quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop:

Was the Holy Spirit given to the church, and is God a God of order and did He give varying charisms for the sake of the body at large and to be confirmed by the body at large?

Or was the Spirit given to an unordered amalgam of individuals to remain disjointed and scattered in diverse understanding and thought…individuals that He would guide individually and compensate all their mistakes? Does the latter approach strike you as wise …. as somehow more perfect in wisdom .. even divine?

Pop-pop---Why is the latter extreme one of the only two choices you offer here?

Ariel,

The other half of the tag team enters the ring.

Hmmmn.....who would have thought...tomatoes at the ready? Hmmmn.

Good morning, mon amie.

What I had written was what was in my head at the time, of course. And that was a response to Jacque's statements that he could trust God to lead him ...kind of independently of any of *the written documents of the Judeo-Christian faith (as important as they are), but in the Father, Son and Spirit that the documents speak of.*

Certainly I am not a sola scriptura afficianado, and I like that Jacques isn't either, for the Holy Spirit was given to the church not the written documents (which via the Holy Spirit and His presence within the body of believers was generated from Him and made available to us through the church).

Nevertheless, those documents are sacred and do provide us a wealth of understanding into the revelation of God and truth. So objective as well as subjective knowledge guides us, as the body of Christ moves through salvation history with God as the Head guiding that body. And individual members of His body fall prey to error if they neglect the revealed nature of the Spirit's guidance that has already been given and will continue to be given to the Body by the Spirit.

But ... I guess you point me to the fact that the Body is more than the RC church...is that what you point to by your question, mon amie? I have a way of forgetting that, I admit. I have to stop and think about that and you have stopped me.

Of course, in truth, I believe the RC has a strength and validity that none other of the many denominations within Christendom have.

You knew that.

Unfortunately, there are among the other denominations more than enough that are contrary in beliefs concerning the truth of the Holy Spirit -- and you know that, I know.

So...continue from where you've left off.

Pop-pop

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop:

But ... I guess you point me to the fact that the Body is more than the RC church...is that what you point to by your question, mon amie? I have a way of forgetting that, I admit. I have to stop and think about that and you have stopped me.

Good afternoon, amigo.

The main thing prompting my question, I'd say, was what struck me as I was reading your prior post. I, as a non-Catholic Christian (but Catholic and Orthodox-friendly), know from the inside, so to speak, what it's like to be an Evangelical-ish Christian in America. I have 44 years of experience among mostly Evangelicals, Lutherans, Methodists, Assemblies of God, Mennonites, and some Presbyterians, Baptists, and Quakers. And I have to say that all these people in my experience get along well. We'd all say that the example you cite --the boy from Philly whose parents didn't get him medical attention--is totally on the fringe of the fringe of Protestant belief.

But, saying this tentatively, with humility, I wonder if to you it's not so obvious how much that's on the extreme fringe. And I'm offering that thought due to the fact that I acknowledge my inexperience in seeing Catholicism from the inside. I look at Catholics among people I know, and see really nice Christians. I look at Catholics on the net, and see about as much diversity as I'd see among Protestants. They argue, they disagree, they each insist-Catholic among Catholic--that their widely differing interpretations are correct. Sic et Non revisited--maybe it's just a normal part of human nature to disagree.

How common, how vocal, how powerful, are the uber-Catholics?--again, from my limited experience, I have no way of knowing if they're fringe-y or fairly common. I just know they scare me.

I've sometimes wondered that myself. My impression is that the ubers are far more common on the Internet than they are in real life.

Thanks Ariel:

BTW Just wondering what you mean by uber-Catholics. I did google it but still not
real clear how you relate to this. Thanks.
I've never heard this term before.

quote:

Originally posted by Ariel Jaffe: so my short contribution will be two passages from the Bible that I love to read:

Isaiah 49:15-16:

and Luke 13:34:

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mary Sue,

Hi Mary Sue--

"More Catholic than the Pope" would be one humorous way of describing uber-Catholics, I guess.

In my "in person" relationships and acquaintances with Catholics and Protestants here in Pennsylvania, my experience has been that we all interact and co-operate well and warmly, regardless of denomination or being Catholic or non-Catholics (I don't know any Orthodox personally). So it's been really weird to me to find a vocal group of Catholics seemingly spread throughout the internet who still believe most Protestants are going to hell...in spite of the Catechism teaching otherwise. I don't want to de-rail this thread--I just meant to point out that it can be hard for someone (me, and maybe Pop-pop) to get an accurate feel or sense of a group they aren't involved with everyday.

Hi Ariel:
Ouch, I'm really sorry to hear this.

