The Eastern Church
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
The Eastern Church
I was wondering whether anybody knows anything about the Eastern Orthodox Church. I have read several books to date from authors who have been from the Eastern Church and have found them helpful in understanding the Christain faith.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Eastern Orthodoxy
Hi Joe,
The Eastern Orthodox and Western (Roman Catholic) churches split from one stock in the 11th century, and have taken separate roads since then, but they share many of the traditions that were developed in the church before that date.
Essentially, the Eastern Church differs from the Protestant churches in most of the same ways that the Roman Catholic Church does. Both of the non-Protestant groups place tradition of the church councils on a similar level with Scripture in determining doctrine. Protestants typically only trust the Bible to be the final authority on matters of faith and practice.
Eastern Orthodoxy also resembles Roman Catholicism in the veneration of the virgin Mary (holding to the doctrines of perpetual virginity, and sinlessness of Mary), prayers for the dead, and the use of images in worship. In the Eastern Church these "icons" are usually pictures or representations of Christ, Mary or the saints painted on wooden panels or other plain surfaces.
Like the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Church claims to be the only true church on the earth today, claiming to trace its roots all the way to the church of apostolic times. However, there is not just one "Eastern Orthodox Church." There are the Orthodox churches of Central and Eastern Europe (e.g., the Greek, Russian, Romanian, Serbian, etc.) and there are the Middle Eastern Orthodox Churches (e.g., Egyptian Coptic, Syrian, Lebanese, Armenian, etc.) as well as the churches of the Orthodox "Diaspora" that are found in Western Europe, North and South America, Africa, Australia, Japan and China. These different groups are all "Eastern Orthodox" but have significant differences in theology, culture and ecclesiology. Thus, the question arises, "If the Eastern Church really preserves the true apostolic tradition, which Eastern Church does so and which ones have deviated from it?"
The Orthodox doctrine of salvation (like that of Roman Catholicism) differs from the Protestant view. Protestants insist on a doctrine of justification through faith alone. The Eastern Church equates salvation with "mystical union with God." I actually think this is a refreshing balance to the often imbalanced emphasis on mere forensic ("legal") justification which reduces salvation to a one-time act and de-emphasizes the experiential aspects of the Gospel. For many Protestants, their hope of salvation rests upon an essentially barren "profession of faith," devoid of any sense of the indwelling presence of God. However, while agreeing that the Bible teaches that the converted soul experiences some sort of union with Christ and God, I am concerned that the Eastern Church associates this union with the observance of sacraments, certain religious rituals, and mystical experiences. I believe that this union is realized by the entrance of the Spirit of God into the repentant believer, and is cultivated by continual submission to Christ and walking in the power and guidance of His Spirit. Religion, sacraments and rituals have nothing to do with it.
We have no evidence that Jesus added a ritual element to the lives of His disciples. He did infuse familiar rituals (ceremonial washings and Passover) with new significance (baptism and Communion), but the tendency of His teaching was away from the ritualism that was so characteristic of rabinic Judaism, toward a more "no-frills" spirituality manifesting itself in heartfelt love for God as a Father, and the expression of His love through us in the way we treat others in all relationships. I simply cannot picture Jesus putting on ornate robes (such as He criticized the Pharisees for doing! Mark 12:38), and officiating at some mystical ritual while His disciples kissed paintings of Himself and His mother. Appartently, either some people can picture Jesus doing such things, or else they believe that, even though He would not have done them, the church counsels and traditions have since improved upon Jesus' way of doing things, giving us a Christianity that is essentially a stream that has risen above its source.
Actually, this is exactly the attitude, not only of the Eastern Orthodox, but also of the Roman Catholic and many Protestant groups. On an Orthodox website, I found this sentiment stated as follows: "The Orthodox Christian recognizes the rich Christian heritage and proclaims that he belongs to this Church, which corresponds to the Church of the Apostles as does a grown-up person correspond to a picture taken of him as a child.” [ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/intro.html] According to this statement, the church in the days of Jesus and the apostles was not even "a child" but merely "a picture...of...a child." The modern complex liturgical system is "the real man"! People like me are disdainfully called "primitivists" by such people, because we believe that the church was never purer than when her Head was directly supervising her on earth, and that the church has never received teachings more pure than those of Jesus Himself. The development of tradition in the church is more like the polution of a stream that occurs as it gets further from its fountainhead, due to the waste of human civilizations running off into it. It is simply a different perspective. Every man must make his own decision concerning which of these he wishes to stake his eternal destiny upon.
Blessings!
The Eastern Orthodox and Western (Roman Catholic) churches split from one stock in the 11th century, and have taken separate roads since then, but they share many of the traditions that were developed in the church before that date.
Essentially, the Eastern Church differs from the Protestant churches in most of the same ways that the Roman Catholic Church does. Both of the non-Protestant groups place tradition of the church councils on a similar level with Scripture in determining doctrine. Protestants typically only trust the Bible to be the final authority on matters of faith and practice.
Eastern Orthodoxy also resembles Roman Catholicism in the veneration of the virgin Mary (holding to the doctrines of perpetual virginity, and sinlessness of Mary), prayers for the dead, and the use of images in worship. In the Eastern Church these "icons" are usually pictures or representations of Christ, Mary or the saints painted on wooden panels or other plain surfaces.
Like the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Church claims to be the only true church on the earth today, claiming to trace its roots all the way to the church of apostolic times. However, there is not just one "Eastern Orthodox Church." There are the Orthodox churches of Central and Eastern Europe (e.g., the Greek, Russian, Romanian, Serbian, etc.) and there are the Middle Eastern Orthodox Churches (e.g., Egyptian Coptic, Syrian, Lebanese, Armenian, etc.) as well as the churches of the Orthodox "Diaspora" that are found in Western Europe, North and South America, Africa, Australia, Japan and China. These different groups are all "Eastern Orthodox" but have significant differences in theology, culture and ecclesiology. Thus, the question arises, "If the Eastern Church really preserves the true apostolic tradition, which Eastern Church does so and which ones have deviated from it?"
