith to those like OCA and the Church of Finland, which seem to operate under the delusion that the church must keep up with the times. I am opposed to progressive theology, liberation theology, process theology, feminist theology, postmodern theology, and indeed all theologies except those of the Fathers. However, I am tolerant of and willing to engage with those who take a different view.

    However I do have to confess our exhange today has left a bad taste in my mouth. Until today I did not criticize ELCA once, but endured many criticisms from you of my religion, which is the second largest in the world (I believe there are more Orthodox worldwide than all members of the Lutheran churches combined), but on mentioning a severe problem in the ELCA you’ve shrunk away from the conversation. This is after repeatedly attacking the Orthodox belief in the supernatural, our monastic praxis, our ascesis, our beloved St. John Cheysostom, implying we don’t seek proper healthcare, and talking of fictional Coptic “enforcer monks.” Many of these remarks offended me deeply and many times I was tempted to withdraw from the conversation, but in each case I decided to continue, because in spite of that, and in spite of your repeated patronizing comments regarding my age (and being in my 30s, while I cannot claim to be in my dottage, I will say I have lived a very full life involving much travel and successes and failures in business, many losses of loved ones and many diverse experiences, and some bouts with serious illness), I felt we did have a rapport and were exchanging valuable information. For example, you learned about the vital differences between Catholic and Orthodox monasticism. But if you don’t want to continue this discussion, it will have the unpleasant effect of reinforcing in my mind the idea,,that has unfortunately proven true thus far, that as a rule progressive theologians don’t want a conversation, unless you agree with them. For my part if I wanted to talk only with people who agreed with me I would be posting on a site like orthodoxchristianity.net

  480. Numo, I totally get where you’re coming from.

    Are you a Tolkien fan? Did you catch the last movie? I saw it and my inner fantasy geek is hating me for saying this, but it was to much action.

  481. @ Albuquerque Blue:
    I love Tolkien, but not PeterJackson’s idea of Tolkien, so, nope. Not after all the tampering he did with LotR! But i gather that there’s a ton of discussion about it, and a lot of controversy. Can you help us out with that? (I 1st read LotR when i was about 9, and to saythat it had a tremendous impact on my imagination is something of an understatement.)

    Btw, thanks for your kind words. They’re very much appreciated!

  482. numo wrote:

    Also, i wonder if you see me as i flexible because i do not agree with you? I have had a lot of positive things to say, but find myself more than a little bewildered by the way you tend to prsent everything Orthodox as the last word. You are an educated man, and it troubles me to see you seemingly accepting everything at face value, like the examples of what appear to be mental illness and delusions resulting from mental illness a few days ago.

    I accept the doctrines of the Fathers because they wrote and compiled the Bible. How could I honestly confess the Nicene Creed of 381 without knowing the doctrines of Gregory of Nazianzus, who presided over the council, and the others who fought for it? How can I treat the Athanasian Canon as an authoritative definition of Holy Scrioture without regarding the blessed saints other writings as authoritative? And regarding mental illness,,given that the Orthodox Church has spent so ,ugh time studying the mind, and the entire Philokalia is devoted to,the subject of differentiating between authentic religious experience and delusion, and given that the Orthodox Church of today boasts many thousands of board certified psychiatrists who accept the spiritual experiences of the monks as legitimate, who am I, an IT engineer with no training in medicine or psychology, or monastic expertise, to disagree?

    The Orthodox Church will never excommunicate anyone for asking questions. In fact, it is the job of priests to answer questions. To give a scenario similar to yours, the Orthodox Church does not use in its liturgy the Athanasian or Apostles Creeds, mainly for historical reasons, or the Nicene Creed with the Filioque. If you asked an Orthodox priest why, he would explain it. In fact, one of the most conservative Orthodox priests, Father John Whiteford, has on his blog a feature called Stump the Priest, where people of any faith can ask him anything they want to about the Orthodox Church, and he provides answers. Most wuestions come from Orthodox, but recently he explained to a Protestant the scriptural justification for the Jesus Prayer.

    The Orthodox Church is the second largest church in the world. Most Christians in Russia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Georgia, Armenia, Syria, Belarus, Cyprus and Egypt are members. There is an autonomous Orthodox Church of Japan and there are Orthodox churches all across Africa. It consists of ,any autonomous jurisdictions following one belief system. In Protestantism the closest thing to it is the Anglican Communion, which is but a fraction of the size of the Orthodox Church. So this is not some tiny little fundamentalist church where you can be kicked out by an anusive pastor. The Orthodox Church isn’t perfect; I experienced horrible abuse at one parish, but the solution was simple: go to a different parish.