Yeah I know what you mean about not wanting to de-rail the thread.
I've been wanting to apologize for doing that
for the past few days. Sorry everyone.

When I originally asked my question about Mary I honestly thought I was going in a direction that affirmed what Phil was saying.

quote:

Originally posted by Ariel Jaffe:
Hi Mary Sue--

So it's been really weird to me to find a vocal group of Catholics seemingly spread throughout the internet who still believe most Protestants are going to hell...in spite of the Catechism teaching otherwise. I don't want to de-rail this thread--I just meant to point out that it can be hard for someone (me, and maybe Pop-pop) to get an accurate feel or sense of a group they aren't involved with everyday.

quote:

In the end, I’ve come to place my faith, not in the written documents of the Judeo-Christian faith...but in the Father, Son and Spirit that the documents speak of...

Pop Pop, you take issue with the fact that I appear to be ignoring the importance of the Scriptures for my foundational knowledge of the Trinity. You couldn’t be more wrong. Of course the scriptures are vital to our understanding of the Judeo-Christian faith. But in the end, the scriptures alone are not enough (for me).

There was a time in my life when I read the Bible from a Rastafarian perspective, it was the same bible that I read today, but I had a completely different interpretation of what it meant. Later I read it from a New Age/Spiritualist perspective and again it spoke powerfully to me, but it wasn’t giving me the traditional Christian message.

There was a time when I thought Jesus was some kind of Witch/Wizard, who formed a coven of 13 (He and his 12 disciples). They seemed to employ some kind of spiritual power they called the Holy Spirit, practiced white magic that they attributed to their connection with God. I tried to do the same, the outcome was very unpleasant.

The night it all changed for me it was God Himself who revealed to me that the powers and experiences I was seeking were not a part of His will for me. It was God Himself who told me that I had gotten it wrong regarding who Jesus and the Holy Spirit were. That morning I accepted Christ as my personal Lord and Savior.

But my relationship with the scriptures where not all of a sudden straightened out. One of the first Christian groups I attended had a radical understanding of the Christian Faith and the Bible. They taught me that only the King James Bible was the Word of God and that Catholics, Charismatics, NIV readers and Non-Christians would all be going to hell together. They used the scriptures to back up their ideas and tried their best to “help others see the light”.

When I went to Bible college I met wonderful Christians who loved Jesus and READ the NIV translation - yikes!!! Not only that but they PRACTICED THE GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT - JUST LIKE THE CHARISMATICS - oh no!! And they even introduced me to the writings of the CATHOLIC and EASTERN ORTHODOX MYSTICS - WHAT INSANITY!!!

I pored over the scriptures, trying to discern who was right, the fundamentalists or the Catholics, the charismatics or the Orthodox, the Protestants or the Mystics. Then my problems were compounded when I was influenced by the Jewish Messianic Christians who teach that we should be keeping the Old Testament Laws (some groups advocating that we should observe all 10 commandments, others adding the food laws and festivals, others adding every jot and tittle of the Law).

Then I struggled with Biblical Monotheism that teaches that Jesus died for our sins as a perfect human being but that the Father alone is God. For some time I found their biblical exegesis quite convincing. In fact all these groups use the Scriptures to defend their particular beliefs and practices. And while you might disagree with all of them...I don’t think you can do so on the grounds of the Biblical evidence alone. Through the guidance of the Spirit I have come to let go of many of the extreme interpretations of scripture and now hold what I hope most would consider an Orthodox Christian theology - pushing the boudaries in certain areas

So eventually I just stopped trying to ground my faith in Biblical Truth, but instead sought to ground my faith in the God who in spite of my struggles with Scripture remained faithful to me in every way and continued to speak to me, meet with me in prayer and meditation and provided my daily bread and forgiveness of sins.

Of course I still find scripture immensely important and spend a lot of time, reading, reflecting on and discussing scripture...but I also know that most interpretations have other possible meanings and I’d be foolish to think that I know beyond a shadow of a doubt what each and every passage, sentence and parable means.

In addition to the Scriptures themselves my faith is nourished by the community of believers who have loved God since the time of Adam and Eve and left various writings attesting to this faith and relationship. Whether these writings are what we call scripture, or whether they are only personal reflections like the “Ascent of Mount Carmel” or “Kundalini and Christian Spirituality” is less important to me that what it once was, since I place my faith in God and not in the writings of any person. Ultimately the Word of God was a person named Jesus and not the documents left to us by those who Loved God and were inspired by Him to write various things.