The Orthodox doctrine of salvation (like that of Roman Catholicism) differs from the Protestant view. Protestants insist on a doctrine of justification through faith alone. The Eastern Church equates salvation with "mystical union with God." I actually think this is a refreshing balance to the often imbalanced emphasis on mere forensic ("legal") justification which reduces salvation to a one-time act and de-emphasizes the experiential aspects of the Gospel. For many Protestants, their hope of salvation rests upon an essentially barren "profession of faith," devoid of any sense of the indwelling presence of God. However, while agreeing that the Bible teaches that the converted soul experiences some sort of union with Christ and God, I am concerned that the Eastern Church associates this union with the observance of sacraments, certain religious rituals, and mystical experiences. I believe that this union is realized by the entrance of the Spirit of God into the repentant believer, and is cultivated by continual submission to Christ and walking in the power and guidance of His Spirit. Religion, sacraments and rituals have nothing to do with it.
We have no evidence that Jesus added a ritual element to the lives of His disciples. He did infuse familiar rituals (ceremonial washings and Passover) with new significance (baptism and Communion), but the tendency of His teaching was away from the ritualism that was so characteristic of rabinic Judaism, toward a more "no-frills" spirituality manifesting itself in heartfelt love for God as a Father, and the expression of His love through us in the way we treat others in all relationships. I simply cannot picture Jesus putting on ornate robes (such as He criticized the Pharisees for doing! Mark 12:38), and officiating at some mystical ritual while His disciples kissed paintings of Himself and His mother. Appartently, either some people can picture Jesus doing such things, or else they believe that, even though He would not have done them, the church counsels and traditions have since improved upon Jesus' way of doing things, giving us a Christianity that is essentially a stream that has risen above its source.
Actually, this is exactly the attitude, not only of the Eastern Orthodox, but also of the Roman Catholic and many Protestant groups. On an Orthodox website, I found this sentiment stated as follows: "The Orthodox Christian recognizes the rich Christian heritage and proclaims that he belongs to this Church, which corresponds to the Church of the Apostles as does a grown-up person correspond to a picture taken of him as a child.” [ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/intro.html] According to this statement, the church in the days of Jesus and the apostles was not even "a child" but merely "a picture...of...a child." The modern complex liturgical system is "the real man"! People like me are disdainfully called "primitivists" by such people, because we believe that the church was never purer than when her Head was directly supervising her on earth, and that the church has never received teachings more pure than those of Jesus Himself. The development of tradition in the church is more like the polution of a stream that occurs as it gets further from its fountainhead, due to the waste of human civilizations running off into it. It is simply a different perspective. Every man must make his own decision concerning which of these he wishes to stake his eternal destiny upon.
Blessings!
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Apr 07, 2004 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Priestly1
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:47 pm
- Location: McMinnville, Oregon USA
Eastern (Oriental) Orthodox Christianity
Hello,
I am afraid I have to disagree with Steve (My Friend) concerning his perceptions and knowledge of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. Orthodox Anglicanism is the closest thing to Western Orthodoxy there is....it is closer to our Positions that Roman Catholicism is. I am an Oriental (Church of the East) Orthodox Christian as well as a OOC Cleric now....yes Steve, I finally went all the way! I have been Orthodox for years, but have only finally finished Seminary and was Ordained into Holy Orders within the last year and a half. I Teach on Theology, Exegetics, Canon Law and Church History. Granted I am not a Greel, Russian, Coptic Orthodox.....but I am Orthodox. Assyrian Orthodox to be exact...of the Mar Thoma Orthodox Church of the East. We separated from Western Catholicism in 431 AD and where not represented or ratified the Council of Ephesos. So we predate the Schism of 1054 AD when Rome excommunicated the Eastern Orthodox (Byzantines) and Constantinople excommunicated Rome (Catholics). We have been called St. Thomas "Nestorians" but we have always accepted Chalcedonain Christiology.
All Orthodox accept a Common Creed (Nicean), Essential Dogma Faith and Church Organization. We differ on Ritual matters, local polity and customs. We all share a common heritage from 30 AD until 431 AD. Our Church is the aramaic speaking Semitic Church of Mesopotamia, Persia, India and the Orient. Our Symbol is a simple Nestorian Cross.
Our Faith & Practice has been misrepresented by uninformed or misinformed Protestants and Roman Catholics as well. We Hold to Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons. We accept the full and ancient Canon of Scriptures as the Final Authority on Dogmatic Faith, Church Organization, Church Discipline and Custom. We reject all Dogmatic innovations since 431 A.D. by Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. We know of no purgatory, indulgencies, no infallibility, no Immaculate Conception of Mary, No Assumption of Mary as Queen of Heaven, No terming of Mar as the Mother of God (Theotokos), No OBLIGATORY celibacy, No works of attaining grace & merit, no worship of dead christian saints, no idolatry and no rejection of our Jewish heritage as Nazaraean who observe the Ten Commandments and Festivals. We are the Church defended by Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons for Observing Easter after Nisan 14 (Quartodecimians). Our Churches and Patriarchate was established Saint Jude Thomas (Mar Ehoda Thoma) the Apostle in 56 A.D. in Seluecia, Mesopotamia. He traveled to India during the Gupta Empire there and established Our Church, and it is from this Indian Eastern Church My Apostolic Succession is derived.
We have 7 Mysteries (Sacraments) of the Faith. We partake of the Lord's Supper (Qaddisha Qurbana = Holy Offering) at every Liurgy. Our Liturgy is the Oldest and most primative in Orthodoxy...as it is in Aramaic.
Evenso..we share much in common with Eastern Orthodoxy Dogmatically. Same Faith.....and it is not as described by Steve...but Orthodoxy has never been his fortay (LOL!). Read (Bishop Kallistos)Timothy Ware's Book: Orthodoxy by Penguin books for a good over view of Greek Orthodoxy. It accurately reveals Eastern Orthodoxy. Also , look up CIRED for ASSYRIAN Orthodox Church of the East...Or My Church's Web Site www.aeoc.org/diocese/cnc/ or www.jcib.org We are small in numbers in the USA but over 2 Million Strong in India and the Orient.
