Question: As an Orthodox Christian in America we are taught to almost worship our Bishops, and they can do no wrong. We are to strictly obey them unless they ask us to break the law, or hurt someone. However, what happens when they err? What is one to do? As a struggling Orthodox Christian in America I would appreciate advice from other Orthodox Christians.
Iconodule
(this question was originally posted here)
Dear Iconodule,
Your question is such a crucial and important one that I decided to take the space and time to answer it here, as a separate article, instead of the comment section. I hope that you don’t mind. My hope is that this reply will also be of some interest to other Orthodox Christians.
So here is my reply:
For one thing, Christians only worship God, never any man or anything created. Even icons are only venerated, not worshiped! As for obedience, our obedience is ONLY to God and to His Church. But as for any obedience to a cleric it is, of course, fully conditional upon the obedience of that cleric himself to God and His Church. More about that below.
Also, let’s not conflate the office/rank (сан in Russian) and the man. Clergymen are just like everybody else, sinners who suffer from passions resulting for our fallen human nature: they can do wrong and they often do. In fact, no human is sinless and no human is infallible. The only source of infallibility is the Church because the (one and only true) Church is the Theandric Body of Christ, filled with the Holy Spirit. But individual clergymen, and even saints, are humans, just like the rest of us, and errare humanum est, right? If anything, they deserve our gratitude and admiration for having agreed to bear the heavy cross of being clerics in our End Times. They also deserve our compassion and support when they fail to live up, in their pastoral efforts (not their faith!), to the very high standards of their office/rank.
HOWEVER,
There is one thing in which we can make no compromise whatsoever and in which every single one of us is entitled to reprimand and even censor any of our clergymen: their Orthodoxy. This is the one thing in which ALL Orthodox Christians are absolutely equals: in the preservation of the purity of the Christian faith.
In the Orthodox Church there is no such thing as a “teaching Church” vs a “taught Church” – that is a Papist concept. Please read the life of Saint Maximos the Confessor and then realize that while he was a monastic, he was not even a priest. Yet, he was willing to stand up and denounce all the Patriarchs of his time (while he was in jail he did not know for sure whether the Pope would also join the heretics or not, and his jailers lied to him about that!)
Also, check out the 15th canon of the First and Second Council: (emphasis added)
“The rules laid down with reference to Presbyters and Bishops and Metropolitans are still more applicable to Patriarchs. So that in case any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan dares to secede or apostatize from the communion of his own Patriarch, and fails to mention the latter’s name in accordance with custom duly fixed and ordained, in the divine Mystagogy, but, before a conciliar verdict has been pronounced and has passed judgement against him, creates a schism, the holy Synod has decreed that this person shall be held an alien to every priestly function if only he be convicted of having committed this transgression of the law. Accordingly, these rules have been sealed and ordained as respecting persons who under the pretext of charges against their own presidents stand aloof, and create a schism, and disrupt the union of the Church. But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.”
Amazing words, no? And how far removed they are from the current “clergy worship” we see in so many modern Orthodox Churches!
[Sidebar: a personal recollection. My first spiritual father was an Archbishop of the ROCA whom I loved with all my heart. One day, I must have been 12 years old, I asked him “Vladyka, if you ever err from the truth of Orthodoxy, may I disobey you?” He looked me intensely and replied “no, Andrei, you may not, you must! That will be your duty”. I never forgot that and his words played a crucial role in my life during the 1999-2007 years…]
The sad truth is that what you (correctly) call a kind of “worship of clergy” is a typically Latin attitude which now has now infected large segments of the Orthodox world. I have seen that with my own eyes at the time of the lapse of the bishops of the ROCA who, while initially steadfastly denying that this was their intention, were planning a union with the Moscow Patriarchate. During these crucial years of lies and deception, not only did they insist that the faithful obey them, many of them even went as far as to say “shut up, pray and mind your business” (even to monastics!). The “business” in question, however, had immense ecclesiological implications and ecclesiology is one topic which NO Orthodox Christian ever can ignore. Unfortunately, by then most ROCA laity (and even clergy!) had lost the correct Orthodox ecclesiological awareness.
But how to do we know if we are dealing with true bishops or pseudo-bishops? Well, that question is the main reason why we cannot afford to just be a passive flock of obedient sheep and why it is our individual duty to educate ourselves in dogmatic and other theological issues!
The truth is that every single Orthodox Christian should be a “guardian of the faith”, not just clerics or bishops, and that even a young housewife has the right (and even the moral obligation!) to admonish any clergyman, even a Patriarch, if he strays away from the faith which “which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers”.
However, and this is no less important, the Orthodox Church never engaged in the “solo scriptura” nonsense and the Church is not some kind of “Eastern Rite” Protestant denomination, that is to say that the criterion of truth is not “whatever I happen to think about this after reading the Scripture” but the consensus of the Fathers: that upon which all the Church Fathers agreed upon and which is part of the corpus of patristic teachings of the Church. Thus, before accusing a bishop of apostasy, you really better make sure you know what you are talking about and that your case is rock solid (there are canonical punishments for making false accusations). For example, a bishop expressing a personal opinion to some friends or guests is not publicly teaching heresy from the ambon bareheaded. Likewise, a bishop who happens to have a bad temper and who is greedy and arrogant might be committing a personal sin, but he is not thereby lapsing from his faith.
These are complex and nuanced issues which require not only a specific degree of education (whether formal or not) but also a lot of wisdom, prayer and ascetic practice. Remember that in Orthodoxy a theologian is not somebody who has a PhD in “Divinity” (love that term!) but a person illuminated by personal experience and with a pure heart (“for they shall see God”). The Church is a mystical Body, not a scholastic community…
But with all these important caveats, yes, Orthodox Christians have never delegated their personal responsibility for the defense of the the traditions “which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” to any kind of “Holy Inquisition” or any “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”. Every time a heresy or schism threatened the Church, even solitary desert monastics left their caves and walked to the cities to denounce it.
By the way, any bishop who tells you that you ought to strictly obey him “unless they ask us to break the law, or hurt someone” is teaching you an ecclesiological heresy and, if he does that from the ambon, you have the right and, I would argue, the duty, to first admonish him, they appeal to the council of bishops and, if they fail to act, to withdraw from communion from him and those who refuse to censor him. In fact, the 15th canon of the First and Second Council even allows you to temporary sever communion with that bishop until the council of bishops takes a decision on his actions (in practical terms, however, and with our 21st century telecommunication technologies, I would recommend that you simply discuss that with your confessor or call/email a bishop whose Orthodoxy you trust and ask him for advice).
An Orthodox Christian worships only God and only obeys those who, themselves, remain obedient to Him. There is no such thing as “Christian obedience” which is not obedience to God. Western clericalism is something completely foreign to the Orthodox mindset, lofty honorific titles notwithstanding.
Remember the words of the Gospel “Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you”. Each and every one of us is called to be “friend of God” (think what an amazing statement that is!) because God has made His Will known to us. Thus we freely chose to place ourselves in obedience to Him, but that implies two things: first, that we make the effort to study and understand His Will and, second, that we only obey Him, including through those whom He has appointed to look over us, but only as long as they themselves remain in obedience to Him!
[Sidebar: it always makes me smile when I hear Orthodox men reminding their wives that the Scripture says “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing” (which it indeed does, in Eph 5:22-24) but then they seem to forget that the very next few verses (25-28) also say “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself”. I dare say that while the bar is set very high for women, it is set even much higher for men: loving like Christ loved the church is, quite literally, infinite and perfect love! How many husbands do live up to that ideal?
How can the obedience of the wife be looked at without consideration for the duty of perfect love which placed upon husbands?! The exact same thing goes for any other Christian hierarchy, from the one children owe their parents to the one the priest owes to the bishop to, of course, the one the bishop owes to God and His Church. This is why I say that all truly Christian obedience is to God and only to Him]
Another important thing which I highly recommend to you is to immerse yourself in the following
- The writings of the Church Fathers (absolutely crucial!!!)
- The Lives of the Saints (including the liturgical canons associated with their feast days!)
- Books on the history of the Churches (except those written by modern historians and “theologians” which, with a few notable exceptions, are typically worthless since their authors are much more concerned with making a name for themselves in western academia rather than with conveying through their books the true Orthodox mindset or “spirit of the Fathers” (phronema ton pateron) or, for that matter, the “consensus of the Fathers” which expresses the “general conscience of the Church” (he genike syneidesis tes ekklesias). Stay away from those “brilliant” “theologians”!)
If you read immerse yourself into that spiritual world you will come to realize that there is really nothing new under the sun and that the kind of crises we see today happened in the past. If your read the Church Fathers, the Lives of the Saint and study Church history, you will see numerous examples of how Orthodox Christians have struggled with the issue of obedience and hierarchy and what the right, and wrong, have been. You will also see a long, very long, list of pseudo-bishops, of clerics who “lapsed” (a very important ecclesiological concept) because they were lured away from the Golgotha (think about what it really means to make the sign of the Cross!) by worldly temptations and riches. But, eventually, the Church prevailed against the theomachs every time.