I do believe the Bible was inspired, but I don’t believe we always understand what it means...that said, I don’t believe that misunderstood scripture has the power to separate me from the Love of God that is in Christ Jesus.

I’m not advocating that we get rid of scripture - it is a holy gift from God. I’m not advocating that all interpretations are equally valid, clearly that is not the case. But I just don’t believe that any groups or church really has the final word on what it all means...not even the Magesterium of the Catholic Church.

quote:

Jacques I’m thinking you are a deep thinker but are not deeply thinking when you make that statement above

Perhaps it needs more thought, but trust me Pop Pop, thinking about these things is a constant concern, to the point of needing to aware that I have other responsibilities to my wife and children.

I must also agree with Ariel that when you use examples of people who make questionable decisions based on their faith and interpretation of scriptures you make a valid but extremest point. There are far more people who are trying to Love God and Love Others in the best way they know how and still provide medical care for their sick children and also condemn abortion. I would also be careful of assuming that just because we disagree with a specific understanding of scripture that the other person is definitely wrong. I think Homosexuality is a good case in point. While you and I and many Christian may feel that the Scriptures condemn homosexuality, there are a growing number of Christian who love God in every way that you and I do and yet remain practicing homosexuals. Their biblical exegesis is not easily wiped under the carpet by traditional Christian exegesis because the reality is that the scriptures are not as clear as we wish they were on these issues - though we wouldn’t know it from reading our English TRANSLATIONS of ancient Greek and Hebrew documents.

quote:

God’s going to make all things work for good, so therefore man has no personal responsibility...

Now Pop Pop, that’s just putting words in my mouth...in fact I was quoting Scripture and you’ve just added to it

God works all things together for good for those who love Him. I believe that, and I try to love Him, and so I trust that He is working all things together for my good...good according to his desire for my life and not necessarily what I want or feel. Now do I believe this because the scriptures teach this, or because I trust the God who inspired those scriptures, probably a bit of both, but I would say more due to the God who inspired and uses the scriptures to achieve His purposes. So what does that make of the scriptures...well, they are a holy tool in the hands of a holy God, a sacred communication to encourage a sacred relationship. But since they were written and are wielded by human beings I would say it is safer to keep our focus on God and let the scriptures play the supporting role.

Of course this is just my own opinion, inspired by my relationship with God, perhaps it could be of some benefit in validating or encouraging your own relationship with God. But it is the God with whom you have a personal relationship that guides you, and not the ramblings of a postmodern disciple.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jacques,

This discussion is like the Energizer Bunny, isn't it? It just keeps on going and going and going.

Thanks, Jacques, for sharing so generously about your journey; seems you've been around the block a number of times, especially in your efforts to understand Scripture. And Mary Sue, I don't think you've taken us on an irrelevant detour. I've learned through the years that almost no discussion forum thread stays completely on-topic, and that most anything brought up can eventually be tied in.

I'd like to respond to just one point, here, and it's one made by Jacques:

quote:

So eventually I just stopped trying to ground my faith in Biblical Truth, but instead sought to ground my faith in the God who in spite of my struggles with Scripture remained faithful to me in every way and continued to speak to me, meet with me in prayer and meditation and provided my daily bread and forgiveness of sins.

Of course I still find scripture immensely important and spend a lot of time, reading, reflecting on and discussing scripture...but I also know that most interpretations have other possible meanings and I’d be foolish to think that I know beyond a shadow of a doubt what each and every passage, sentence and parable means.

It's easy to see how you'd come to this place, Jacques. What I'd like to point out, however, is that even though Scripture is multi-faceted in its meanings, it's not so ambiguous as to be an equally credible reference for New Age gnostics, wiccans, fundamentalists, and so forth. All these groups miss the point of what Scripture actually is: namely, a testament to the faith of the early Church. Iow, it is the Church's book, and not some document from outside the Church that was used to form Christianity a la the Book of Mormon or even the Koran was used to form Mormonism and Islam, respectively. Scripture is the Church's book, expressing in writing something of the oral tradition that preceded it an which continued after its writing. So we cannot properly understand the objective meanings of Scripture without considering what Catholics (and Orthodox) call Sacred Tradition. Of course, New Agers, wiccans and fundamentalists have no use for Sacred Tradition and consider it merely "man-made," but they do not recognize that it was the source from which written tradition was derived in the first place. As such, then, Sacred Tradition constitutes a necessary complement to Scripture, apart from which Scripture cannot be properly interpreted.