I like Steve, and we are good friends...but I must kindly insist that he is out of his element when discussing My Orthodox Nazrani (Aramaic for Nazarean) Church and Her Argumentative Siblings among the Eastern Orthodox. I am sure he meant well, but his views seem coloured by his perceptions of Roman Catholicism...which is the arrogant and wayward Occidental counterpart of Imperial Eastern Roman Orthodoxy. Both need to return to their purity.
In Maran Y'shu b'Meshikha! Maran Atta!
R.R. Fr. +Kenneth Huffman D.M. (Mar +Kenat'el)
Mar Thoma Nazarani Church of the East & Abroad (AEOC)
Mar Timotheos Mission of Oregon (CNC)
US Missionary Diocese of the Pacific Northwest.
priestly1.1@juno.com bishophuffman@aeoc.org
I am afraid I have to disagree with Steve (My Friend) concerning his perceptions and knowledge of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. Orthodox Anglicanism is the closest thing to Western Orthodoxy there is....it is closer to our Positions that Roman Catholicism is. I am an Oriental (Church of the East) Orthodox Christian as well as a OOC Cleric now....yes Steve, I finally went all the way! I have been Orthodox for years, but have only finally finished Seminary and was Ordained into Holy Orders within the last year and a half. I Teach on Theology, Exegetics, Canon Law and Church History. Granted I am not a Greel, Russian, Coptic Orthodox.....but I am Orthodox. Assyrian Orthodox to be exact...of the Mar Thoma Orthodox Church of the East. We separated from Western Catholicism in 431 AD and where not represented or ratified the Council of Ephesos. So we predate the Schism of 1054 AD when Rome excommunicated the Eastern Orthodox (Byzantines) and Constantinople excommunicated Rome (Catholics). We have been called St. Thomas "Nestorians" but we have always accepted Chalcedonain Christiology.
All Orthodox accept a Common Creed (Nicean), Essential Dogma Faith and Church Organization. We differ on Ritual matters, local polity and customs. We all share a common heritage from 30 AD until 431 AD. Our Church is the aramaic speaking Semitic Church of Mesopotamia, Persia, India and the Orient. Our Symbol is a simple Nestorian Cross.
Our Faith & Practice has been misrepresented by uninformed or misinformed Protestants and Roman Catholics as well. We Hold to Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons. We accept the full and ancient Canon of Scriptures as the Final Authority on Dogmatic Faith, Church Organization, Church Discipline and Custom. We reject all Dogmatic innovations since 431 A.D. by Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. We know of no purgatory, indulgencies, no infallibility, no Immaculate Conception of Mary, No Assumption of Mary as Queen of Heaven, No terming of Mar as the Mother of God (Theotokos), No OBLIGATORY celibacy, No works of attaining grace & merit, no worship of dead christian saints, no idolatry and no rejection of our Jewish heritage as Nazaraean who observe the Ten Commandments and Festivals. We are the Church defended by Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons for Observing Easter after Nisan 14 (Quartodecimians). Our Churches and Patriarchate was established Saint Jude Thomas (Mar Ehoda Thoma) the Apostle in 56 A.D. in Seluecia, Mesopotamia. He traveled to India during the Gupta Empire there and established Our Church, and it is from this Indian Eastern Church My Apostolic Succession is derived.
We have 7 Mysteries (Sacraments) of the Faith. We partake of the Lord's Supper (Qaddisha Qurbana = Holy Offering) at every Liurgy. Our Liturgy is the Oldest and most primative in Orthodoxy...as it is in Aramaic.
Evenso..we share much in common with Eastern Orthodoxy Dogmatically. Same Faith.....and it is not as described by Steve...but Orthodoxy has never been his fortay (LOL!). Read (Bishop Kallistos)Timothy Ware's Book: Orthodoxy by Penguin books for a good over view of Greek Orthodoxy. It accurately reveals Eastern Orthodoxy. Also , look up CIRED for ASSYRIAN Orthodox Church of the East...Or My Church's Web Site www.aeoc.org/diocese/cnc/ or www.jcib.org We are small in numbers in the USA but over 2 Million Strong in India and the Orient.
I like Steve, and we are good friends...but I must kindly insist that he is out of his element when discussing My Orthodox Nazrani (Aramaic for Nazarean) Church and Her Argumentative Siblings among the Eastern Orthodox. I am sure he meant well, but his views seem coloured by his perceptions of Roman Catholicism...which is the arrogant and wayward Occidental counterpart of Imperial Eastern Roman Orthodoxy. Both need to return to their purity.
In Maran Y'shu b'Meshikha! Maran Atta!
R.R. Fr. +Kenneth Huffman D.M. (Mar +Kenat'el)
Mar Thoma Nazarani Church of the East & Abroad (AEOC)
Mar Timotheos Mission of Oregon (CNC)
US Missionary Diocese of the Pacific Northwest.
priestly1.1@juno.com bishophuffman@aeoc.org
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Priestly1
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:47 pm
- Location: McMinnville, Oregon USA
Mystical (Sacramental) Christianity
Hi Steve.
I am bewildered that you do not see the Sacramental Nature of Grace and How it is given freely to us by God visibly in Baptism, in the Laying on of Hands to receive the Holy Spirit, in reception of the Body and Blood of Christ at the Lord's Table, in the act of repentance, in the act of Marriage, in the act of Ordination or in the act of the Prayer of Faith and anointing of oil? All of our Life in Christ is the Mystery of God's Grace empowering us, reviving us and regenerating us into His Son's Image....even in outward ritual acts set down by Christ, Observed by the Apostles and preserved in His Church unto this very day unbroken. I have just described the 7 Sacraments in Protestant/Charismatic terms, yet you still think Sacramentalism is unbiblical? The whole Book of John is Sacramental (Mystical) in perspective...so to is Paul. ALL of the Church Witnesses from the earliest Martyr until Nicea hold to Sacramental Christian Perspectives....do you think it just appeared on it's own?