Today much of what he see under the label “Orthodoxy” is little more than some “eastern rite” version of both the Papacy and the Protestant world. But if you immerse yourself in the study of the Church you will discover a completely different spiritual universe, a different spiritual reality, in which there is no need to reinvent the wheel every day and in which all the questions you have today have been answered many centuries ago! Just the life of Saint Maximos the Confessor (to which I linked to above) contains an immense wealth of theological lessons on how to deal with heresy, schisms, obedience, authority and even vicious persecution by civil authorities.
It is not easy to find good sources on Christian ecclesiology online, especially in English, but here is what I found: (in no special order)
- Saint Cyprian of Cartage “On the Unity of the Church”
- Alexei Khomiakov “The Church is One”
- Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky) “Christianity or the Church”
- Right Reverend Photios, Bishop of Triaditza, “Orthodox Unity Today”
- Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky “On the Church”
- St. Justin (Popovich) “The Attributes of the Church”
- Dr. Alexander Kalomiros “Orthodox Ecclesiology”
- Saint John Chrysostom “The Character and Temptations of a Bishop”
- Archpriest Georges Florovsky “The Catholicty of the Church”
- Archpriest Georges Florovsky “The Limits of the Church”
- Archpriest Georges Florovsky “On Church and Tradition”
The above is a mix of very different authors and texts, but between them, you have a good primer for the study of Christian ecclesiology (along with a few names of good modern theologians).
In conclusion I would remind you that unlike the poor Latins, we don’t have to conflate the Church of Christ with any one individual. The very notion of “Sedevacantism” is, thank God, both absurd and irrelevant to us: we can freely chose whom we recognize as an true Orthodox Bishop according to our conscience and that choice is entirely unaffected by political, geographical or administrative considerations. Likewise, the “argument of numbers” is equally irrelevant to us: we don’t care, in the least, how many people recognize Church X or Patiarch Y as “canonical” or how many parishes any bishop or Church has. Again, the example of Saint Maximos the Confessor is the best illustration of that when he replied to his jailers (who told him that even the legates of Rome will partake of the Mysteries with the heretical Patriarch) “The whole world may enter into communion with the Patriarch, but I will not. The Apostle Paul tells us that the Holy Spirit anathematizes even angels who preach a new Gospel, that is, introduce novel teaching“. Contrast Saint Maximos’ willingness to disregard the possibility that the whole world would recognize the heretical patriarch with the modern “bean count” of parishes or Church members as some kind of proof of legitimacy! Finally, we know from our eschatology that in the End Times almost everybody will lapse and bow to the Antichrist, don’t we?! And yet, so many of us use the argument of numbers” to “prove” the “canonicity” of this or that person or ecclesiastical entity. How sad and yet how telling…
It is paradoxical that in our age of “enlightenment”, “democracy” and “freedom” so many of our punitively most “liberal” and “tolerant” bishops would demand of us a blind and mindless obedience, and not to God, but to them personally. Truly these bishops are the “stars from heaven which fell unto the earth” described by Saint John the Theologian, Apostle and Evangelist in his book of Revelation. I can tell you from personal experience that your bishop is not the exception, he is the rule – at least in our modern world. This is why I think that the single most important question each Orthodox Christian should ask himself is this: “which bishop today has remained truly Orthodox?” We know from the Scripture that the Church is the “the pillar and foundation of truth” and that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. This means that there will always be at least one true bishop somewhere until the Second Coming. But we were never told that there would be many true bishops left. Christ told us “Fear not, little flock” and promised that He would send us the “the Spirit of truth” who will “guide you into all truth” and that those who really seek the truth (“do hunger and thirst after righteousness”) will find it (“shall be filled”) and that this truth shall “make us free”. This is just about the furthest thing from any kind of blind, mindless obedience I can imagine.
Kind regards,
The Saker
PS: I would be most grateful if those who simply want to express the usual hostility to religion, Christianity and Orthodoxy refrained from doing so here. Likewise, please spare us the usual clichés à la “Christ never wanted a Church”, “Paul created Christianity” or “religions are the cause of all evils and wars”, okay? I assure you that we *all* have heard them many times in the past, and I promise you that we really don’t need to hear them once more. Ditto for the usual ad hominems, which I have also heard enough to know them by heart. Iconodule specifically wrote that he would “would appreciate advice from other Orthodox Christians“ and if you have such advice to offer, please feel free. But please spare us all (including the poor moderators!) the obligatory tsunami of inanities.
As a Muzzie, I simply want to wish that God may bless all of the Orthodoxy
Thank you for your kind words!
The Saker
Dear Mr. Saker, Sir.
I hope that my comments do not fall under the category of “been heard before.” It is precisely because I do not hear them mentioned that I ask at this time.
My religious upbringing was typical for the old south, namely a mainstream protestant church, then a second. In both of these the holy communion was expressed as something that was done within the confines of a church service, as performed by an ordained minister.
The more I have studied the circumstances of Jesus’ teachings, the more I get the sense that he was trying to instill into his student teachers (disciples) the idea to question everyday practices for the purposes of examining whether they would be in accordance with God’s hopes for mankind. To this end, I see the Last Supper as an example of the kind of discourse Jesus sought, namely to use the occasion of a meal, every meal, to practice what he had preached. To gather together and discuss, question, and decide questions of right and wrong during meals. To me, this is the meaning of Holy Communion rather than a ritual to be performed in a church.
Consequently, it would make no sense for any one individual to be more or less ordained to perform this ritual.
Dear James,
Your question really poses another question: what do we consider the criterion of truth. For example, you say that in your opinion, Christ told us to practice with every meal what He did at the Last Supper. As an opinion, this is as valid as any other opinion. Somebody else might say that Christ told us to not have women at our table (be it at for the Eucharist in church or even at our daily meals). Somebody else might conclude that since Christ did not play the violin, we ought to follow His example and also refuse to play that instrument. These are all equally “valid” opinions.
The Orthodox answer to that is that these opinion do not matter at all. What matters is the consensus of the Fathers of the Church, that is the collective opinion of the original, early, Church and the answers which the Apostles and the Fathers gave to these and many other questions, be it in the form of a written decree or an oral tradition. The basic assumption here is “if it is good enough for the Apostles and the original Christian Church – it is good enough for me”. That is also what I believe personally.
Also, the words “ritual” (or, for that matter, the word “sacrament”) are misleading. The correct translation would be “mystery”. Once you realize that the Eucharist is a “mystery” you also realize that we are not discussing a banal supper or some kind of symbolic act. Furthermore, once you realize that the Christian Church created such ranks as bishops, priests and deacons, you will also realize that the early Church never believed that everybody could perform what are mysteries.
Bottom line is this: I recommend you study the early Church and the writings of the Fathers and all your questions will be answered :-)
Cheers,
The Saker
Food for thought. Thank you!
The mystery of the Eucharist (which is somehow misleadingly called the ‘Last Supper’, a sort of Platonic Banquet, where people discuss serious matters getting drunk in the process) was instituted by the Christ. It is a command, like it or not, that Christ commands to do it in His memory, more specifically in remembrance of his attuning death and Resurrection. It is a sacrifice, a ritual act by which a person is sacred, sanctified. It is actually the sacrifice by excellence, the sacrifice of Thanksgiving to God, the sacrifice of praise of the Lord, the sacrifice of peace: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself'”. The Christ Himself thanks God prior to command the Apostles to eat His Body and drink His Blood in remembrance of His Death and Resurrection. He gives the Apostles and their legitimately appointed successors, the bishops and the priests, the power to perform this rite (it is a rite, not a ‘ritual’) valid only in the Church who keeps the commandments of the Christ: “On that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you. Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him.” Neither were the Oecumenical Synod of the Church, which expressed the ‘Consensus of the Fathers’ inspired by the Holy Spirit, parliaments where matters of ‘doctrine’ were discussed, but gatherings of all the successors of the Apostles for the purpose of proclaiming the Faith as transmitted by the Christ to them, against the ‘opinions’ of self appointed interpreters of the Tradition.
No, the Eucharistic meal is not ‘every meal’ (like at MacDonalds, for example). It is a sacrifice, performed by a ‘sacerdote’ (“priest”, literally “offerer of sacrifices,” from sacer “holy” + stem of dare “to give”).
There is not a matter of ‘opinion’, however much one cherishes his own ‘opinions’, the root of ‘heresies’. “Hairesis/αιρησις: taking, choice, course of action, election, decision; this term (plural, haireseis) refers to any group of people perceived to have a clear doctrinal identity; hairesis is a group with fairly coherent and distinctive theories, with an acknowledged founder ‘hairesi-arches’ and leaders who articulate their rejection of rival theories through theoretically founded polemics; Diodorus of Sicily complains that the Hellenes, unlike the Orientals, always introduce doctrinal innovations in important matters, thus ‘founding new haireseis’; in the II century A.D., hairesis had become a standard term for philosophical school; the early Christians use of hairesis to refer to a body of false beliefs”.