And we can interpret Scripture -- and even do so "correctly." Why? Because, in the end, Scripture is not expressing something from outside the Church, but what the Church already believes. There may be layers of it that we have not come to appreciate, but we most definitely already do have a firm grasp on its core meanings. After all, it was the Christian community that both recognized and affirmed these meanings in the writings in the first place, which is why they were used in our liturgies and in catechesis. Even though it might seem to be something of a muddle out there concerning the meaning of Scripture, with the New Agers saying one thing, fundamentalists, another, etc., that's only because some 500 years or so ago the Protestant Reformation split Scripture from Tradition. Since then we've been off to the races, with various interpretations leading to a further fracturing of the Church.

It's good to go directly to God to request understanding, of course, but God has already left us with a body of carefully discerned teaching and understanding to help form our minds and hearts. Scripture is the core resource for developing these teachings; nothing can be considered doctrinal that goes against Scripture. But sometimes we can't understand Scripture apart from Tradition.

Thanks Phil, I appreciate your response and I do agree with you. Which is why, even though I'm not Catholic or Orthodox I consider the churches Sacred Tradition an important source to reflect on our interpretation of scripture, theology and practice.

As you may remember from the "Get them dunked" thread I had noted my struggle with deciding on the validity of the claims of both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.

You had noted that you felt that the Church was United for 1000 years and that the Eastern Orthodox were the ones who broke away...therefore you feel the Roman Catholic church is the original church and therefore has the correct interpretation of sacred tradition.

The problem I have with this is that my reading of the history of the time seems to indicate that prior to the East West Schism there was neither Roman Catholicism nor Eastern Orthodoxy and therefore both these important traditions in a sense originated in the progressive differences between the Eastern and Western Churches of the United Christendom.

My point is, that in the end, there are even important differences in interpretation, theology and practice between these ancient churches...these differences predate the Protestant reformation (which I agree caused so many of the current problems faced by Christians and yet for better or worse it has produced many positive results as well).

I understand why both parties would want to claim that their Sacred Tradition predates the others. And I don't know enough to argue either way. I have my own personal doubts as to the validity of both claims, but that is only my personal opinion and I might be wrong.

UBER DOOBA DOOOOOO!

quote:

You had noted that you felt that the Church was United for 1000 years and that the Eastern Orthodox were the ones who broke away...therefore you feel the Roman Catholic church is the original church and therefore has the correct interpretation of sacred tradition.

The problem I have with this is that my reading of the history of the time seems to indicate that prior to the East West Schism there was neither Roman Catholicism nor Eastern Orthodoxy and therefore both these important traditions in a sense originated in the progressive differences between the Eastern and Western Churches of the United Christendom.

Yes, I remember that discussion, Jacques, and in the present context (whether we can know what Scripture means to be saying) I don't think there are significant differences between the Orthodox and Roman traditions on most issues, especially pertaining to the interpretation of scripture. I also still hold that you are wrong in your contention that the Roman Catholic tradition didn't exist before the schism. The reason there was a schism in the first place was because two progressively diverging traditions existed, one we now call Roman Catholic and the other the Orthodox. They didn't suddenly come into existence with the schism, but became formally separated then.

All,

I really was inclined to not respond in defense, since everyone’s posts were quite wonderful. Phil’s was very nicely put. I loved it … kind of true blue from the yellow-meme clan (lol). (I kind of like it that he gets to play good cop to my bad). Jacque’s was wonderful as well; and personal and informative and I know he must have spent a while framing it. You’ve sure covered a lot of territory to date, Jacques. (Kicking against the goad perhaps).

But I will respond in explanatory defense since if Ariel were to remain miffed at me I’m sure I’d be terrorized by nightmares of flying tomatoes and snowballs .. maybe even apples .. now that fall is here.

So: Hermana,

You wrote -

*We'd all say that the example you cite -- the boy from Philly whose parents didn't get him medical attention--is totally on the fringe of the fringe of Protestant belief.*

Of course (or in fact) I too also believe that the example that I cited is on the fringe of the fringe of what most Protestants believe. But I used it because it is a clear example of how subjective interpretation by an individual, though truly very committed to God, and to his belief in God, can (in this instance - did) fall prey to error. God did not take that father’s sincerity of belief and that father’s trust in God as sufficient to endorse the man’s erroneous interpretation and therefore save the son in view of his father’s sincerity.

Personally I felt terrible for that father. I thought about it for a good while. It didn’t track with my understanding of God being compassionate. How could He do that, I asked of Him. Believe me if you can – though it is written: “Can anything good come from Jersey?” that I was not endeavoring to smear Protestantism with a broad brush. Rather I was trying to provide a clear and potent example of how personal interpretation despite deep sincerity can become a travesty of error, and how important truth is – we really need to get it right. It really is important.