Grace is not just a term but the Holy Spirit's Power to give Life and Wisdom.....that is God's unmerited gift to us. It is the Power of Christ and His Gospel acting upon us inwardly as well as during outward corresponding acts. Anglicans know this...Lutherans know this. Sacramentalism is innate to the Biblical world view.
Does water wash sins away? no. Baptism is the visible correspondence to an inward act of Divine regenerative Grace. Does anointing and laying on of hands (Carismation/Confirmation) give you the Holy Spirit? No. The Pentacostal sealing is an inward act of God's Grace along with the corresponding outward ritual actions. All a Sacrament is is the outward corresponding action of an inward act of Divine Grace. That is why we say a Faithful Life in Christ is in itself a Sacrament..an outward corresponding action of the inward Living Grace of God transforming us into His Son's Image. Can you deny this? If so how?
Please explain your position,
R.R. Fr. Ken Huffman D.M.
I am bewildered that you do not see the Sacramental Nature of Grace and How it is given freely to us by God visibly in Baptism, in the Laying on of Hands to receive the Holy Spirit, in reception of the Body and Blood of Christ at the Lord's Table, in the act of repentance, in the act of Marriage, in the act of Ordination or in the act of the Prayer of Faith and anointing of oil? All of our Life in Christ is the Mystery of God's Grace empowering us, reviving us and regenerating us into His Son's Image....even in outward ritual acts set down by Christ, Observed by the Apostles and preserved in His Church unto this very day unbroken. I have just described the 7 Sacraments in Protestant/Charismatic terms, yet you still think Sacramentalism is unbiblical? The whole Book of John is Sacramental (Mystical) in perspective...so to is Paul. ALL of the Church Witnesses from the earliest Martyr until Nicea hold to Sacramental Christian Perspectives....do you think it just appeared on it's own?
Grace is not just a term but the Holy Spirit's Power to give Life and Wisdom.....that is God's unmerited gift to us. It is the Power of Christ and His Gospel acting upon us inwardly as well as during outward corresponding acts. Anglicans know this...Lutherans know this. Sacramentalism is innate to the Biblical world view.
Does water wash sins away? no. Baptism is the visible correspondence to an inward act of Divine regenerative Grace. Does anointing and laying on of hands (Carismation/Confirmation) give you the Holy Spirit? No. The Pentacostal sealing is an inward act of God's Grace along with the corresponding outward ritual actions. All a Sacrament is is the outward corresponding action of an inward act of Divine Grace. That is why we say a Faithful Life in Christ is in itself a Sacrament..an outward corresponding action of the inward Living Grace of God transforming us into His Son's Image. Can you deny this? If so how?
Please explain your position,
R.R. Fr. Ken Huffman D.M.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Ken!
Long time no see! I would congratulate you on your new position, since I think it fitting that you be involved in a career that utilizes your vast knowledge of theological and ecclesiological matters—but I must admit hesitation concerning a position which allows a man to call himself "Right Reverend" (which is what I assume R.R. means. Correct me, if I am mistaken). I have always seen you as a brother, and, insofar as you are my spiritual superior, I could even view you, somewhat, as a "father"...but "Right Reverend" (perhaps I am mistaken about this meaning)? It is not any disrespect I have for you, but a concern about a religion that gives august titles to its clergy, which (forgive me) seems so contrary to the instructions Jesus gave His disciples about such things. Obviously, I am referring to Matt.23:6-10. I'm sure you will give me your perspective on this.
In any case, I am glad to have your participation here. Frankly, I am disappointed that you did not like what I wrote about the Eastern Church. I did not express commonality of viewpoint with it, because it is not my viewpoint, but I thought I represented it accurately, without disrespect. I am not clear as to which of my comments you found inaccurate. Would you mind responding to the specific points at which I misrepresented the viewpoint of Eastern Orthodoxy?
Since writing that response, I have read an interesting book called "The Church of the East," condensed by John Holzmann from a larger work by John Stewart. It is about the Nestorian churches, and I was not previously aware of their independant roots from what most of us know as the Eastern Orthodox Church. I can see why a person in the Nestorian tradition, like yourself, would consider his church to be the original Eastern Church and "orthodox." Though you have told me some of this before, I never understood the history of it until reading this book. It seems as if there are more independant branches of Christianity than we usually hear about: Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Nestorian (Aramaic language churches of the Middle East)—the latter being the most ancient.
My comments to the original inquirer (above) were based upon the assumption that his exposure had been to what most of us know as the Eastern Orthodox Church. Obviously, my comments do not apply in every respect to your church, which is lesser-known in the West, generally, but may, in fact, be the church he was asking about.
Your second post (about the sacraments) is hard to respond to, because everything about your paradigm seems so different from mine. You say that you can't understand how I can fail to see the sacramental nature of Christianity in the New Testament, whereas I can't see how anyone CAN see this in the New Testament.
Yes, there are a few rituals, like baptism and the "Lord's Supper," that appear to have been normative practice in apostolic times. Likewise, impartation of the Spirit, ordination of elders, and prayer for the sick seem to have involved some related rituals of physical contact. There is no ritual related in scripture in association with marriage, but it may be safe to assume that some such was normally practiced. But why call these "sacraments"? My understanding of the word sacrament has always been "a visible sign that confers grace or Divine Life on those who receive it." I don't see any biblical teaching that these rituals do that (with the possible exception of the impartation of the Spirit and prayer for the sick).
In reading your second post, it seems that you refer to a "sacrament" as a sign of an inward experience that has already occurred (e.g., as in the Protestant idea of baptism and the Lord's Supper). I can't disagree with this, but is this really what the word sacrament is normally taken to mean? I am not opposed to certain meaningful rituals being employed to depict spiritual realities, and if this is what is meant by "sacrament," then I can think of no reason to object to it. However, I find no biblical basis for believing that the high liturgical trappings associated with these rituals have their origins with Christ or the apostles.