The Pope, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, are arch-heresiarchs. Their followers are ‘heretics’. The ‘opinions’ of the American so-called Christians are totally irrelevant (and an enormous nuisance at that, the more when they are ‘white’).
James,
You mention attending different southern churches and will thus be aware that a phrase may have different meanings in these communities. Jesus uses a very specific phrase during the Last Supper recorded in the Gospels. “Whenever you do this, you make my memorial.”
In English a “memorial” might suggest a faded memento, perhaps dried flowers of a wedding crown, or a dimly re-awakened emotion. Not so in the Old Testament. The God of Israel loves to remember milestones in His children’s growth, be these moments of repentance, or generosity to the poor and infirm, and he repeatedly reminds Israel that such actions move him deeply.
For example; in Exodus 30:16 God declares that financial contributions for the construction of the Tabernacle is “a memorial before the Lord.” Ecclesiasticus 35: 8-9 states that “the sacrifice of the just is acceptable and the Lord will not forget the memorial thereof.” Even pagans are capable of making “memorials.” In Acts 10: 3-31 and angel informs us that the prayers and alms of Cornelius “are ascended as a ‘memorial’ before God.”
In short, such “memorials” are vivid and alive to God. Presenting Him with mention of some past action stimulates an eager response of communion, forgiveness and blessing. The technical term for these “memorials” in the Septuagint Greek bible is ANAMNESIS and this is the word used to describe the central action of Christ’s Last Supper in the earliest surviving Christian liturgy, that of Hippolytus in 215 AD:
“Taking bread and giving thanks to Thee He said: ‘Take eat: this is My Body which is broken for you.’
Likewise the cup saying: ‘This is My Blood which is shed for you. Whenever you do this, You make My ANAMNESIS.’ ”
Thus, the Divine Liturgy is a representation to God the Father of Christ’s Passion, an “anamnesis” offered by the Mystical Body of Christ, which stimulates Him to bestow forgiveness of sins, communion and deliverance from the power of Satan.
“solo scriptura” – Really Saker
Let’s go back to Scripture. “Sola” means “alone.” “Scriptura” means “Scripture.” This was the cry of the Reformers, who said we go back to Scripture alone. And out of that came sola Christus, Christ alone; sola gratia; sola fide, sola Deo gloria, the Glory of God. But it all started with sola scriptura. It’s when the Reformation was born because the leaders grasped the fact that there was a single authority in terms of the spiritual world and the revelation of God, and that was Holy Scripture, as over against the Roman Catholic dual authority: the Bible on one hand and tradition and the magisterium drawn out of experiences and councils and popes, and all of that. So they were rejecting tradition as a parallel source of divine authority and coming back to Scripture alone. The Orthodox cannot conceive of a true spiritual unity that might exist across denominational lines. It regards all other denominations as schismatic rifts in the church’s organizational unity. And if organizational unity were what Christ was praying for, then the very existence of denominations would indeed be a sin and a shame. That’s why the Orthodox Web site insists, “The Orthodox Church is not a sect or a denomination.”
The Orthodox cannot conceive of a true spiritual unity that might exist across denominational lines
Can you name me a single Church Father who spoke of “denominations”?
The Saker
@ Saker and sohi
I believe St. Paul saw what was coming in the way of denominations when he said to the Corinthians:
I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: one of you says, ‘I follow Paul’; another, ‘I follow Apollos’; another, ‘I follow Cephas’; still another, ‘I follow Christ.’
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptised in the name of Paul? I thank God that I did not baptise any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptised in my name. (Yes, I also baptised the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptised anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptise, but to preach the gospel – not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” 1 Corinthians 1: 10-17
Denominations if not stopped by St. Paul ie
“What I mean is this: one of you says, ‘I follow Paul’; another, ‘I follow Apollos’; another, ‘I follow Cephas’; still another, ‘I follow Christ.’
would have taken off long before any church councils were ever convened by any of the Church Fathers.
Furthermore St. Paul clearly saw what was coming did he not?
Acts 20:29-33
“I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.
‘Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. I have not coveted anyone’s silver or gold or clothing.”
lastly, I will never forget the words I heard one morning in church from a gifted fellow:
“If all of the apostles and prophets were to return to the earth today and walk into many of our churches they would have said to one another this is not what we laid down our lives for.”
I couldn’t agree more I said too myself as I left church that morning.
You misunderstood my question. I was asking specifically about the word “denomination” which is not a patristic category and thus is misleading. You cannot engage in sound theology with slippery and ambiguous terms. Thus your question “true spiritual unity that might exist across denominational lines” will only make sense once you start using clear language. As is, it is literally nonsensical.
The Saker
The bible only – in the langruage of the people – german in this case was Luthers argument against a completely rotten papacy. The pope needed money to build a bigger church and sold indulgences with clever marketing. “Sowie das Geld im Kasten klingt die Seele aus dem Fegefeuer in den Himmel springt.” Translates roughly into “once the coin makes a sound in the box the soul jumps from purgatory to heaven” That is part of the background why Luther called for bible only and purge man made traditions.
Whatever grievances Luther had, these were shared by plenty of other saints. But Luther had his own problems, notably sexual sins and other proclivities that drove him into heresy and cast his soul into hell, and the Protestants are all in danger of following after him. His doctrine was insane, and by his own admittance encouraged people to sin even more and cast off the disciplines that the Church led them to – which includes indulgences – granted by God through His Church in order to perfect men and pay off the penalty due to the righteous punishment due to their sins.
The Protestant insanity instead just assumed Christ would be a nice liberal guy who’d forgive them no matter what just so long as they claimed to follow him. Since the entire testimony of Christianity maintained by the Church was against Luther’s lies, he had no choice but to cast it off and invent the ‘Bible Only’ nonsense, which still didn’t help him as it only introduced more contradictions for his lutheran heresies. And the Lutherans and even the Protestants for all their objections to ‘man-made traditions’ continues to invent plenty many themselves which are all non-biblical and taught in all evangelical schools and by evangelical parents. I won’t bore you with a list, but you have google, so help yourself.
That said, the Germans continue to be a cesspool from hell, whether they were lutheran, or Nazis or the money-vice-obsessed scum that occupy the Catholic Church in Germany even today, the majority of them homosexual and even abusers.
In summary, the great ‘reformer’ didn’t reform anything, he revolted and started his own sect. And the princes and others in power saw in his schism an opportunity to also salivate over Church property and tithes, and all the coins in boxes that Luther had a problem with, but suddenly had no issue if it was done on behalf of his crazed new religion rather than for the purgation of punishments due to sins.
It looks like I hit a nerve there pointing out one of many shortfalls of the papists and their institution that copies the roman empire.
With the “Germans are bad” Anglo bull excrement I can live well.
Researcher Webster Tarpley, in three short paragraphs, outlines the connection of Venetian banking and politics in subsequent European history during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation and the period up to the English “Glorious Revolution”:
Why are the British liberal imperialists called the Venetian Party? Well, for one thing, they call themselves the Venetian Party. The Future prime minister Benjamin Disraeli will write in his novel Conningsby that the Whig aristocrats of 1688 wanted “to establish in England a high aristocratic republic on the model of Venice’ making the kings into doges and with a ‘Venetian constitution.'”
During the War of the League of Cambria of 1507-09, an alliance of virtually power in Europe threatened to wipe out the Venetian oligarchy. The Venetians knew that France or Spain could crush them like so many flies. the Venetians responded by launching the Protestant Reformation with three proto-stooges– Luther, Calvin, and Henry VIII. At the same time (Cardinal) Contarini and his Jesuits made Aristotle a central component of the Catholic Counter-Reformation and the Council of Trent, and put Dante and Piccolomini on the Index of Prohibited Books. The result was a century and a half of wars of religion and a “little dark age,” culminating in the Great Crisis of the seventeenth century.
Venice was a cancer consciously planning its own metastasis. From their lagoon, the Venetians chose a swamp and island facing the North Atlantic: Holland and the British Isles. Here the hegemonic Giovanni party would relocate their family fortunes, their fondi, and their characteristic epistomology. France was also colonized, but the main bets were placed further north. First, (Cardinal) Contarini’s relative and neighbor Francesco Zorzi was sent to serve as a sex advisor to Henry VIII, whose raging libido would be the key to Venetian hopes. Zorzi brought Rosicrucian mysticism and Freemasonry to a land that Venetian bankers had been looting for centuries…
Reading between the lines, one notes again the familiar and shadowy pattern of the ancient bullion brokers’ alliance with the temple, in this case the temple of Renaissance Catholicism and nascent Protestantism, for one and the same financial power is behind both, and manipulating a conflict for its own profit. (Joseph P. Farrell Babylon’s Banksters pp 272-273)
… And the Warburg banking family was called Del Banco when they were in Venice according ta Video from Framk “Stoner” Emgelmayer (in German)
Paul Warnurg was one of the founders of the Federal Reserve.
One Lord, one faith, one baptism. Ephesians 4:5. Not 20,000 or more denominations holding different beliefs and practices.