My focus was not on Protestantism, but on subjective interpretation by an individual regarding understanding what scripture (or the Spirit) tells us. This was truly private and individual and subjective interpretation because, as you yourself state: only someone ‘on the fringe of the fringe’ would hold such an interpretation.

I believe Jacques was sincere in what he had written in that earlier post. I believe that this father too, had been sincere. But, sincerity is not a measure of correctness. I was not intending to attack the flag you fly, hermana. Don’t go Uber on me, now. Don’t be more Protestant than Luther………………………………….just teasing – your response was tame, I realize.


Ariel, I think you are quite correct relative to this statement of yours in a later post:

* it can be hard for someone (me, and maybe Pop-pop) to get an accurate feel or sense of a group they aren't involved with everyday.*

We each come to our discussions based on our understanding and the experiences and teachings we have received over our lives. So you see Protestants from your experiences and formed perspective and I see Protestants from my experiences and formed perspective. Similarly you see Catholics from your experiences (perhaps sometimes -- even often – Uber, as you say) and formed perspective. Perhaps too, I have encountered Uber Protestants over my - more than- 44 years. Might that have been possible?

And all that is a challenge to our dialoging – which so far has survived, maybe even thrived despite the occasional necessary snowball flying eastward.

I admit to being ‘on guard’ concerning pluralism and moral relativism that attacks Christendom from within and without. And I admit to an habitual thinking of the ‘Church’ as opposed to ‘Christendom’. My mindset is RC-geared not Christendom-geared. Not by intention as much as by habit, indeed reflex. So you have caught me and may well catch me again as being a creature of that habit. Hopefully this old dog will learn a new trick bye and bye – what with your and Jacque’s occasional kick – and remember to slow my immediate thinking.

When I think Orthodox Catholic, truthfully, I think RC. In my head and heart they are equivalent essentially. Though, I know there is difference regarding papal authority. Certainly, I haven’t delved as has Jacques into all the historical gore. (I probably once knew). Essentially I see them as doctrinally equivalent and sacramentally equivalent – with just some liturgical, calendar and customs differences. I like their Eucharistic bread and the abundant use of incense. Kind of neat (imo).

When I think Protestant, I think of the vast diversity of doctrinal beliefs – kind of a fire hose of diversity. And I think not just diversity but disparity. You (I imagine) see predominantly the orthodox within Protestantism and discount as fringe essentially, the pluralism that exists; and in your heart you probably discount the disparity that exists. (By disparity I mean contrary, even exact opposite positions from one another and with scripture). So in effect when I think pluralism and relativism and modernism – I kind of see it mostly….coming via your armies. Certainly, I wish that wasn’t so; but I am being honest with you. Though I see it too, sloshing into the RC church as well. And, continuing in all honesty …. and not wanting to be, or appear even, as Uber, I truly hate it all.

How’s that for wearing my heart on my sleeve – black as you might think it?

Pop-pop

Phil, Again I agree with you. Let me revise. Within both Catholicism and Orthodoxy there are those that advocate for the one tradition over the other.

My view is that both traditions began through the preaching and teaching of Christ and the Apostles and that over time differences eventually culminated in the Schism. Therefore it is true that neither really predates the other and that both traditions have equal right to view their descent from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Perhaps my promblem comes from reading Orthodox Apologetics that focus on the problems between the traditions rather than the similarities...but from my perspective there still seem to be significant differences.

In addition my problem further stems from the teachings regarding Infallibility. The multitude of differences throughout Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) leave me doubting infallibility - May the Lord lead me into all truth through the Holy Spirit (even the truth regarding infallibility).

Here are two websites discussing the differences:
One from an Eastern Orthodox: http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPag...ding/ortho_cath.html
The other from a Roman Catholic: http://vivificat1.blogspot.com...en-orthodox-and.html

Perhaps you would like to comment on some of what they say.

All--It seems my trusty little cheap Compaq laptop is on its last legs, so if I appear to drop out of this discussion for a few days, that's why.

Pop-pop--I wasn't miffed at you...I hoped my use of the word "tentatively" would help to convey that. I wasn't attacking you. And actually, I thought your last post here was thoughtfully done.

No, I didn't specifically think you were taking a jab at Protestants. Though, it did cross my mind that maybe you were, considering the context in which the parents of the boy from Philly previously was written about by you. But, but, if I really had felt that way about your post's intent, I would have asked you outright if I was understanding you. We cowgirls tend to be upfront.

Hmm...I'm going to post this while I think how to re-frame what I did mean in my earlier post, in hopes of being clearer.