Long time no see! I would congratulate you on your new position, since I think it fitting that you be involved in a career that utilizes your vast knowledge of theological and ecclesiological matters—but I must admit hesitation concerning a position which allows a man to call himself "Right Reverend" (which is what I assume R.R. means. Correct me, if I am mistaken). I have always seen you as a brother, and, insofar as you are my spiritual superior, I could even view you, somewhat, as a "father"...but "Right Reverend" (perhaps I am mistaken about this meaning)? It is not any disrespect I have for you, but a concern about a religion that gives august titles to its clergy, which (forgive me) seems so contrary to the instructions Jesus gave His disciples about such things. Obviously, I am referring to Matt.23:6-10. I'm sure you will give me your perspective on this.
In any case, I am glad to have your participation here. Frankly, I am disappointed that you did not like what I wrote about the Eastern Church. I did not express commonality of viewpoint with it, because it is not my viewpoint, but I thought I represented it accurately, without disrespect. I am not clear as to which of my comments you found inaccurate. Would you mind responding to the specific points at which I misrepresented the viewpoint of Eastern Orthodoxy?
Since writing that response, I have read an interesting book called "The Church of the East," condensed by John Holzmann from a larger work by John Stewart. It is about the Nestorian churches, and I was not previously aware of their independant roots from what most of us know as the Eastern Orthodox Church. I can see why a person in the Nestorian tradition, like yourself, would consider his church to be the original Eastern Church and "orthodox." Though you have told me some of this before, I never understood the history of it until reading this book. It seems as if there are more independant branches of Christianity than we usually hear about: Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Nestorian (Aramaic language churches of the Middle East)—the latter being the most ancient.
My comments to the original inquirer (above) were based upon the assumption that his exposure had been to what most of us know as the Eastern Orthodox Church. Obviously, my comments do not apply in every respect to your church, which is lesser-known in the West, generally, but may, in fact, be the church he was asking about.
Your second post (about the sacraments) is hard to respond to, because everything about your paradigm seems so different from mine. You say that you can't understand how I can fail to see the sacramental nature of Christianity in the New Testament, whereas I can't see how anyone CAN see this in the New Testament.
Yes, there are a few rituals, like baptism and the "Lord's Supper," that appear to have been normative practice in apostolic times. Likewise, impartation of the Spirit, ordination of elders, and prayer for the sick seem to have involved some related rituals of physical contact. There is no ritual related in scripture in association with marriage, but it may be safe to assume that some such was normally practiced. But why call these "sacraments"? My understanding of the word sacrament has always been "a visible sign that confers grace or Divine Life on those who receive it." I don't see any biblical teaching that these rituals do that (with the possible exception of the impartation of the Spirit and prayer for the sick).
In reading your second post, it seems that you refer to a "sacrament" as a sign of an inward experience that has already occurred (e.g., as in the Protestant idea of baptism and the Lord's Supper). I can't disagree with this, but is this really what the word sacrament is normally taken to mean? I am not opposed to certain meaningful rituals being employed to depict spiritual realities, and if this is what is meant by "sacrament," then I can think of no reason to object to it. However, I find no biblical basis for believing that the high liturgical trappings associated with these rituals have their origins with Christ or the apostles.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Priestly1
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:47 pm
- Location: McMinnville, Oregon USA
Saramentum (Latin for the Greek Mysterion : Mystery)
Shalom Steve.
I am sorry my westernized clerical designation stumbles you..I meant no controversy. R.R. represents my office as an Ebisokopa..Greek loan word in Aramaic i.e. Bishop. If Supervising Pastor makes you more comfortable I can use that,,
R.R. means Right Reverend, yes...technically...but it is no more unbiblical than calling one Theophilos "Friend of God"..Or Paul saying he was someones spiritual 'father'...I know that titles such as these bug Protestants..o well, can't win e,m all. Of Course we all know Messiah never meant to forbid calling one's family head "Papa , Dad or Father".....but some could say that He did. Oh, well.
Actually I am known in My Church as H.G. Mar +Kenat'el DM ...that is the Eastern designation and version of my Name. Do you think it is ok for a Saint to have his Doctorate of Ministry (DM) signified? or called Dr.? Does Christ prohibit that too under the "Call no one Teacher" clause...or do you think He might have meant something a little deeper? But hey, you can always call me Ken!!! All Titles and Crowns will be cast before the throne as worthless anyway!! Right? Right.
I am glad you have heard about our Church! But superficially you might think we where much less prettied up Eastern Orthodox in Worship, Custom and Style...with an oriental flavor of course. Our Modern Churches look like Plain High Church Anglican Churches, some have Icons...I decorate My Home Alter with Icons etc. We remember all the Saints now resting in Heavens Glory with Christ until the Resurrection. We see all the Saints and Angels in Heaven as the Heavenly Cloud of witnesses who observe us and pray for us while they worship God before His Throne.
I realize you "paradigm" is vastly different from ours, but our "paradigm" has a paper trial back to Christ and is attested to in an unbroken chain of evidence from the Apostles through their Appointed Successors in the Church. We retain and walk in that which we have received from the beginning. The paradigm you have at present is the creation of the turmoil within the Western Church since the Schism of 1045. It's roots are in Latin North Africa and Medieval Scholasticism. This is clearly shown by your discovery of "other" Ancient Orthodox Catholic Christians not affiliated to Imperial Patriarchates of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. The Patriarchate of Babylon is just as old as these, but outside the Empire of Rome. She rejected the Condemnation of Mar +Yohannan Nestorios, Antiochene Patriarch of Constantinople in the 431 AD Council of Ephesos; Although the Church of the East received and ratified the Christiology of Chalcedon in 488 A.D.