When I became an altar boy in the Catholic Church the Mass and our prayer responses were still in Latin–just to give away my age. After Mass, school taught by nuns. Looking back now, the religious education we got was fundamentally indoctrinating the kids into an absolute obedience to Church authorities. In a way, it was pyschological child abuse in demanding obedience and fealty not to our parents and families, but to nuns and priests. (Bishops, Cardinals, and Pope were too far way.) The turmoil was intense for as I was being pushed to emotionally and spiritually cleave from my parents just being a child. Many things to say about such a system. One was that when I finally left the Catholic school system before middle school, I knew alot about the Church and literally did not know there was a New and Old Testament. It is good to see Orthodox believers going an opposite and different path.
Actually, it is the Roman branch that chose a different and heretical path, back in 1054.
Dear Saker,
How can “Sola Scriptura” be a nonsense? If the church fathers disagree with scripture or re-interpret it, should they be listened to over scripture? Is not scripture the revealed will and word of God – Jesus Christ (the Son of God) is called the “Word” in scripture itself, giving it primacy over the words of fallen man.
If we have scripture, what need have we for the writings of men telling us how to interpret it? Are not the scriptures themselves able to make one wise unto salvation (Paul to Timothy)? Should not scripture interpret scripture? We have the letters of the Apostles (who were divinely inspired) and Christ’s teaching – what need is there for the opinion of men?
As you have stated, Paul says that if any, even himself or an angel of heaven preach any other gospel than which was preached by the Apostles (and recorded in Scripture) let them be accursed, so what need is there for the church fathers?
Surely, if one takes the writings of the church fathers over scripture they are no better in practice than the presbyterians or papists?
Are the church fathers not but men? Or do you argue that their writings are on the same level as scripture? If so, are you not in danger of the admonitions of John against adding to the revealed Word found in the Revelations (the closing of the canon of scripture)?
I am interested as I do not mix with those of the Orthodox persuasion (indeed I know none locally) and personally hold to the faith once delivered to the saints, as was believed by the ancient Celtic church before Augustus began his crusade to turn the Isles to papacy.
I share some of your distaste with what classes itself as Protestantism these days – it is a bastardised form of religion formed from a desire to compromise the Truth so as to have communion with all religions – in particular popery (as can be seen by their holding of a Works based religion and not faith in Christ and his finished work).
@Should not scripture interpret scripture?
Who should interpret Scriptures and how? The Anglo-“Celts’ came to persuade themselves that they received a special appointment to interpret the Scriptures and decide which books ar ‘canonical’ and which are not, since the ‘glorious’ reigns of their ‘Celtic’ Tudors (the serial adulterer cum wives-killer Henry and his harpy daughter ‘Gloriana’).
Let’s see what the Epistle of the Apostles really said about ‘interpretation’ of the Scriptures:
“Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: 2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, 3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; 7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. 8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: 11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 12 Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. 13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; 14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. 15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. 16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:1-21).
It is utterly difficult for the Anglo-‘Celts’ to acknwoledge that Peter and all the Apostles have been indeed given the ‘keys of interpretation’ which they transmitted to the Fathers. Not to the Lollards, neither to Westcott and Hort or to any ‘bible student’.
How can “Sola Scriptura” be a nonsense?
Easy.
Who put together the book we now call “The Bible”? Who decided which books should be included and which ones should not?
Next, since Protestants speak of the Bible as “the revealed word of God” they, by implication, admit that those who put the Bible together had the competence to decide which books should be included and which ones not. Right?
But then, if they (whoever the “they” were) had that competence, surely their interpretation of the Scripture was correct, right? That is just basic logic.
Therefore, when confronted with 100’000’000’000 different interpretations of the Scripture (which is what “sola scriptura” means and invariably results in), is it not logical to turn to those whose authority to correctly interpret the Scripture is recognized in the mere fact of calling the Bible the “revealed word of God”?
So this is why the sole authoritative interpretation of the Scripture is, by logical necessity, the one of those who put it together and why sola scriptura is absurd.
QED.
You might be interested in this: http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/whichcamefirst.aspx
Cheers,
The Saker
Thank you Saker,
I will indeed peruse that link – educating oneself is never a waste of time :)
It has taken some time to consider a short response (energetic two year old interferes with brain & reading…)
I find the thought that we must submit to a cabal of men over the revealed Word of God to be rather anti-christian (from a Biblical perspective). Were not the Jews of Berea commended for searching the scriptures (the old testament as would have been then) and comparing the Word there to Paul’s ministry – Paul who was an apostle?
Whilst I am sure that I would agree on the core theology of those that considered the canon of scripture I have no need to follow their writings slavishly. Men are fallible – God is not. You would also not find any sound men that claimed “sole authority” to interpret scripture – that is to take upon themselves that which is beyond man and belongs only to God himself.
Here’s a short summary (I find that this does not go far enough with its references, however I have no time to do a better job): https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-bible.html
By the way, I am given to understand by an eminent scolar of ancient greek, hebrew (and many other languages) that it is actually a fairly easy task to divide between the writings of inspired scripture (as found in the Textus Receptus) and writings that merely contain scripture (or writings that are purely fanciful as some of the apocrypha).
However I can judge, based on scripture, if someone’s beliefs are in accordance with the revealed Word of God. John Calvin kindly made it very easy by using the word TULIP, here’s a nice short summary: http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm
I thank God that his Truth is plainly evident from His Word and that I have no need of man made priests, monks or whatever to tell me what I must believe. That does not mean that I sit in splendid isolation like a hermit – no I value those elder than myself in the faith that have been granted clearer sight than I – but I will still judge their words against scripture, like the Brerean Jews of old.
I will cease here, whilst I am still trying to learn as much as can about the orthodox church in its different forms, I feel that if we disagree, there is no point to further discussion in this medium (although I would love to discuss face to face as you are one that I greatly respect!)
Moreover, Luther wanted to remove the Epistle of St. James from the Bible because James 2:26 had already rejected “sola scriptural”.
You know dear Saker, that the Scripture cannot be understood only with help from the Holy Spirit, and that help is not “available” to everyone. This is the main difficulty and reason on why the Scriptures have been “explained” in so many ways, leading to a Babylon of interpretations. If the Church has such gifted people is for the benefit of all, if not, it is detrimental.The history of the Church gives us positive and negative examples (how other way could had been, as you say, they are also humans with strengths and weaknesses), bit we also have to undestatnd that we are in the End Times and as such, very few will have the Holy Spirit (which is the Spirit of Truth).
Re: Channel Islander,
I would like to add a little bit to the conversation if you will hear me. When protestants say Sola Scriptura, they say one thing and do another. They (many, though not all, myself previously included) say that they listen only to the words of God in scripture, but they study the word with plenty of theological commentaries on their shelves for reference. They say they give honor to God alone, yet they have the writings of their favorite protestant saints, names such as John Calvin, C.S. Lewis, Billy Graham, Beth Moore, or Joyce Meyer right next to the Bible on their desks. They say they don’t hold with Icons, yet how many cross figurines and manger scenes do they own? They say they don’t believe the “traditions of man,” yet why do they baptize with the words “In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost?” Where in scripture are we told to do that? Why do most celebrate Christmas or Easter–where in scripture are those? What is meant by the references to “the laying on of hands” that the writer of Hebrews refers to as elementary doctrines? Why do we even meet in a Church and not in houses? How do we do this thing called church?
These and so many other questions are not answered by scripture alone.
Paul refers to the practices of the churches at the time when talking about women covering their heads, as if one should follow the practices of the known churches. How are we to know what they are from scripture alone?
So much of what we protestants take for granted are actually the traditions handed down to us from the collective tradition of the Church (perhaps with modifications as the power brokers saw fit). Paul admonishes his disciples to hold fast to the teachings which were given to them, both by the written word (i.e. the Pauline letters, scriptures, and others’ letters) and also the oral traditions they had been taught.
Modern Christians do this well, only they have the luxury of picking which particular tradition they choose to hold fast to.
It all boils down to authority. Who has the authority to tell me what I should believe about God and His words? On what ground does his/her authority lie? Answer this question and you will find the truth.
First I find your article sincere and valuable as answer.
Next maybe I can contribute to the doubt and question about the human “interpretation/translation/edition” of the words and books in the bible, as this is an common issue.
If we are true believers we clearly understand the text “dont kill” and “dont take your Gods name in vain” do not invite anyone on Gods behalf to make wars, to kill or to involve in power politics. Period.
If we are skin-believers we can claim religion make wars or some wars is aproved by God or are dependent on authority´s (priest/bishop/pope/religion) definition.
So the interpretation of any translated Bible edition is in ourselves. The true believer can see through mismanagement of any edition of the bible and the pharisee cant.
Dear Saker,
please, could you tell us which Church you consider a canonical one, a truly Christian.
I am asking this as a Catholic who is investigating the Orthodoxy and who is confused
with so many different options.
Thank you very much!
Greetings from Croatia!