Mary Sue--I read part, so far, of that link you posted--it did seem very good. Section 8(or chapter 8, whatever), if I remember correctly, talks more about God's feminine attributes in the Bible.

quote:

In addition my problem further stems from the teachings regarding Infallibility. The multitude of differences throughout Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) leave me doubting infallibility - May the Lord lead me into all truth through the Holy Spirit (even the truth regarding infallibility).

Here are two websites discussing the differences:
One from an Eastern Orthodox: http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPag...ding/ortho_cath.html
The other from a Roman Catholic: http://vivificat1.blogspot.com...en-orthodox-and.html

Perhaps you would like to comment on some of what they say.

Thanks, Jacques. I consider the schism to be a great tragedy in the history of Christianity, with both sides being left somewhat diminished from it. Perhaps, in time, the rift will heal.

Re. the two links: I think they point out significant differences, but they also seem somewhat exaggerated. E.g., the first link, point #1 notes:

quote:

Following the Holy Fathers, Orthodoxy uses science and philosophy to defend and explain her Faith. Unlike Roman Catholicism, she does not build on the results of philosophy and science. The Church does not seek to reconcile faith and reason. She makes no effort to prove by logic or science what Christ gave His followers to believe. If physics or biology or chemistry or philosophy lends support to the teachings of the Church, she does not refuse them. However, Orthodoxy is not intimidated by man's intellectual accomplishments. She does not bow to them and change the Christian Faith to make it consistent with the results of human thought and science. . .

Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, places a high value on human reason. Its history shows the consequence of that trust. For example, in the Latin Middle Ages, the 13th century, the theologian-philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, joined "Christianity" with the philosophy of Aristotle. From that period til now, the Latins have never wavered in their respect for human wisdom; and it has radically altered the theology, mysteries and institutions of the Christian religion.

Them's fightin' words! But it's also a kind of straw-man argument, imo, and misrepresents the Catholic position. We do not and have never "changed the Christian faith to make it consistent with the results of human thought and science," as is implied. An example, here, would be nice, but I'm sure the author won't be able to come up with any.

And what the heck's so bad about what Thomas wrote, anyway? The author seems to have a problem with Catholics' "respect for human wisdom." I sure don't.

quote:

2. The Orthodox Church does not endorse the view that the teachings of Christ have changed from time to time; rather that Christianity has remained unaltered from the moment that the Lord delivered the Faith to the Apostles (Matt. 28: 18-20). She affirms that "the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) is now what it was in the beginning. Orthodox of the twentieth century believe precisely what was believed by Orthodox of the first, the fifth, the tenth, the fifteenth centuries.

Wait a minute, is he meaning to say that Orthodox doctrine as we encounter it today is what Jesus taught and the early Church believed? That's just nuts. They had Councils in the early Church, even in Apostolic times, to clarify matters of doctrine.

The Catholic position, misrepresented again, is that our understanding of the core doctrines deepens over time, often in response to heretics or cultural developments, but does not contradict earlier understandings. Again, it would be nice to have an example of a Catholic doctrine that is supposedly at odds with early Christian beliefs.

quote:

3. Roman Catholicism teaches that human reason can prove that God is; and, even infer that He is eternal, infinite, good, bodiless, almighty, all-knowing, etc. He is "most real being," "true being." Humans are like Him (analogous), but we are imperfect being. The God of Roman Catholicism, born in the Latin Middle Ages, is not " the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but the God of the savants and the philosohers," to adapt the celebrated phrase of Blaise Pascal.

Following the Holy Fathers, Orthodoxy teaches that the knowledge of God is planted in human nature and that is how we know Him to exist. Otherwise, unless God speaks to us, human reason cannot know more. The saving knowledge of God comes by the Savior. Speaking to His Father, He said, "And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom Thou has sent" (John 17: 3).

Oh, please! What's wrong with the Catholic teaching, here? Nothing, except for the fact that the Orthodox don't have any use for philosophy. But isn't it nice that we can do that using philosophical tools? Nevertheless, we don't base our beliefs on philosophy, but Revelation, and to say that the God worshipped by Catholics "is not 'the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but the God of savants and the philosophers'" is highly judgmental nonsense. Might as well say we're not even Christians while he's at it -- something we don't say about them nor even the fundamentalists, for that matter.

I just can't read any more, sorry . . . It would be nice to read an informed critique by an Orthodox person, but I think we Catholics do a better job of summarizing the differences than they do (as the author in the second link you posted did). In all my dealings with them on the net and emails, I've found them as uninformed about Catholicism as the fundamentalists. We have a Catechism now that states in straightforward manner our core beliefs and practices, and it would be good if some of these people read it first before embarking upon their ignorant, straw-man arguments.