You seem to say that the Eastern Orthodox are just Eastern Roman Catholics in almost every way....then you detail the classic Protestant misrepresentations of Catholic views of Mary, Saints, Icons, Sacraments and Salvation by Grace. Steve, it is the 21st Century...not the wars between Protestants and Papists....propaganda is not facts. Maby Jack Chick or the nutty work by Alexander Hislop (i.e The Two Babylons) might have sufficed for facts once...but no longer. I may disagree with My Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Brethren on many important issues....but when compared to the multitudes of conflicting Protestant "Orthodoxies", We in the Church of the East have more in common Historically and Dogmatically than with post 16th Century Reformed Christianity. I Believe you have misunderstood Sacramental Theology and the Sacraments....as well as Apostolic Tradition. I do not believe you are a head hunting AntiCatholic though....I know that...you just hunt Calvinists!!! LOL!!! Well don't we all? ROFL!!! Remember that your Paradigm can't be too far off if you are any kind of Amillenialist...as that is the product of Catholic Theological developement...so there must be some Catholic in you yet!! LOL I mean you do accept the Nicean Creed and Chalcedonian Christiology too....very Catholic. So mabey you just need some heat to burn off all that Protestant water and reduce your Faith back to it's Apostolic Roots..a Thick and Condenced Orthodox Catholic Faith...LOL!! Jab Jab...LOL!
In Messiah,
H.E. Mar +Kenat'el DM....Ken to you LOL
I am sorry my westernized clerical designation stumbles you..I meant no controversy. R.R. represents my office as an Ebisokopa..Greek loan word in Aramaic i.e. Bishop. If Supervising Pastor makes you more comfortable I can use that,,
R.R. means Right Reverend, yes...technically...but it is no more unbiblical than calling one Theophilos "Friend of God"..Or Paul saying he was someones spiritual 'father'...I know that titles such as these bug Protestants..o well, can't win e,m all. Of Course we all know Messiah never meant to forbid calling one's family head "Papa , Dad or Father".....but some could say that He did. Oh, well.
Actually I am known in My Church as H.G. Mar +Kenat'el DM ...that is the Eastern designation and version of my Name. Do you think it is ok for a Saint to have his Doctorate of Ministry (DM) signified? or called Dr.? Does Christ prohibit that too under the "Call no one Teacher" clause...or do you think He might have meant something a little deeper? But hey, you can always call me Ken!!! All Titles and Crowns will be cast before the throne as worthless anyway!! Right? Right.
I am glad you have heard about our Church! But superficially you might think we where much less prettied up Eastern Orthodox in Worship, Custom and Style...with an oriental flavor of course. Our Modern Churches look like Plain High Church Anglican Churches, some have Icons...I decorate My Home Alter with Icons etc. We remember all the Saints now resting in Heavens Glory with Christ until the Resurrection. We see all the Saints and Angels in Heaven as the Heavenly Cloud of witnesses who observe us and pray for us while they worship God before His Throne.
I realize you "paradigm" is vastly different from ours, but our "paradigm" has a paper trial back to Christ and is attested to in an unbroken chain of evidence from the Apostles through their Appointed Successors in the Church. We retain and walk in that which we have received from the beginning. The paradigm you have at present is the creation of the turmoil within the Western Church since the Schism of 1045. It's roots are in Latin North Africa and Medieval Scholasticism. This is clearly shown by your discovery of "other" Ancient Orthodox Catholic Christians not affiliated to Imperial Patriarchates of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. The Patriarchate of Babylon is just as old as these, but outside the Empire of Rome. She rejected the Condemnation of Mar +Yohannan Nestorios, Antiochene Patriarch of Constantinople in the 431 AD Council of Ephesos; Although the Church of the East received and ratified the Christiology of Chalcedon in 488 A.D.
You seem to say that the Eastern Orthodox are just Eastern Roman Catholics in almost every way....then you detail the classic Protestant misrepresentations of Catholic views of Mary, Saints, Icons, Sacraments and Salvation by Grace. Steve, it is the 21st Century...not the wars between Protestants and Papists....propaganda is not facts. Maby Jack Chick or the nutty work by Alexander Hislop (i.e The Two Babylons) might have sufficed for facts once...but no longer. I may disagree with My Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Brethren on many important issues....but when compared to the multitudes of conflicting Protestant "Orthodoxies", We in the Church of the East have more in common Historically and Dogmatically than with post 16th Century Reformed Christianity. I Believe you have misunderstood Sacramental Theology and the Sacraments....as well as Apostolic Tradition. I do not believe you are a head hunting AntiCatholic though....I know that...you just hunt Calvinists!!! LOL!!! Well don't we all? ROFL!!! Remember that your Paradigm can't be too far off if you are any kind of Amillenialist...as that is the product of Catholic Theological developement...so there must be some Catholic in you yet!! LOL I mean you do accept the Nicean Creed and Chalcedonian Christiology too....very Catholic. So mabey you just need some heat to burn off all that Protestant water and reduce your Faith back to it's Apostolic Roots..a Thick and Condenced Orthodox Catholic Faith...LOL!! Jab Jab...LOL!
In Messiah,
H.E. Mar +Kenat'el DM....Ken to you LOL
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Bravo, Ken!
You never fail to crack me up, whether in private conversation or in your written jabs! I laughed so hard I couldn't read through the tears! I love it. When I get some time, I'll respond in more detail...I don't mass produce paragraphs quite so quickly as you do, and I haven't even gotten around to answering your Sabbath article yet! Slow down just a little, so I can keep up with you!
Your brother and friend...
You never fail to crack me up, whether in private conversation or in your written jabs! I laughed so hard I couldn't read through the tears! I love it. When I get some time, I'll respond in more detail...I don't mass produce paragraphs quite so quickly as you do, and I haven't even gotten around to answering your Sabbath article yet! Slow down just a little, so I can keep up with you!
Your brother and friend...
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_achsteven
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 5:36 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
A question
The ante-nicene writings left me with the impression that for many years the church still believed in beating swords into plowshares, and spears into pruninghooks - thus not learning war anymore.
A friend with whom I study is a 'member' of a church he calls the 'church of the East'. He believes much differently than what I see recorded - not only among New Testament instruction on the subject, but also contrary to anything I recall having ever heard or read among the first 3 centuries of church history. Consequently, I've greatly discounted his claim to an apostolic succession.
Does the 'church of the East' maintain the strictly nonviolent tradition of the early church in it's present day lineage?