Ask rather the Serbs! They are true Orthodox and are much closer to you.
please, could you tell us which Church you consider a canonical one, a truly Christian.
That would make no sense. First, who am I to tell you that? Second, you really don’t want to trust anybody’s “expert” opinion, whether that person is expert or not. The only voice you should listen to is the one of your conscience. Inform yourself, study this issue, and then decide for yourself. Think about it: Christ said “Blessed Are Those Who Hunger and Thirst for Righteousness”. Notice the words used? “Hunger” and “thirst”. These are very strong, even vital, feelings. This implies a tremendous sense of urgency. Without that sense of vital urgency you will never find the Truth. But if you can muster this passionate, uncompromising, total determination to find The Truth, then I am convinced that you will find it. But it cannot be just a hobby or an “interest”. It has to become the single most important challenge in your life. Then you will find what you seek and you “shall be satisfied.” :-)
May God give you courage!
The Saker
Thank you for the answer!
Dear Alexandria,
I am a Romanian Christian Orthodox and a member of the Romanian Orthodox Church. I broke communion with the pseudo-bishops that have signed or that have deemed to be orthodox the heretical documents of the pseudo-synod of Kolymbari, Crete (19-26 June 2016). I have applied the above mentioned 15th canon of the First and Second Council of Constantinople (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Council_of_Constantinople_(Eastern_Orthodox)) because of the pan-heresy of ecumenism which is embedded in the heretical documents of the pseudo-synod of Kolymbari, Crete.
For example in Article 6 of the text RELATIONS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH WITH THE REST OF THE CHRISTIAN WORLD the following paragraph can be found: “the Orthodox Church accepts the historical name of other non-Orthodox Christian Churches and Confessions that are not in communion with her”. This is a heresy, because I believe in only “ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” and that is the Christian Orthodox Church. Those who are outside of the Christian Orthodox Church are heretics and have no mysteries.
I must point out the fact that you are not actually Catholic, the true name of the heresy that calls itself Roman-Catholicism is actually papism or caesaro-papism (from the heresy-arch Pope of Rome). The term Catholic means in Greek universal. The papists understand in it a spatial universality of the jurisdiction of their heresy over the entire world, whilst the orthodox understanding of the term Catholic is the integrity of the faith “which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers” unchanged for the past nearly 2000 years.
I must also point out that because the papists are heretics, and therefore do not have mysteries, you are not baptized. If however you were to go to a pseudo-bishop which teaches the heresy of ecumenism and of minimal dogmaticism from the ambon bareheaded, he would recognize your so-called baptism received from the papists and he would also say that you can enter the Orthodox Church only through a confession of faith and the mystery of Chrismation. That is because these pseudo-bishops recognize the baptism of heretics if it was made in the name of the Holy Trinity.
I think you should search Bishop Artemije, the uncanonically deposed Bishop of the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemije_Radosavljevi%C4%87). He might help you in your quest for “the Way and the Truth and the Life” (John 14:6), which is our God, Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
Greetings from Romania!
The following link (active for about 10 days) contains a brochure that gives 40 arguments that explain why the pseudo-council of Crete was not orthodox: https://we.tl/t-j9FRQtZbh2
Nice to meet you Ioan !
Thank you for the answer!
Dear Ioan,
What is your opinion about the Greek Genuine Orthodox Church, usually called Matthewits?
Do they have mysteries?
Dear Alexandria,
You are welcome!
My opinion about the Greek Genuine Orthodox Church, usually called Matthewits, is that they are in Schism to the Orthodox Church because they do not recognize the Mysteries of those on the new calendar. That is the reason why they, for example, repeat these mysteries to the Orthodox who decide to come to them from the new calendar. That is wrong.
Do they have mysteries? Only a truly Orthodox Ecumenical Council can judge in that matter.
I am on the new calendar and remain on it, even though I know its adoption was a mistake, because the fact that people have become saints on the new calendar, as demonstrated by their incorruptible bodies after death, is evidence to me that the Grace of God has remained with those on the new calendar.
I am in communion with those that have remained on the old calendar and are not in Schism to the Orthodox Church (such as the monks of Mount Athos for example). I am not in communion with those that are in Schism to the Orthodox Church, such as the Matthewits or the Old Calendarists from Romania for example. I am also not in communion with those that have fallen in the pan-heresy of ecumenism.
If a future Orthodox Ecumenical Council will decide that those on the new must return on the old I will gladly do so, but until then I remain on the new calendar, even though I know the fact that its adoption was a mistake.
More information on the topic of the old calendar you can find in the following text, which is a part of a theological study written by monks from Holy Mountain Athos that have confined themselves from the heresy of ecumenism, keep the old calendar (Holy Mountain Athos keeps the old calendar), and are in communion with those on both the old and the new calendar as long as they are not in schism and have not fallen in the pan-heresy of ecumenism.
I used Google translate in order to translate the text. It was originally written in Greek and then translated to Romanian. I translated in English its Romanian version. I added a few explanations of my own where I thought it was necessary.
I understand that 10 replies to a comment are the maximum so, if you have further questions and I will not be able to answer them as a reply, you will find my answer at the bottom of the page.
The text is as follows:
About the “Old” Calendar
As many ecumenical sources confess, changing the calendar was a strategic decision of the ecumenists to serve their plan of a universal religion. Testimonies from ecumenical sources have been thoroughly presented by many, there is no need here to repeat them, it is enough for someone to use, along with other testimonies, the reference of Father Theodoros Zisis at the conference organized by the Holy Metropolitanate of Piraeus, held before the meeting in Kolimbari (Crete).
The calendar has de facto split the Church (here we mean the separation of the Orthodox among them), therefore also after the events of Metaxakis’s (https://orthodoxwiki.org/Meletius_IV_(Metaxakis)_of_Constantinople) “congress” of Masonic inspiration, as well as those of 1924, it was decided that this issue would be definitively resolved at the ecumenical council which at that time was in the planning stage (as, for example, agreed and recorded in the minutes or annals – recently published – of the Panortodox Congress of 1930, held in the Holy Mountain of Athos).
This Schism has not been approached so far at a synodal level at the Pan-Orthodox level (although it already exists in all 4 Local churches that adopted the “new” calendar) and after Kolimbari (Crete) the ecumenists will probably try to change the date of the Orthodox Easter. It has never been said, at least by serious people, that the innovation is represented only by the 13 days (difference). The problem is that the liturgical unity of the Church is also affected.
We will not enter the labyrinth of disputes on this issue, not only because it is not the purpose of this study, but rather because our deep conviction is that the issue of the calendar is related to the whole issue of the pan-heresy of ecumenism, so it is appropriate that it be settled at a truly Orthodox ecumenical council (whenever in the future it may be held).
Were the believers, who confined themselves in 1924 from the innovative hierarchy (and not, of course, from the Church, as claimed by various followers of Zizioulas’ bishop-centrism) right? As far as they confined themselves due to the innovation of the Holy Tradition (meaning the liturgical character of Church unity, which is naturally bound to the calendar) they proceeded correctly, as long as they remained in the “boundaries” set by the 15th Canon of the First and Second Synod of Constantinople.
The problems arise from the gradual predominance of the “rigid” (extremist) part of those on the old calendar (as they were called mockingly), of course because of the wild and truly diocletian (as the one against the Christians, from the time of Roman Emperor Diocletian) persecution, which was unleashed upon them by Chrysostom Papadopoulos, the then archbishop of Athens, who was also the architect of the change, cunningly so, as certain faithful synod hierarchs accused him.
The fact that it has come to the trampling on of the Holy Sacraments (!) by the persecuting leaders, trimming the beard of the priests, exile (for example, those of the fathers from Holy Mountain Athos), killing (Ecaterina Routis), etc. led – along with other factors – to the adoption (by the minority) of misconceptions about invalid mysteries of those on the “new” calendar. Pathos and extremism have stifled the balanced voices on both sides, on the old and on new, with catastrophic results for the peace and unity of the Church. The decision to create a hierarchy by stylites (those that kept the old calendar) and the ordination of bishops constituted the final blow in this case. Since then the schisms and the splitting of the stylitic members is the painful legacy of a fight that was honest at first …
Our position is that until 1935 (the year of the creation of the first synod of the Stylites), the confinement of the faithful Orthodox was right and proper from a canonical point of view and within the boundaries that the 15th Canon of the First and Second Council of Constantinople establishes. The same thing is no longer true after 1935. The accusations of the need for a “hierarchy” are only convincing if the Mysteries of those on the new calendar are invalid (o, what blasphemy!). Stylites do not understand that the existence of some “Synod” means exactly this: the invalid mysteries of the one with whom you are not in communion. Confinement from heresy no longer exists in the case of stylites since they have not confined themselves from their innovating bishop, but already have their own bishop.
What is the ecclesiological stance of the stylites? Some stylite fanatics who are on the new calendar (already something like that exists!) consider invalid the mysteries of the old calendar’s stylites, as they have broken off from the Church.