  483. THC and William I’m just going to give some friendly advice, completely unasked for. Both of you are passionate believers and followers of your faith traditions, it is obvious and you do them credit with your forthright stand. However, your pronouncements and dismissal of approaches outside of your particular sects are not the most conducive to easy conversation for more then a couple of people here, myself included. You seem to dismiss any position outside your own faith traditions as having any validity, or all other faith traditions somehow are less valid then your own. That may be the case in your own denominations beliefs, I get that and I think everyone else does. But can we move past those declarations of orthodoxy and just discuss and present positions without trying to establish a hierarchy?

    This wasn’t asked for advice and you can tell me to pound sand, fair enough. I just really enjoy the open discussion page and hate to see people on this community talking past each other when I don’t think they need or want to.

  484. @ Albuquerque Blue:
    Jackson made a hash of LotR by, among other things, using the books as a pretext for action movies. Though the ending of his version of The Two Towers is what really ticks me off.

    That said, i loved Ian McKellen as Gandalf and Kate what’s-her-name as Galadriel. Not sure about production design for Rivendell or Minas Tirith; think Viggo M. was the wrong choice for Aragorn, and so on. Hobbits were good, though.

  485. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    You seem to dismiss any position outside your own faith traditions as having any validity, or all other faith traditions somehow are less valid then your own.

    Sometimes I feel like you read posts by THC and imagine I wrote thrm. I have never said or implied that in the course of this conversation. THC has, but I haven’t. In conversation with THC I’ve merely stated my personal reasons for rejecting his faith.

    As a Christian though I am bound to reject as false and even demonic all religious outside of Christianity, Judaism and a handful of related faiths. I will confess until the last breath that Christianity is true, whereas Hinduism, Buddhism, et cetera, is false. I also feel compelled to reject all forms of Christianity that dilute the Gospel message or mix it with other religions. By this I am not referring to Protestantism or Catholicism in general,mbut rather specifically to those “progressive” Protestant and Old Catholic churches like the ELCA, the ECUSA, the PCUSA, the Union of Utrecht, and the UCC, which have conceded to contemporary sociopolitical pressure and corrupted the faith. Within Orthodoxy the OCA has been teetering dangerously close to this for a while.

    Perhaps you people read between the lines of my posts because we call ourselves the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Orthodoxy has become in our postmodern landscape so,etching of a four letter word. So when I say something is the belief of the Orthodox Church, you read my post as saying something is the belief of the only correct church. But this simply shows prejudice on your part,, because most of what the Orthodox believes is the same as what the majority of Christians believe. We differ only on issues of soteriology (Eastern Theosis vs. Western blood atonement), ascetic praxis, and some minor points of eschatology (the so called “aerial toll houses” which people like to make a big deal of, which I haven’t mentioned).

    What I have avoided saying explicitly thus far, but I feel I will now state openly, is I believe homosexuality ro be a sin, not a moral evil, but a case of hamartia, or missing the mark, and I am opposed to all churches which treat it otherwise or perform gay marriage. I am also opposed to churches like the Westboro Baptist Church which make hating gay people their main article of faith. One of the holiest Orthodox monks of the 20th century, Fr. seraphim Rose, overcame his homosexual inclinations and his other vices through the grace received in joining the Orthodox Church, where he was received with love and kindness. I account this as a victory on our end. In like manner, while I am opposed to the mistreatment of women and do not regard myself a complementarian, I believe in a male priesthood and episcopate. For this reason, in addition to the Orthodox Church, I support the Roman Catholics, the LCMS, the WELS, the Continuing Anglican Movement, and I support those Southern Baptist and PCA / OPC churches unaffiliated with 9Marks. All of these churches I view as Orthodox with a small “o”. Likewise I support the Assyrian Church of the East in spite of the difference of opinion on Ephesus as orthodox, and the Polish National Catholic Church, which has drawn very close to Orthodoxy in its beliefs. There are also some tiny little independent Catholic Churches run by so called Wandering Bishops, and I’ve met and generally like those guys, and many of them preserve small-o orrhodoxy.