Thanks Phil, I think your inability to stomach the article by the Orthodox Priest goes a long way in showing exactly what I was saying...that on both sides of the discussion there are still those who view the other side as wrong, non-christian, heretics etc.

I agree that in the current Christian East- Christian West dialog Roman Catholics definitely take a more lenient and gracious approach towards the Orthodox than many Orthodox take towards the Catholics.

I myself thought this particular article was unfair and extremely biased, but posted it anyway because it was such a good example of how volatile the discussion can still be...perhaps that was a little naughty of me apologies!

I think though that issues regarding the Atonement, Original Sin, Mary and the Nature of the Godhead are still points of contention between the two sides and show that even with Sacred Tradition helping interpret doctrine differences of opinion still arise.

Jacques, the first rule of dialogue is to try to understand what the other side is really saying or meaning to say, and this Fr. Azkoul in the first link you posted above seems to have little interest in doing so, or else his sources were very poor. I note that this was from something of a professional journal entitled "The Orthodox Christian Witness."

If this is representative of the kind of resource material you've been reading concerning Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, then I can see why you'd show a preference for the latter.

quote:

I think though that issues regarding the Atonement, Original Sin, Mary and the Nature of the Godhead are still points of contention between the two sides and show that even with Sacred Tradition helping interpret doctrine differences of opinion still arise.

Fr. Azkoul misrepresented Catholic teaching on most of those topics as well. E.g., the atonement: the forensic metaphor is by no means the "official" Catholic position. In my book, Jesus on the Cross: WHY?, I outlined several other ways of understanding how we have been saved by the crucifixion of Christ. E.g., Original Sin: Catholics do believe that human nature is still fundamentally good, and that we have been wounded by Original Sin. I could go on.

Basically, I view the Orthodox as an ancient stream in Christianity that is almost monastic in its spirituality and theology. Where Roman Catholicism has a heart guided by the mind, they are more intent on "bringing the mind into the heart," as some of their mystics put it. Thus they have little interest in philosophy and even seem suspicious of science as well. Note that modernity did not arise from areas of the world where Orthodox Christianity flourished, and I'm sure they'd have no idea how to engage post-modernity (back to thread topic, see ). In Spiral Dynamics terms, I see them as largely Blue with a strong Purple foundation; very little development or Orange and virtually no Green or Yellow there. Catholicism, on the other hand, is also Blue with Purplish resonances, but also strongly supportive of Orange, Green and Yellow development. In fact, these different "colors" of Catholics account for some of the tensions we find in the Church today -- tensions that, on the whole, indicate that we are alive and struggling with our growing pains. I am not so sure the Orthodox tradition has such vitality; it seems to me, rather, more like a museum display -- a glimpse into what 11th C. Christianity in Byzantium was like, and evermore shall be . . .

Phil, I must admit that at least 50% of the material I've been reading is of this kind. I actually chose it purposefully because rather than trying to overlook the differences between the traditions it sketches these differences with a dark pencil. To be fair I've tried to read similar content from a Catholic perspective.

When I say I prefer the Orthodox theology on a number of issues it doesn't mean that the Catholic church or the Protestants do not sometimes say the same things. It is just that for the Orthodox these points (that I like/agree with) are the focal points of Orthodoxy.

Of course I'm still Protestant - or Emergent if you like - and so I don't follow the Orthodox on every point. In fact as you say, sometimes the Orthodox seem stuck in the past. In that peculiarity I'm much more supportive of the Catholic church and what it achieved through Vatican 2 - which I view as having created deep space for dialog and reflection that has surpassed the great majority of the Protestant churches.

My reason for reading such one-sided claims from Orthodoxy (and Catholicism) was that I was trying to judge the claims of each group asserting themselves as the True Church with the other being the Schismatic. With that in mind I thought it would be less helpful to read authors who are trying to minimize the differences. In the end however I have come to see that perhaps both have equal claims to their ancestry and the Primitive church now functions with two lungs - East and West...with Protestants being the children of the Western Church (and the Emergents being the Grandchildren of all Christendom, East and West lol. )

As such I feel that Protestantism at least has some leg to stand on regarding their decision to move away from Rome, just as the Orthodox did. And that their existence cannot simply be viewed as a second-class or second-rate Christianity...not that anybody here has suggested that

How this all relates to infallibility is that I see all these differences and conclude that perhaps the Spirit is fully able to function, inspire and sanctify without us all having to agree on everything. And perhaps none of us are actually infallible - not as individuals and not even as institutions, churches or traditions - while emergent and postmodern Christians have no issue with a statement like that, it contradicts Roman Catholic, Orthodox and even most Protestant theology.