If the “Church” (identifying – in the heretical sense proclaimed by Zizioulas – the whole Church with its hierarchy) is innovative (in the bad sense of the word, the deviation from its right path) is not of interest to them (somewhat like the ecumenists, who speak, for example, of the “blessed pope,” etc.).
But the innovators (those who have introduced innovations) can not judge those who do not innovate! This is the reason that makes an Orthodox Ecumenical Council necessary, that is to say, to resolve all ecumenical problems. In any case, the reality is that all stylite “bishops” are also responsible, that is, they must be submitted to the judgement of an Orthodox Ecumenical Synod.
The bishops who will convene this Council will be those who will return to Orthodoxy, due to the gradual increase of the anti-ecumenist struggle, among the official hierarchs of the local Orthodox Churches, as was the case with the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Only then will the heresy be finally condemned and the problems concerning the Mysteries will be discussed. Until then we are not allowed (if we have elementary fear of God and do not want to blaspheme) to preach, before a synodal judgement, that there are invalid Mysteries on the new calendar or on the old one.
Here we are obliged to clarify that the view of invalid mysteries (which either stems from stylites or from those on the new calendar or from the “confined” from heresy) is related to the idea of the automatic loss of the Grace of God, which does not belong to the Orthodox canonical Tradition, but to the papist, which already in the 13th century is registered within the framework of the new Papists’ ecclesiology, which is based on the Frankish concept of papal primacy (in antithesis with the one of the Byzantine papacy – explanation: the Franks were the ones who violently removed the Orthodox bishops from the West, and so came the heretical papacy, interested only in worldly power).
This concept (in Latin, the document is called Latae sententiae), which also exists in the revised Codex of papist canons of 1983, is developed in canons 1321-1330. According to this concept, there is NO need for an episcopal synod to judge a certain category of sins, to which heresy belongs, but grace is taken away automatically, which in the case of the clergy means its automatic defrocking.
Opposing such a view, St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite (meaning of Holy Mountain Athos) commented that only an episcopal synod can defrock, because the Holy Canons do not act “by themselves” (see Pidalion (the Helm in Greek), note two to Canon 3, Apostolic, pp. 4-5, in the Greek edition).
St. Nicholas Planas, who secretly served in churches in the outskirts of Athens for Christians who had remained on the old calendar and were persecuted, or the two bishops who were ordained on the “old” calendar and returned to the “new” one, by the name of Policarp Liosis and Hristofor Hatzis (of which many ugly things are said on the internet by the Stylites) and who fell asleep in the Lord as active metropolitans of the Church of Greece, were received without any re-ordaining, in antithesis with the practice of the blasphemer heresy-arch Bartholomew (of Constantinople) of today (in other words, if they were invalidly ordained, the invalidity being caused by the calendar, the two hierarchs would no longer have been accepted as full members of the Synod of Greece, when they came “on the new” calendar).
Actually, the Greek Genuine Orthodox Church (GOC) is not the same as the Matthewites. Furthermore, various the various Greek Old Calendar/Traditionalist Churches do not share the same views of the New Calendar/Modernist Churches. So to form an opinion about them, you need to look at each case separately. Pretending like they are all the same is simply unhelpful.
The Saker
I mistakenly thought that the Greek Genuine Orthodox Church (GOC) is the same as the Matthewites.
I do not know many things about the various Greek Old Calendar/Traditionalist Churches.
I found the following article on this topic:
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Calendarists
Perhaps it may be of some help.
This is an interesting article, but it is ironic that you should quote Jn 15:15, because this is the verse at which point the Christ recognizes that the Apostles have completed their training, so they are no longer merely priests but are now a higher rank, which later came to be called a bishop.
Christ’s Jewish sect was a mystery religion with secret doctrine (the mysteries of salvation, iniquity, etc.) and ritual (the seven mysteries). A novel secret doctrine–the mystery of the incarnation–was recognized in apostolic times. The doctrine and ritual were not written down, so they could propagate only through an initiate of the highest degree (later called a bishop) who had been initiated into everything, which is the origin of the concept of apostolic succession. This is also probably the ancient origin of the respect for bishops, which is the topic of your article. Once all the doctrine and ritual of a religion is written down, the religion can propagate, in identical form if not canonically, through any member, or even revive after a period of no membership.
As a fraction of the faithful, bishops were more common in ancient times–roughly as common as priests are today. They were the teachers.
That mystery ritual could bery well have meant the use of psychedelics. The euchsrist as told in the redacted nicea version talks of eatimg bread and drinking wine.
Sorry, but I do not know anybody who got a spiritual experience out of that.
In my experience alcohol stops the spiritual connection always untii sober up.
But there is an entheogen that has to be taken with something else…
A tea made from acacia nilotica bark and seeds from syrian rue gives a psychedelic experience.
Today that would be considered a schedule 1 drug that is illegal in many but not all countries. That tea taken in a proper setting with someone who knows how to steer the experiemce could lead to mystical experiences
Wormwood was an ancient treatment for intestinal worms. Thujone is the active psychedelic ingredient. Rev 8:11 mentions this psychedelic, and there is a lot of internal evidence in the book that suggests that the author was under the psychedelic influence of thujone when he had the vision that the book relates. In particular he had visions of letters and writing, which can be difficult to visualize in a dream but relatively easy to visualize under the influence of thujone. He may have been under treatment for intestinal worms. The book is perhaps the greatest prophetic work, and any use of thujone should not be taken as detracting from the holiness of the author, St. John.
The Bible cites Melchizedek as sacrificing bread and wine before Christ did, and Buddhist missionaries to Alexandria also sacrificed bread and wine. All this points to the ancient Mystery of the Eucharist being bread and wine. Many mystery religions freely used psychedelics, but Revelation and other Christian works condemn drug use (sometimes translated as sorcery). I know of no evidence of any routine use of psychedelics, but it is possible that individuals had psychedelic experiences in the course of events, such as burning incense, or as mentioned above in the course of medical treatment.
I’m not a fan of psychedelic substances in any scenario (no short cuts for me) but, regarding the bread, it is interesting that a naturally occurring fungus, ergot on rye grain, is recognised as having similar mystical effects on the human organism.
As a Syrian, atheist, but with all respect and love to Jesus Christ as a man, I say that this is a continuation of the Kahal plan to destroy the Cross. Catholicism is moribund in Europe since the teaching of Christianity have been kicked out of schools because of secularism. Parents couldn’t accomplish the duty crushed by they work. Russian Church have been destroyed by the Judean-Bolshevik barbarie. Now orthodox church is risen again and that is a nightmare to Judaism. If orthodox church fails, that will be the end of the world.
The end of the world would come, no matter what. What the Christ asked us is to be prepared for it at any time:
“Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. 2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. 3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: 4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. 5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. 6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. 7 Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. 9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. 10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. 11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. 12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. 13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh. 14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. 15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. 16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. 17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. 18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money. 19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. 20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. 21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. 23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: 25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. 26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: 27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. 28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. 29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. 30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal” (Matthew 25:1-46).
God bless you, i saved all your links in my yandex collection looking forward to read them. Your answer was truly guided by our Lord i think.
I commend the Saker’s link to the life of St Maximos. The biography demonstrates Saker’s point exactly. It is also the poignant account of a Life; and topical, too, in reflecting the remarkable recent goings-on in the US Senate judiciary committee hearings over the appointment of J. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
Particular attention should be paid to the refutation of the heresy of Monothelitism, as it uses both empirical facts (“the two operations”), and turns the heretics’ neo-platonist logic against itself (“you gainsay the Trinity and invent a quaternity”), thereby demonstrating a key feature of neo-platonism, that of holding, of necessity, contradictory views at the same time. Of significance is that while the term “neo-platonism” refers to a long-gone historical era, the logic of neo-platonism has managed to live on and infect minds over the following millennium and a half with periodic outbreaks of weird mysticisms, most recently (and relevantly) in the 20th century New Age movement. From which it has spread out into society in general…
and here too, for example in the comments which use the word “Christ” in place of the word “Jesus”. To consider these as synonyms is intellectually barbaric – apart from theologically ignorant. They are not synonyms at all, any more than “railway” and “station” are synonyms in “railway station”, but stand in a metonymic relationship. But that is all that is needed to proceed with neo-platonist logic, to invent purported knowledge on the basis purely of attributes held in common. Watch how it is done – Socrates is a man; Coriscos is a man; therefore Socrates is Coriscos. But note that that “is” is not attribution, as in attributing green to grass. It is actually identification. Tragically, it is not a great distance from this trivial example of metaphorical logic to the (pseudo-) justications of, and for, the politics of identity.
Maximos – and his biographer – are surely correct in identifying monothelitism as a key issue of faith, and explaining why. For accepting the heresy is to fundamentally pervert the Christian message contained in the Gospels as a spiritual truth hiding (or not, depending on your vision) within a semiotic narrative structure of sublime beauty.
“Even icons are only venerated, not worshiped!”
As an outsider, I found that sentence informative.
It had often looked suspiciously like idol worship at times.
This explanation makes more sense.