    Now naturally as a me,her of the Orthodox Church I prefer my church, just as a Lutheran prefers theirs, and a Baptist prefers theirs. If I were a member of a church but didn’t believe in it over other churches I should join a different church. Many don’t, and as a result become marginal Christians win unfulfilling religious lives. I daresay most of the people within the mainline Protestant denominations are “hanging in there” because they like their local congregation, or it’s the church where their family always went, and in their old age they are reluctant to even consider a change, but many of them are deeply unhappy about the thrological direction of their denomination as a whole and have been for years. This is certainly the case with most Methodists and Anglicans I know. I consider the failure of these denominations to preach the gospel vigorously and honestly to their elderly congregations a form of pastoral abuse. But the acts of the Episcopal Church in preventing congregations from leaving are frankly infinitely worse than anything even Mark Driscoll has done. And the presiding bishop of that denomination is every bit as autocratic in her management style. To my knowledge, the only things Driscoll has done that she hasn’t involve plagiarism and sexist remarks on Internet forums. However the presiding bishop has her own private police force with full peace officer status, owing to the lamentable fact that the National Cathedral has been turned into a sort of American Westminster Abbey, in a clear violation of church and state.

  486. @ William G.:

    I don’t know if what you have written in this comment is just you or if it is usual orthodox opinion, but whichever it is you are preaching one of my sermons there. Well said.

  487. THC wrote:

    Honestly, if the RCC weren’t built on Jesus, it would have died a long time ago. What a testament that it has lasted all this time. Not to mention that over half of all Christians in the world are Catholic.

    Neither of these arguments is a good argument.

    As to the first–“would have died off” and “lasted all this time”

    Like judaism died off, or hinduism or buddhism? Like greek and roman philosophical ideas died off? Like china with 5,000 years of recorded history vanished from the face of the earth? There are better arguments than longevity, don’t you think? There better be, or else christianity is proved false compared to older religions and philosophies by the measure of longevity.

    As to the second–“over half of all christians in the world…” Only about a third of the population of the earth is christian under any brand name at all. An argument from how many people do what would mitigate against christianity, not for it.

  488. @ Albuquerque Blue:

    Quite so. I would hate to see discussion and the exchange of information, ideas and opinion bog down over sectarianism or over religious dominance battles. I have found numerous comments very informative. But informative on the one hand and persuasive on the other hand are not synonymous terms. Any idea that anybody who is trying to be persuasive will be able to silence those who disagree is simply not an idea that works.

  489. @ Nancy:

    Well all of the Orthodox Churches at present do support the traditional definition of marriage, but that’s not why I’m Orthodox. As I’ve said before I joined the Orthodox Church because of abuse from some local Methodist pastors; the Orthodox Church is very similar to the theology of John Wesley, with his focus on Entire Sanctification or Holiness, and there is much evidence to suggest he was secretly ordained a bishop in the Orthodox Church and used this authority to ordain Superintendent Coke, his remarks about the right of presbyters to ordain not withstanding (his Orthodox ordination I believe predated his views on presbyterial ordination, and in his mind may have been at the time an insurance policy if ever circumstances forced him to ordain someone; he could not confess to having been ordained in this manner without incurring the death penalty under the Praemunire Act, but in the 1770s he refused to deny having been ordained by Erasmus when accused of such, in such a manner as to strongly suggest he had been; this does not make him a valid Orthodox bishop as the ordination was irregular, but it does formalize the connection between Wesleyan Methodism and Orthodoxy). The specific abuse that caused me to leave the UMC is detailed in the very first post in this Open Discussion Page. However I still love Methodism very much, and to show it, I’m about to release a rough draft of my Traditional Methodist Service Book for any who are interested.

    @Zooey11 that includes you. 🙂

  490. Nancy wrote:

    @ Albuquerque Blue:
    Quite so. I would hate to see discussion and the exchange of information, ideas and opinion bog down over sectarianism or over religious dominance battles. I have found numerous comments very informative. But informative on the one hand and persuasive on the other hand are not synonymous terms. Any idea that anybody who is trying to be persuasive will be able to silence those who disagree is simply not an idea that works.