But does the loss of infallibility make Christianity untrue - no, it doesn't. Does it make our truth claims invalid, no it doesn't. It just means we wrestle with the truth and hold our own personal theology lightly...but hold the hand of Christ tightly, knowing that ultimately it is He who saves, not church, theology or anything else.

Just this morning I was doing some research on Irenaus of Lyons, especially regarding his teachings about gnostic tendencies in early Christianity. I came upon the following:

quote:

During the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Emperor from 161-180, Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyon. The clergy of that city, many of whom were suffering imprisonment for the faith, sent him in 177 to Rome with a letter to Pope Eleuterus concerning the heresy Montanism, and that occasion bore emphatic testimony to his merits. While Irenaeus was in Rome, a massacre took place in Lyons. Returning to Gaul, Irenaeus succeeded the martyr Saint Pothinus and became the second Bishop of Lyon.

So what was Irenaeus doing, here, in 177 A.D.? That's very early Christianity -- over a century before the conversion of Constantine. Why was he going to the Bishop of Rome? Wikipedia provides a link to a reference on this:

quote:

The high regard which Irenaeus earned for himself at Lyons was shown in the year 177, when he was chosen to go on a serious mission to Rome. He was the bearer of a letter to Pope Eleutherius, urging him to deal firmly with the Montanist[2] faction in faraway Phrygia, for heresy was now rampant in the East.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus
- http://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/irenaeus.htm

So we see the Bishop of Rome already established as the focal point of maintaining Christian unity and combating heresy long before the Patriarchs of the Eastern Church had had their first Council. There's also a link to Pope Eleuterus, if you're interested. Again, this is all way before Rome was destroyed and the flourishing of the Byzantine Church; long before the conversion of Constantine; at least 8 centuries before the great schism. And yet that all sure looks like what came to be called "Roman Catholicism," does it not?

quote:

As such I feel that Protestantism at least has some leg to stand on regarding their decision to move away from Rome, just as the Orthodox did. And that their existence cannot simply be viewed as a second-class or second-rate Christianity...not that anybody here has suggested that.

No, I wouldn't suggest that, Jacques, but I do not agree that the emergence of Protestantism is analogous to the Catholic/Orthodox situation. Protestantism begins with Luther's protest, and not as an outcome of centuries of cultural and theological divergence, as with the Great Schism. Remember that Luther himself was a Catholic priest and, seemingly, would have remained one had he not been excommunicated.

quote:

But does the loss of infallibility make Christianity untrue - no, it doesn't. Does it make our truth claims invalid, no it doesn't. It just means we wrestle with the truth and hold our own personal theology lightly...but hold the hand of Christ tightly, knowing that ultimately it is He who saves, not church, theology or anything else.

I didn't know we were talking about infallibility. I think this thread and others are demonstrating, once again, the need for one on issues with Catholicism.

I do think papal infallibility is important, and is a special charism or spiritual gift given to the Pope by the Holy Spirit to help the Church journey in the light of truth rather than error. It's also a doctrine about which there are many misunderstandings. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility which actually has a very fine treatment of this topic, including the limitations of its exercise.

Hi Pop-pop---

My computer did indeed meet its end while I was trying to post more the other day. I bought a high-speed wireless Zoom tablet--it's pretty neat, but I'm not going to post much till I get used to it.

Ariel,

Aiyee! You may thereby have left me to be the sole dial-up remnant on the east coast!

I guess this proves you a true emergent now -- as is Jacques. Aiyee!

On another note, I find it interesting that the two of you have a history of denominational journeying in common. A tad interesting, anyway.

Meantime -- ZOOM!

From Jersey (where the drought is certainly over) Uber Dooba Do

Oh Phil, you make Catholicism seem so attractive...really enjoyed the links - I sense a new round of Catholicism research looming around the corner.

On the infallibility issue, I wasn't actually even thinking about papal infallibility, but rather the whole concept of infallibility in general. Different traditions lay claim to infallibility in different ways e.g. councils, papal, biblical etc. I'm just in a place at the moment where I doubt the idea in general...not to say my mind won't change...but whose mind doesn't

Hi Pop-pop--

What denominational journeying? My parents' church is the same one as since I was a young girl, and I only went to another church when I lived in Philadelphia, then moved here. I've visited the other churches I named, worked with them, or mostly, know other Christians well from them for one reason or another.

I do like this touchscreen tablet, but it'll take some getting used to--plus cutting my nails really short