Veneration of Icons may not be a problem; but many in the Orthodox and RCC ‘Churches’ pray to Mary whom we have no guarantee as to her whereabouts…. after 24 years in Orthodoxy I was told by an Orthodox Priest that I had to do my confessions before the icon of Mary – I left the service wondering if she was still alive? I couldn’t answer that, nor the state of the dead to my satisfaction. Now YahuShua HaMessiah is my all in all. My Church, my Bishop, my Priest, my Teacher or Rabbi; just my all. I was in Protestantism for 20 years before Orthodoxy and now see man’s ‘Churches’ as too corrupt to attend. I have to follow my conscience; but no one else has to; its mine. I fellowship with Christians in several venues… but not ‘Church’ – which is a very questionable word.
Having a bad day Art?
You’re an atheist, fine by me (‘raghead’ here btw). But do us a favour and take your rant elsewhere will you? We are not interested. Did the Saker come knocking on your door or did you find your way here, to his blog? Is it right to barge in on a discussion that both the Saker and the questioner obviously feel strongly about? A moral giant like you should know better.
The Saker is trying to answer a question asked by somebody who is in real need. I sincerely hope he or she finds it.
Basil
No worries Basil, I trashed his stupid rant :-)
Cheers,
The Saker
Creo que sus últimos comentarios eclesiásticos se deben a la fractura que se está generando en la ortodoxia en Ucrania, respecto a la dependencia de las autoridades eclesiásticas de Moscú. Si esto es verdad, sería un conflicto entre la autoridad religiosa y el poder político. Todo poder se fundamente en alguna religión y toda religión fundamenta un poder político. Cuándo se produce un desajuste entre ambos polos se suele producir un fraccionamiento eclesiástico.
————–
[Google-translated by mod:
“I believe that his last ecclesiastical comments are due to the fracture that is being generated in the orthodoxy in Ukraine, regarding the dependence of the ecclesiastical authorities of Moscow. If this is true, it would be a conflict between religious authority and political power. All power is based on some religion and all religion bases a political power. When a mismatch occurs between the two poles, ecclesiastical fractionation usually occurs.”]
Saker,
From several of your writings a pathway has been sparked in my own Spiritual search and I have been drawn to understand learn about and come to understand Orthodox Christianity to weigh it before everything I have previously been exposed to. This article is no exception. Thank you for your continued clarifications on Orthodoxy and your faith.
William
Obedience, a very interesting word for the 21st century…
“A man who lives not for himself but to fulfill the law of God, in addition to those consequences of his good deeds which he may perceive, creates infinitely more important consequences which he cannot see.”
Leo Tolstoy, Last Diaries.
Dear Saker,
Thank you very much for taking the time to write this well-informed and excellent article.
To be honest with you, I did not expect that and am very grateful you would respond to my truth-seeking questions in such a manner.
That said, I need to take the time to read and re-read this article several times before even beginning to form an opinion.
I also need to read Saint Maximos and other links you cited. Last night, I had a phone call with my friend that brought me into the Orthodox Church. He is now a “novice” at a monastery.
He has studied the fathers very closely, and (in my humble opinion) has developed the mindset of the fathers much more than me. He expressed to me that he, his brother monks, and many others are very concerned with what is happening in the Ukraine.
The psuedo-council of Crete was not enough, but everyone (inlcuding me) fears that the EP’s actions in Ukraine will truly lead to much bloodshed and official schism.
I look forward to re-reading your article and sources, and am very thankful you provided them.
Thank you Saker!
Just to clarify my own comment. The Council of Crete is seen by many as the “seal of apostasy” of the Ecumenical Patriarch (EP).
The Council has been dissected by many Orthodox, to show it as the “robber council” that it really is. It appears that the EP is mad at the Russian Orthodox Church and the other 3 that did not attend, and is now trying to create Schism in Ukraine.
It appears that the actions of the EP in Ukraine will bring much trouble to the Orthodox world. From what I understand the Church Fathers state that “the blood of martyrdom does not even wash away the sin of schism.”
So, thank you Saker for this article. It will allow me to think a lot, hopefully pray more, in order to know how to respond appropriately in these crazy times.
Dear Iconodule,
It is I who is grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to address a very important question!
I am very much in your debt.
Kindest regards,
The Saker
It’s simple: religion is not a democracy, you must blindly obey what its correspondents sacerdots preach.
Now, that’s theory. In practice, organized religion is a political organization like any other. There’s no such a thing as God directly speaking to you, there’s always human mediation. So, there’re always class interests behind (such as paedophilia, getting rich, owning land etc. etc.). As the last in the eclesiastical pecking order, a mere follower will always see himself in a conflict situation between reality and superstition. In this world — the real world — religion (faith) is just another force, among many others (economic, political, ethical etc.).
“There’s no such a thing as God directly speaking to you, there’s always human mediation”
As far as I know, that’s what makes some mystics or saints different from others (like Mother Teresa that said she had had a direct contact with god when she was in her 20s and that’s what made her do what she did).
This is just fyi Saker, cause I remember you writing about differences and similarities of Christianity and Islam.
So for others that may feel I’m intruding, its just unrelated and please skip my comment
Islam (Shi’ite Islam) believes in the infallibility of the Prophets (all of them) and of Mohammad’s family (ahlulbayt [Mohammad, Ali Fatema, Hassan, and Hussain]: this stems from the ayat of purity in the Quran) and infallibility also includes the 12 imams. I’m not sure if Mary the mother of Jesus is regarded as infallible or not, but those that are guided by God (and meant to be guides) are necessarily required to be infallible. Sunnis I believe regard the Prophet was infallible in matters of revelation and major sins (but that’s for a Sunni to understand).
This requirement of infallibility stems from the principle of ADL (a part of the usul al Deen) or the need for God to be just (fair).
So the logic follows that if the guide would sin then the follower would turn round and say that your guide was doing it, why penalize me.
All the instances when the prophet sinned (even openly) in the Bible are regarded as corruptions to the text. So that they could be brought to a fallible plain. Even traditions (mostly Sunni) of ummayads that talk of mistakes of Mohammad and those that belittle Ali stem from a similar motive, i.e., bring them to your level. These latter traditions are disproved amongst the Muslims by the Quran and more reliable traditions.
Other than those mentioned, no Ayatollah, Marja, Saint, martyr, lay man, no human being is considered an infallible nor any institution regarded as such.
Religion follows the West’s cultural mandates of 1) anything goes, and 2) nothing matters, which is why there are as many schisms as there are. I recently joined the Orthodox Church, because I found out that they do consider that the truth in fact does matter. But, even in those parishes that call themselves Orthodox, there is often a departure from the beliefs that make the Orthodox Church Orthodox. I was fortunate to be guided to one that adheres to the original Church beliefs, dogmas, traditions, and practices, rejecting any and all modern adaptations to the world and/or other religions. This parish that I attend recently adopted bylaws, and in the section that describes our affiliations, instead of naming our diocese and bishop, we stated that we will be affiliated with them as long as they follow Church dogma, teachings, traditions, and do not deviate from them. If they deviate, we won’t be affiliated with them. I love this! The responsibility for making sure that we follow the genuine Church is up to us, the parish members, to bear it. If our Bishop errs, we’ll probably have conversation with him about it, and we reserve the right to sever bonds with him if there’s not satisfactory resolution. This makes me feel safe in our little parish.
THANK you for scoping responses. Your interlocutor is focussing on Orthodox folk. Those of us who are not so can only benefit to a limited degree from any answers. I hope you can benefit somehow.
As a Srbin I was baptised in Orthodox faith.
Now that I know that it was imposed on my ancestors by FORCE not much different than from Mr. Adolf’s, Bush, Bolshevik’s, Trump’s and million other bloodthirsty tyrants, missiles of RF, Mother Nature and the Universe are what I believe in.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!
I am not Orthodox, so I am intruding. I have a question which I would be grateful if folk could comment on (as an appendix after the main business). I will quite understand if no-one bothers.
“…the faith “which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers”.”
“Books on the history of the Churches (except those written by modern historians and “theologians” which, with a few notable exceptions, are typically worthless since their authors are much more concerned with making a name for themselves in western academia rather than with conveying through their books the true Orthodox mindset or “spirit of the Fathers”…”
The tradition I was brought up in took historians seriously in trying to interpret scripture and understand the church and its progress through time. The work of the historians challenged the idea that the faith which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers preserved was, as recorded, identical, or at least that the common thread was readily discernible. These historians were from various religions and “denominations”. Their methods were those of history not theology (intended to be independent of their particular faith) They do not all appear to have been insincere in their motivation. Does their lack of the “true mindset” vitiate all their work? Is the history irrelevant? Or can it only be correctly interpreted from one perspective (the “true mindset”)?
The more I say, the more obvious my ignorance, but the question is genuine (as is my gratitude for the Saker’s writings on religion).
——-
Their methods were scholastic and attempting to understand a mystical religion from a scholastic point of view, is like trying to smell a painting, taste a music, listen to an statue or, for that matter, using history to try to get a grasp of theology. Christianity, the original thing, not it’s caricature in the West, was always mystical and existential, not scholastic. As for the sincerity of these historians it is irrelevant. Being sincere never prevented a blind person from remaining blind.
In my personal experience, the folks who have the hardest time understanding Orthodoxy are always educated western Christians because they always project, they always assume a “common base” between their experience and knowledge of Christianity and the ancient Christianity kept by the Orthodox churches (at least the traditional ones, Orthodox modernists are just as hopeless as all the other modernists out there). I have had MUCH better success conveying what Orthodoxy is to atheists and people from totally other religions than with western Christians for whom it is always *extremely* hard to accept that they know next to nothing about traditional, original Christianity, even if and especially if they have advanced degrees in history, theology, “Divinity studies” and all the rest of the academic titles which are useless to understand even the basics of Orthodoxy.
So when I say that theologians and their writing are mostly useless, this is not a slur against them, but a distressing statement of fact.
Cheers,
The Saker
As I understand it (if I …) these historians argue that our Lord, the Apostles, and the Fathers each lived and worked in a particular society at a particular time and spoke particular languages (which are cultural constructs) so the study of the history complements the practice of the religion. Do the Orthodox say the historians are wrong, that the history may be interesting as history but is of no relevance to the religion?
Again, if anyone has any thoughts
No, you don’t understand. QED.
The Saker
Yes, I know I don’t understand! That’s why I’m asking.
So, if the historians can tell us why the Roman authorities were so nervous of what appeared to them a charismatic preacher causing a ruckus at the Temple during the Passover, or what “the son of man” meant to 1st century Jews, or what Paul and his converts meant by ekklesiai, or… that is of no help in reading the Gospels, Acts, or Paul’s letters? The historical details of the incarnation and the spreading of the word are irrelevant?
I know I’m being slow. I come from a very different tradition and this is all new to me. To give an idea of my failings and those of my education, the notion that Orthodoxy represents the unbroken tradition that stretches back to the Church Fathers never featured at all in my upbringing (the joys of sectarianism!). It is a beautiful and inspiring notion, if ever there was one. The books I’m scurrying off to read are, alas, by scholars in English and English (orthodox) priests. No doubt I will understand even less by the end of it. QED.
Lindsay, if you really want to understand, I have provided you with a number of links which can give you a good working basis from which to start.
The Saker
I do read and re-read the articles in your Orthodox History section. And, as I say, there are books in English. I suspect my slowness of comprehension is in part nostalgia – the story is what I most enjoyed at Sunday school. There were no Christians – and then the whole Empire was Christian! The Gospels and Acts (and, later, for example, Eusebius) tell the tale. Our teachers filled in some of the historical context (not altogether accurately) and we drew pictures of the various historical characters (in modern dress!). We were taught it as history, as what truly happened. The historians continue that work – trying to determine what truly happened. Does that not complement rather than contradict the teachings?
Ewan (I confuse people by using my wife’s email address)
Context for my irritating questions: my uncle was a renowned minister of the Church of Scotland back in the day; my father, an elder; I have a lot to unlearn.
Why don’t you write an article about the war going on the Vatican right now?
I appreciated all the info provided about orthodox Church but , despite it is the choosed by you, it is not that relevant in the Christian world.
Scism a side, it’s not everywhere and it do not have a fraction of Roma resources.
That’s why i think all focus in the virtues of this church is kind of pointless.
More important thing is just being a Christian and that’s all
With that in mind, why you do not try to clarify what happened in Roma over those past 7 years.
About that video of German’s Bishops refusing to compliment Pope Benedict, any consideration about what is going on there?
Me, as a protestant Christian, recognise only “sola scriptura”. This does not mean that I do not enjoy and learn from the exegesis of bible scholars and Church leaders. But it does mean that I always check what they say against the Bible – like those the Bereans in Acts 17:11. Besides I have the Holy Spirit to illuminate the Bible for me and to guide me.
This is normative for Protestants; they freely claim that the Holy Spirit guides them. They also freely argue among themselves about what has been ‘revealed’ to them. Which leads to arguments about who truly has guidance and who does not. As our friend ioan relates, “that help is not ‘available’ to everyone”.
As for Acts 17:11, Paul and Silas went to the Jewish synagogue in Berea. The Beraeans examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Were these everyday people in their private homes studying scripture? Were they Gentiles? No, the Jews were with Paul the apostle in a synagogue, daily while he was with them. Who was examining the scriptures, anyone who happened to be there? Or were they the elders and rabbis, those who had the learning and authority to weigh in on the matter?
@Cyprian. I don’t claim that the Holy Spirit ‘reveal’ to me new anything. The Holy Spirit helps me to understand what God had already revealed through His written word – the Bible.
Indeed, you used the word illuminate instead of reveal. Forgive me if I’ve misinterpreted you. My point is that sola scriptura has a problem: If two Protestants don’t agree on what a passage of scripture means, yet they both claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, what are we to make of this?
@Cyprian. There are false Christians and there are the “Elect”. Paul’s epistle to the Romans is very clear as to the essential doctrines of the Gospel. That epistle is the “Rosetta Stone” of the Bible. Two true Christians may disagree on the unimportant doctrines (e.g. whether to eat food offered to idols) but they, by the Holy Spirit, will understand and agree on the Gospel especially on Romans 3: 23-28. And if they still disagree, they will show that they are true sons of God Almighty and followers of Jesus Christ by still loving each other – John 13:24,25. For the true Christian, it is more important to obey Jesus Christ’s commandment to love one another than to be 100% theologically correct (not possible with our limited understanding in this fallen world).
Scrap
Dear Mister Saker, thank you for your discussion of this topic. For me with protestant or more specific lutheran background the question what is the proper faith was never discussed in any official setting. Evey pastor or teacher of religion in school gave his point as truth without further explanation why his or her view was the right one.
I still remember one teacher of religion with disgust for “demythologizing” the scripture without offering anything to fill the void.
But back to the question how to determine the proper faith.
The only lutheran answer I know of comes from Soren Kierkegaard who was an outsider and intellectual opponent to Hegel. In his book “philosophical pieces” (In German Philosophische Brocken”) he argues that the criterion for proper faith is that it helps, improves your situation or makes you a better human.
Dear Saker..and others
Roman here,
I was educated through college in (3) Catholic schools. But there was little of the pejorative characteristics postulated here of Catholics and our/my schooling. I remember (vaguely) that as a young boy I asked a religious-theological question my nun-teacher. She said to ask it again “next year” when I was better able to grasp the answer. (Ergo, not indoctrination of mere words to subscribe to.) There was also a cleric who was a friend of the family who used the term “brick and mortar man” of anyone who was more interested in building things than is strengthening souls. So I think much of the pejorative descriptors on this site of Catholics is a bit overdone…applying to the less well-instructed and also the less-well spirtualized at a time in question.. (But life is a journey, right?)
And by the end of college—having a good course of study including history, I was convinced that all sorts of seats of power (including, but not limited to religious ones) were often attractive to those who were malefactors by constant disposition. Generally one just lives with the sad frequency of that inclination. (Original sin and all that.)
In college I became pointedly aware of what it was actually to understand something rather than be “familiar” with an account of it; as, for example of having very familiar word patterns at the handy be (mis)taken for understanding. In fact, just last night on educational TV I saw an astrophysicist admit that he and his colleagues did not really know what “space-time” is. But it’s important to postulate and use it—whatever that is– to get over or through or beyond certain annoying phenomena. [Moreover, I now think so much science teaching, at least through the Master’s degree, is about mastering a knack for sensing what procedures should come next.
But back to God. For decades I made the Sign on the Cross [left to right, of course] and said or thought the words. For decades as a youth that more or less passed in my mind as understanding Trinity. But one day I started a project to try to change from “familiar word patterns” = understanding, to engaging in a project of really understanding. (Some of that was stimulated by what science textbooks and manuals and Professors said and proceeded with.) [An aside, as a 2nd-semester college student I innocently and unexpectedly disproved something the zoology lab manual said—very simple disproof. (How could the whole zoology department miss that?! [ And some years of ZOO students, too!?] I thought.
Years later I did some serious thinking (over 3 years) of what Trinity means. I eventually had noetic insight about it. But to put it into words I had, to use, of course coneptualization—a lesser power of mind/soul. And here goes: One exists. And One generates ones. I am imperfectly a one. (Think of this, for an example, morally: I do not always and everywhere choose according to the goodness of my (finitely unitary character/essence/soul) but from lesser causes (e.g., episodes of fear, of bad thinking, etc.). And there are untold number of “ones” in existence. And these are unitary to lesser and greater degrees, are more or less ones. But God is perfectly one. Oh, did I write “is”? Yes, I did. But the concept existence is not the same concept as one. So at the nice, crisp conceptual (not noetic) level we have SAMENESS and EXISTENCE and DIFFERENCE. The one God is a tri-unity. And often best thought and talked about in metaphors and analogies.