    On this point, and this is not intended as a personal attack at all, but rather simply an observation, I think the actual reason we have had so much sectarian bickering is we have collectively made the mistake of engaging with THC. THC has posted some very interesting things, and I’m sure he’s a very nice guy, but he is constantly perusing our comments, looking for perceived inconsistencies and ways of catching us off guard. For example, note his assertion that I don’t regard the Orthodox Church as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. If I reply to that on the basis of Orthodox doctrine, it would only create controversy between myself and the other members of the ODP, and further the misconception that I’m here on the ODP in order to bash Protestantism, which is entirely false. On the other hand if I don’t answer it, he gets to score a point by suggesting I don’t actually believe in what the Orthodox Church teaches. This is a predatory debating style which is not actually contributing anything positive to the ODP. And since THC has said he doesn’t believe he’s going to convert anyone to Catholicism I don’t see why he’s doing it. I would like to ask THC in the most polite way possible to stop.

    Now the ODP is an open discussion forum, and I feel that THC should be free to post whatever he wishes here, within reason, but perhaps the best way for us to rid this forum of the negativity that has engulfed it is to not engage with him on this point. In like manner, since you all now know my status as a traditionalist Christian who is opposed to gay marriage and progressive Christianity and especially things like herchurch, there is no need for me to go banging on about it. If we all stop repeating ourselves, we can move forward and experience a harmonious exchange of ideas.

    I also still hope that Numo will join me in the proposed friendly dialogue I outlined. I would really like to hear from her what aspects of Orthodoxy she does find positive, and I would love to share with her my own very positive experiences with Lutheranism in my youth, and also my great love for the Church of Sweden, which heavily influenced her own denomination (which largely consists of the Scandinavian Lutheran diaspora in the US).

  491. @ William

    I hear you saying that there has been a dearth of good remarks about orthodoxy. So let me say this.

    When I became unsatisfied with neo-putitan slants on theories of the atonement and began to see what else was out there in thinking about the atonement I ran into the idea of christus victor which was said to be popular? (maybe that is not the exact word) within orthodoxy. In reading about this, and what little else I read about orthodoxy, I think that I saw a view of the atonement and of humanity and of God which is more (again I need the right word) maybe “user friendly” will do. It seems to me that some of what I read was written by people who attributed more good and more success to God than those I had heard pushing nothing but penal substitution. I thought, these people are perhaps more inclined to just plain ole “like” God than much of what I have read elsewhere. If this is accurate, then kudos to orthodoxy.

    And yes, if there were such a thing as the American Orthodox Church then some attitudes toward orthodoxy might be different.

  492. @ THC:

    Politics has played a role in Christianity since the time of Christ. The mixture didn’t start at the time of the Reformation.

  493. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    Numo, I totally get where you’re coming from.
    Are you a Tolkien fan? Did you catch the last movie? I saw it and my inner fantasy geek is hating me for saying this, but it was to much action.

    Believe it or not, my 20 year-old son said the same thing. He in fact didn’t stay for the entire movie as the battle scene became overbearing. He and his friends left a little past the two hour mark. I will wait till I can rent it for home viewing.

  494. numo wrote:

    @ William G.:

    Second Counicil of Ephesus, aka “the Robber Synod.”

    It should be noted that the Coptic Church offers a radically different account of the Robber Synod. Their view is that at that synod, Pope Dioscorus was setup by Eutyches, who made a false confession of Orthodoxy, and they deny vigorously any violence. Now, as Nancy pointed out, sometimes history is written by the winners, and certainly the majority of the church rejected the so-called robber synod and branded Dioscorus a heretic at Chalcedon. But the result was a terrible human tragedy; the Coptic and Syriac Christians were persecuted so horriby by the Byzantine Empire in the centuries that followed that they actually welcomed the conquest of their lands by the Ummayid Caliphate.

    While I agree with Chalcedon’s position that the humanity and divinity of Christ exist without change, confusion, or separation; the Oriental Orthodox also confess this. The only difference is one of terminology; the Chalcedonians refer to the human and divine natures, whereas to the Oriental Orthodox, the humanity and divinity are aspects of a single Nature of the Incarnate Word.

    I believe the controversy arose due to the problems of translating the Tome of Leo into Greek, and thence into Coptic and Syriac. To the Copts and Syriacs, it seems that the idea of nature or physis, from Greek philosophy, and the idea of hypostasis, were not well understood, so what the Chalcedonians refer to as the single hypostasis of Christ, the Oriental Orthodox refer to as the single physis of Christ. In like manner I believe the Assyrian Church of the East, based on its own statements, has, with a few exceptions like Mar Narsai, never embraced the radical Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia or even of Nestorius, but rather the toned-down Christology Nestorius advocated later in his life; Nestorius is on record as saying Chalcedon established what he was trying to teach (which is not strictly speaking true, based on the Twelve Anathemas Nestorius promulgated, which Chalcedon explicitly repudiated), but which nonetheless had the effect of suggesting to the Oriental Orthodox that Pope Dioscorus had made the right call in opposing the Tome of Leo, and they in turn had made the right call in following him, and were the true keepers of the faith of St. Cyril. The actual Christology believed by most Assyrians is that Christ is one person with two hypostases and two natures; here, again, the difference seems to be one of terminology, since like the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonians, the Assyrians confess Christ being fully human and fully divine, without change, confusion, or separation.

    I fervently hope and pray that a complete healing of the Ephesian and Chalcedonian Schisms will soon occur, based on this common conception: that Christ is fully human and fully divine, in one person, and that his humanity and divinity exist without change, confuion or separation. That simple formula should be enough to vindicate Chalcedon, vindicate Ephesus and at the same time rehabilitate the Assyrians, bringing about the possiblity of full communion between all four families of the Apostolic Churches (the Assyrians, the Catholics, and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox). The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox have already grown very close, as have the Assyrians and the Catholics, and what is more, the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians have each signed common Christological declarations with the Roman Catholic Church which should signify that at present, all do in fact confess the same Christ.

    So I pray with all my heart that, in light of the horror in Syria and Iraq, where Assyrians, Oriental Orthodox (Syriacs and Armenians), Roman Catholics of several rites, and Eastern Orthodox (the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and All the East), are together perishing with their Protestant brethren and with other religious minorities such as the Yezidis at the hands of the Islamic State, Al Qaeda and other factions in the civil war which has now engulfed both Syria and Iraq, the ancient wounds caused by these Fifth Century Schisms may now finally be healed. The Common Christological Declarations of the 1990s show that all four Apostolic Churches share a compatible Christology, so all that remains to restore communion and allow for a common witness in the face of ISIL is to address certain slightly thorny issues regarding the commemoration of saints associated with the schisms. In fact, it was over this issue that talks between the Copts and the Assyrians, who represent the very opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue, broke down. However, the desirability of being able to recognize in common as saints the new martyrs of the Islamic State I think should be enough of an incentive to allow this hurdle to be overcome.

  495. @ Nancy:

    Your view of Orthodox soteriology is correct. We do not believe in penal substitutionary atonement and indeed this is one of our primary disagreements with the West. We believe that Christ trampled down death by death; by assuming human nature, he sanctified every aspect of the human experience, and by dying and resurrecting, he made possible the salvation of humans and the resurrection of the dead.

    Metropolitan Kallistos Ware gave a talk on this subject at Seattle Pacific University that I think you will really love: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F7h-TStNd8

    Now, there actually is an Orthodox Church in America. And the OCA, the Antiochian Orthodox Church, and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia all have extremely large convert populations. Indeed it seems in ROCOR the majority of priests I’ve met are former Episcopalians. The Bishops tend to be Russian, unlike in OCA or the Antiochian Orthodox Church in North America, where the bishops are increasingly first or second generation converts. There are plans afoot to unify the different jurisdictions in the US into a single Orthodox church, but I doubt they will come to fruition, because the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (who rules the Greek Orthodox, Ukranian Orthodox and Carpatho-Ruthenian Orthodox churches, among others0 regards North America as his canonical territory and would want the new church to be under his jurisdiction, and ROCOR for its part wishes to remain independent, as it is more traditionalist and conservative than the other jurisdictions. However it is very possible the OCA and the Antiochian Orthodox will merge, and that would probably be a good thing, as Antioch is socially conservative, as are most members of the OCA, and the merger of the two would likely result in some far-left members of the OCA like Fr. Oliver Herbel and Fr. Robert Arida leaving to join the Episcopal Church or another denomination more in line with their theology.