Peacefully,
-SD
A friend with whom I study is a 'member' of a church he calls the 'church of the East'. He believes much differently than what I see recorded - not only among New Testament instruction on the subject, but also contrary to anything I recall having ever heard or read among the first 3 centuries of church history. Consequently, I've greatly discounted his claim to an apostolic succession.
Does the 'church of the East' maintain the strictly nonviolent tradition of the early church in it's present day lineage?
Peacefully,
-SD
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi SD,
I believe you are right about the non-violence/non-resistance ethic of the earliest Christians. This is seen in James 5:6 (in any good translation; the NIV is NOT a good translation) as well as the writings of many of the ante-nicean fathers who wrote on the subject of war. As to the question of the present stance of the Eastern Church on these matters, I must confess ignorance. However, I believe we will get an answer from my friend, Ken Huffman (Priestly1), before long, if I am not much mistaken.
I believe you are right about the non-violence/non-resistance ethic of the earliest Christians. This is seen in James 5:6 (in any good translation; the NIV is NOT a good translation) as well as the writings of many of the ante-nicean fathers who wrote on the subject of war. As to the question of the present stance of the Eastern Church on these matters, I must confess ignorance. However, I believe we will get an answer from my friend, Ken Huffman (Priestly1), before long, if I am not much mistaken.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Apr 14, 2004 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Priestly1
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:47 pm
- Location: McMinnville, Oregon USA
Pacifist Catholicism...hmmm
Axios! I am Assyrian Orthodox = Mar Thoma Nazarani Church of the East & Abroad. I know many 2nd & 3rd Century Greek and Latin Writers held that a Saint should not join the Pagan Imperial Legions of Rome, because the Empire was a Persecutor of the Church. We too in the Far East hold such a position regarding military service to infidel States which seek to suppress and annihilate God's People and Faith.
But my dear friend, this is not Medieval Pacifism developed by Proto Protestants and later Radical Communal Reformers such as the Anabaptist...who became such pacifist when their failed attempt to form a Anabaptist Utopia by Military Means failed.
Pacifism as we know it is a Post Medieval reinterpretation of 2nd & 3rd Century Christian opposition to collaborating with the Enemy State. Remember that they refused to attend sporting events, theatre or schooling if it was State sanctioned and supported.
Even so, this position does not forbid the Police, Military or Political Service of a Saint should the State he is a citizen of be a Christian Government or Secular Government supportive of the Religious Liberty of Christians and all other faiths. What you see with Pacifist eyes as supporting your paradigm actually fails to do so in the wider context and full view of Holy Scripture and it's witness Holy Tradition. Once Christianity was Tolerated by the Roman Empire and eventually made the State Faith under Justinian, the service of Christians within the Government, Police and Military was whole heartedly adopted and the "Christianization" of the Western & Eastern Empire and her Allies was undertaken. Pagan Religion lost membership and her Temples were either demolished or converted into Church Buildings.
The Bible does not teach Radical Reformist or Hindu Pacifism. Nor does the Holy Tradition of the Western or Eastern Roman Empire...nor does our Oriental Thomasine Tradition. But we all refuse to bend a knee to Baal or any Infidel State which seeks to undo the work of Christ or destroy His Holy Church. Collaboration with the Beast (Taking the Mark) is a Mortal Sin. The Bible, Holy Tradition and History all denounce Christian Collaboration with the Enemies of Christ and His Church.....but Self Defense of Person, Family, Friends , Neighbor and Nation is Biblical and supported by Holy Tradition & History. Just look at Saint Demetrios...He was a Martyr as well as a Roman Soldier who refused to deny Christ or support the State's Persecution of His Church.
This may ruffle your feathers, but that is the nature of a fresh breeze in a closed room. That you disagree with this "Church of the East" Member and therefore doubt his ordination tells me more about you than about the verity of his position. It amy upset you that Anabaptism & it's Pacifist Ideology is of late origins and has no roots in Apostolic Christianity....but that is fact. It is a medieval reactionary position of those who despised the errant Roman Church and the States which supported Her Papacy; not a anciently held dogma revived by anabaptist revelation. Gimme a break.....that smacks of Joseph Smith Jr.
I attended Western Mennonite High School and know full well Anabaptist History and their "orthodoxies". I respect their right to believe as they do, and honor their sincere Faith in Messiah....but I cannot accept their many innovations and radical notions which have no Apostolic Roots. I hate what Protestants and Catholics did to their Anabaptist kindred, and what they still do to each other......but the Western Church has never been dull Since 1054 A.D. the Western Church has divided into over 1900 competing Sects, Denominations and has revived every Ancient Heresy under the Banners of Sola Scripture, Sola Fide, Reformation and New Light. Sad really. But anything built upon sand will crumble and dissolve into ever smaller parts. I say this as one who was once a sold out "Charismatic/Pentacostal" Protestant "saved" during the early 70's during the Counterculture's "Jesus Movement".
I don't despise my past, because it lead me to my Oriental Orthodox Nazarani Faith and Ordination into Holy Orders. I thank God I experienced all the Roman Catholicism, Reformed Christianity, Charismatic/Pentacostalism and Eastern Orthodoxy has to offer....but I thank God He placed Me in the simple Nazaraean Faith of Saint Jude Thomas and All the Apostles to the East. If you ask me if I reject all these other "christian" paths to Christ, I will say no. I just no longer sojourn among them, but if they are headed my Way I will walk with them irrespective of their contradictory and competing claims and doctrinal positions. There is One God, One Christ, One Holy Spirit, One Faith, One Baptism and One Salvation....may that we all walk this Narrow Path with "Unity on the Essential Dogma, Liberty in Customs and Love in All Things".
If you doubt my Apostolic Succession it matters not to me, I know what I know and practice what I preach. I judge issues and matters as is my duty as a Bishop & Fruit Inspector within My Church, but I leave the Tree evaluation to Christ and let Him lay the axe to the tree if it is needed. I speak bluntly, as Steve knows...but in Love and with a good dose of H Humor. Though Steve and I do not see all things eye to eye...we still are Brothers and I do not doubt his church membership or his answer to a spiritual calling.