    This problem is, by the way, largely unique to the Americas and Western Europe, which are regions of canonical ambiguity. The canons of the Council of Chalcedon assigned the Roman church responsibility for ministry to the “Lands of the Barbarians” except for the East, which fell under Antioch, and Africa, which fell under Alexandria. Later, even before the Great Schism, Constantinople began active evagnelization, and later founded what became the Serbian Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches. Constantinople, after the Great Schism, believed that Western Europe, which was traditionally assigned to Rome, and all “territories of the Barbarians”, meaning people outside the Roman Empire, not assigned to Antioch or Alexandria, were its canonical domain. However, with the large immigration of Slavic Orthodox to Western Europe after the rise of Communism, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, which was created by order of Patriarch Tikhon, when he ordered all Russian Orthodox outside the USSR to ignore any further instructions from his Patriarchate due to the fact that the Communists had taken him prisoner and intended to torture him and manipulate the Russian Church, disagreed, and opened its own parishes in Western Europe. The Russian Orthodox also have historically had a competing claim to the Americas as their canonical territory, based on the fact that the first Orthodox Priest in the Americas (that we know of) was St. Herman of Alaska, who, when Alaska was part of Russia, converted a large number of Native Alaskans to Orthodoxy; there remains to this day a large Orthodox community in Alaska. The Russian and Greek Orthodox churches in America have always been independent of each other, although they confess the same faith and are in full communion.

    Now this situation is admittedly confusing and frustrating for many potential converts to Orthodoxy. It is also certainly true that some Orthodox churches historically were hostile to people not of their ethnic group, although the idea that different ethnicities should worship separately was classified as a heresy, ethnophyltism, by an Orthodox synod in the late 19th century. There also historically were many Roman Catholic churches that were particularly associated with Polish or Irish or Italian populations and were less than friendly to others. This is a problem inherent to human nature and prejudice and is something that the Orthodox as a whole are opposed to; being Russian or Greek does not make you Orthodox, but rather, being a member of the Orthodox church.

    Now if you lived in Africa, you would find this situation to be non-existant. Throughout all of Africa, there is only one Eastern Orthodox church of any significance, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa. So if you want to be Eastern Orthodox, they’re the church you go to. There are three Oriental Orthodox churches; the Coptic, Ethiopian and Eritrean Churches, but until the 1950s these were all part of the Coptic church, and they all still regard themselves as being Coptic in a certain sense, and regard the Coptic Pope as primus inter pares. The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria is also referred to as Pope. The word Pope was actually first used to refer to the Patriarch of Alexandria in the second century, whereas it was not until the seventh or eigth century that it began to be used to refer to the Patriarch of Rome, interestingly enough.

    There is one huge advantage though to the Orthodox Church having so many jurisdictions that are in full communion with each other. If you have a problem in an orthodox church in your area, which once happened to me, you can go to a different one, and in a different jurisdiction, to add further distance. In a sense, I believe there is a certain competition between the overlapping Orthodox churches in America, and while the situation is canonically irregular, it might not be undesirable. If the Antiochian, Greek, Russian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Serbian and other parishes can all be inspired to actively evangelize, as indeed most of them now are, and can be challenged to compete with each other to see who can bring in the most converts, and who can have the most beautiful liturgical music according to the ancient traditions of their rites, and who can have the most impressive church buildings, and most importantly, who can feed the most homeless people and do the most works of charity, that would be a very good thing. Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations, and the tragedy of communism, taught us that competition is good; why should we not compete in a friendly manner for that treasure which is in heaven?

  496. @ Bridget:

    Indeed so. The Arian schism was driven primarily by political factors, for example, and indeed so was the Great Schism between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics (a rivalry between the Holy Roman Empire and the emerging Italian city states like Venice, and the crumbling but still formidable Byzantine Empire).

    In fact, Pontius Pilate allowed Christ to be crucified primarily for reasons of political expediency.

  497. New Years resolutions, anyone doing them? I’m a political news junkie, US primarily, and I’m going to try to stop following and obsessing over them so much this year. So starting tomorrow I’m going to take off 2 weeks from following the news, and then try to do 1 week off a month the rest of the year. Hopefully that’ll lower stress, free up energy and focus for other things. My wife and I quit smoking a month and a half ago so no need for that resolution. It seems to be sticking, fingers crossed.

  498. Albuquerque

    Great job on the smoking. My husband says that the lungs and heart repair themselves after smoking cessation! I sued to love politics. Now, it just gives me indigestion.

  499. @ Albuquerque Blue:

    The Coptic, Syriac, Armenian and Ethiopian churches are Oriental Orthodox. The distinction stems from the Chalcedonian schism. However I have a great love for the Oriental Orthodox; the Syriacs who speak a dialect of the Aramaic spoken by Jesus Christ, and who, along with the Assyrians, who also speak an Aramaic dialect, are being killed in Iraq and Syria by ISIL, and the Copts, who have a fantastic monastic heritage and really fun liturgical hymns. I don’t know much about the Ethiopian church,,but their food and coffee is fantastic. Some of my best friends growing up were and still are Armenian.

    So when I say the Orthodox Church without qualifiers, I try to speak for both the Eastern and Oriental churches, as aside from the issue of Chalcedon, the faith and praxis of the churches is very nearly identical. If you read an English translation I have of the Armenian Divine Liturgy of St. Athanasius and compared it with the text of the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, you would be hard pressed to tell them apart. Now if you actually attended the services, the differences in vestments, music, language and other externals would be noticeable,,but the underlying prayers are the same. And as I’m fond of saying, the rule of prayer is the rule of faith. We pray the same prayers, ergo our faith is the same.

  500. @ Albuquerque Blue:

    By the way, congratulations on your effort to quite smoking, I’m very allergic to tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke and the incense smoke of joss sticks. In fact even barbecues and forest fires can give me a cold. Curiously the smoke of Christian incense does not bother me that much; at worst if I suck in a lot of it (which can happen when the priest census each attendee at the beginning of the Divine Liturgy) I get a headache, but the pleasing aroma compensates for this. I use excelsior rather than charcoal as fuel for my thurible (most Orthodox own a hand thurible which we as a religious implement in our prayers and also to cense our houses with) as it burns cleaner, producing less noxious smoke. One thing I want to invent is a thurible which uses heat alone to burn the incense, which unlike that of joss sticks, is not self combusting, thus resulting in completely pure smoke. Once can imagine a few different ways of engineering such a device, particularly if it were stationary, like the Altar of Incense in Solomon’s Temple.

  501. THC wrote:

    I don’t know much about modern Lutheranism except to know that it was born from one man who decided to change Christianity to fit his needs, and he was aided by the powers that be at the time. Amazing that politics played an enormous part in the reformation, isn’t it?

    Let me say that it’s true that politics played an enormous role in the reformation after it had started, but Luther it did not start that way. But I do take exception to your phrase “it was born from one man who decided to change Christianity to fit his needs”. If that’s all you know about Lutheranism, then you know nothing at all.

    That’s the kind of uncharitable reductionist characterisation that you could make of all church traditions, and all movements, and that would be completely unfair to all of those movements, and would completely shortchange anybody wanting to know more about those movements.

    If you admit not knowing much, please refrain from making any such sweeping statements.

    I am a Lutheran, and I a not angry because you dared criticise Luther, or the reformation, or the Lutherans. I myself am quite critical of them most of the time. If you want to criticise Luther, do it where it is appropriate:

    – How about his treatment of the peasants? Where he first wrote about a Christian’s freedom in Christ (“die Freiheit eines Christenmenschen”) and then, when the peasants took that literally and wanted to improve their situation, he became scared and wrote that it was OK to kill them lie a dog?
    – Or his change of attitude towards the Jews? Where he first thought that they would see the reformation as the true religion, and accept the new form of christianity, and when they didn’t, he became viciously anti-Jewish and anti-semitic?
    – Or his stance against the worldliness of the church, and its worldly powers, and then, he delivered power in the church to the German princes (because they had supported him)?
    – Or the German Lutheran churches which mostly accepted, and partly supported Hitler’s “National Revolution”? The “Deutsche Christen” movement that were Lutherans, and sadly, also many theologians, who wanted to keep the church “Aryan” and exclude anybody of Jewish descent?

    If you wanted to criticise or Lutherans on these points, I could follow you, and we might be able to have fruitful conversation. But your statement above just shows your sectarianism.

    And I’m quite sure one could find a lot of such reductionist mis-characterisations for the various orthodox churches as well. How about their all to cosy relationship with the powers that be?

  502. @ William G.:
    That’s exactly what I didn’t like about our confirmation class visit to the Greek Orthodox church in town. It is a fairly large building but the incense still bothers me. I had to sit outside.

  503. @ William G.:

    Just so there is no confusion here. When I said regarding one of your comments that you were preaching one of my sermons, I was referring to what you said about violence.