So I ask you to not doubt your friend's Apostolic Calling and Ordination into the Church of the East because you wear Anabaptist Glasses when reading the Holy Tradition or Scripture...that is forbidden by Mar +Sha'ul Paulou in his Letter to the Romans. I support your efforts at ecumenical dialogue with this Nazrani Cleric, but to speak as you do about him lets me think you truly are not seeking to find, knocking to be opened up to...but to discuss in order to defeat. sad. I was once much the same myself years ago..and on some days I fall prey to such inclinations......but we are all called to a higher plain. Maran Y'shu b'Meshikha Atta! (O Come back to Us, Our Lord Jesus the Messiah!)
Christo Anasti! (Messiah is Risen indeed!!)
H.G. Mar +Kenat'el Huffman DM....Ken to My Buddy Steve
www.jicb.org www.aeoc,org/diocese/cnc/
But my dear friend, this is not Medieval Pacifism developed by Proto Protestants and later Radical Communal Reformers such as the Anabaptist...who became such pacifist when their failed attempt to form a Anabaptist Utopia by Military Means failed.
Pacifism as we know it is a Post Medieval reinterpretation of 2nd & 3rd Century Christian opposition to collaborating with the Enemy State. Remember that they refused to attend sporting events, theatre or schooling if it was State sanctioned and supported.
Even so, this position does not forbid the Police, Military or Political Service of a Saint should the State he is a citizen of be a Christian Government or Secular Government supportive of the Religious Liberty of Christians and all other faiths. What you see with Pacifist eyes as supporting your paradigm actually fails to do so in the wider context and full view of Holy Scripture and it's witness Holy Tradition. Once Christianity was Tolerated by the Roman Empire and eventually made the State Faith under Justinian, the service of Christians within the Government, Police and Military was whole heartedly adopted and the "Christianization" of the Western & Eastern Empire and her Allies was undertaken. Pagan Religion lost membership and her Temples were either demolished or converted into Church Buildings.
The Bible does not teach Radical Reformist or Hindu Pacifism. Nor does the Holy Tradition of the Western or Eastern Roman Empire...nor does our Oriental Thomasine Tradition. But we all refuse to bend a knee to Baal or any Infidel State which seeks to undo the work of Christ or destroy His Holy Church. Collaboration with the Beast (Taking the Mark) is a Mortal Sin. The Bible, Holy Tradition and History all denounce Christian Collaboration with the Enemies of Christ and His Church.....but Self Defense of Person, Family, Friends , Neighbor and Nation is Biblical and supported by Holy Tradition & History. Just look at Saint Demetrios...He was a Martyr as well as a Roman Soldier who refused to deny Christ or support the State's Persecution of His Church.
This may ruffle your feathers, but that is the nature of a fresh breeze in a closed room. That you disagree with this "Church of the East" Member and therefore doubt his ordination tells me more about you than about the verity of his position. It amy upset you that Anabaptism & it's Pacifist Ideology is of late origins and has no roots in Apostolic Christianity....but that is fact. It is a medieval reactionary position of those who despised the errant Roman Church and the States which supported Her Papacy; not a anciently held dogma revived by anabaptist revelation. Gimme a break.....that smacks of Joseph Smith Jr.
I attended Western Mennonite High School and know full well Anabaptist History and their "orthodoxies". I respect their right to believe as they do, and honor their sincere Faith in Messiah....but I cannot accept their many innovations and radical notions which have no Apostolic Roots. I hate what Protestants and Catholics did to their Anabaptist kindred, and what they still do to each other......but the Western Church has never been dull
Since 1054 A.D. the Western Church has divided into over 1900 competing Sects, Denominations and has revived every Ancient Heresy under the Banners of Sola Scripture, Sola Fide, Reformation and New Light. Sad really. But anything built upon sand will crumble and dissolve into ever smaller parts. I say this as one who was once a sold out "Charismatic/Pentacostal" Protestant "saved" during the early 70's during the Counterculture's "Jesus Movement".I don't despise my past, because it lead me to my Oriental Orthodox Nazarani Faith and Ordination into Holy Orders. I thank God I experienced all the Roman Catholicism, Reformed Christianity, Charismatic/Pentacostalism and Eastern Orthodoxy has to offer....but I thank God He placed Me in the simple Nazaraean Faith of Saint Jude Thomas and All the Apostles to the East. If you ask me if I reject all these other "christian" paths to Christ, I will say no. I just no longer sojourn among them, but if they are headed my Way I will walk with them irrespective of their contradictory and competing claims and doctrinal positions. There is One God, One Christ, One Holy Spirit, One Faith, One Baptism and One Salvation....may that we all walk this Narrow Path with "Unity on the Essential Dogma, Liberty in Customs and Love in All Things".
If you doubt my Apostolic Succession it matters not to me, I know what I know and practice what I preach. I judge issues and matters as is my duty as a Bishop & Fruit Inspector within My Church, but I leave the Tree evaluation to Christ and let Him lay the axe to the tree if it is needed. I speak bluntly, as Steve knows...but in Love and with a good dose of H Humor. Though Steve and I do not see all things eye to eye...we still are Brothers and I do not doubt his church membership or his answer to a spiritual calling.
So I ask you to not doubt your friend's Apostolic Calling and Ordination into the Church of the East because you wear Anabaptist Glasses when reading the Holy Tradition or Scripture...that is forbidden by Mar +Sha'ul Paulou in his Letter to the Romans. I support your efforts at ecumenical dialogue with this Nazrani Cleric, but to speak as you do about him lets me think you truly are not seeking to find, knocking to be opened up to...but to discuss in order to defeat. sad. I was once much the same myself years ago..and on some days I fall prey to such inclinations......but we are all called to a higher plain. Maran Y'shu b'Meshikha Atta! (O Come back to Us, Our Lord Jesus the Messiah!)
Christo Anasti! (Messiah is Risen indeed!!)
H.G. Mar +Kenat'el Huffman DM....Ken to My Buddy Steve
www.jicb.org www.aeoc,org/diocese/cnc/
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: