The Cardinal is Walter Kasper.
Kasper said he hoped Catholics would "get to know Luther better and not just interpret him from his polemical writings, still less from a few sentences taken out of context". The cardinal said he also hoped Protestantism would return to the faith of Martin Luther, "who would have been deeply averse to all of today's liberal tendencies".ME: You know I agree with anyone who says what is true. He is correct and he is right - Protestants need to return to the faith of Luther!
ME again: Not only should he wish this for Protestants, but in fact he should wish that Roman Catholics should hold also to the faith of Luther!
46 comments:
Why? Who's Luther? He himself never preached this. His own algorithm regarding how faith and interporetation should be applied backfired on him. (i.e., people having the same concepts regarding faith as he did did not come to have the faith that he had -- they still don't). I think that speaks volumes, doesn't it?
absurd.
LPC
absurd.
LPC
Short and elegant: spoken like a true sage. Namaste! -- Now that I have Your divine dictum, can I humbly ask a few questions? :
What exactly is so 'absurd'? That Sola Scriptura + Sola Fide back-fired on Luther? That people that went to the Scriptures with nothing else than 'JUST Scripture' parted their ways into many roads, instead of becoming one? :
Lutherans, Calvinists (Reformed), Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Puritans, Baptists, Adventists, Pentecostals (Charismatics), etc.
- do we babe-tize babies or not? (Protestants vs. NeoProtestants).
- do we baptise by immersion or sprinkling? (Presbyterians?)
- do we baptise by simple or three-fold immersion?
- is the Eucharist consubstatiated or not? (Luther vs. Calvin vs. Zwingli).
- do we have bishops or not? (Episcopalians vs. Presbyterians).
- do we abide by Prima Scriptura or by Sola Scriptura? (Luther seems to have had the first in mind; the Reformed the later).
- and as a corolary to the former: how do we then worship? (LCMS vs. ELCA)
- do we believe in simple or dual ellection? (Calvinists versus Lutherans).
- do we contribute with something to our salvation or not? (Calvin vs. Arminians)
- etc (federalists, traducianists, Christocentrical vs. literal interpretation: You just name it!).
- do we worship on Sundays or on Saturdays? (Adventists)
- do we have hi-church, lo-church, or no-church services?
- do we speak in tongues or not?
- "Who do you say that I AM ?": (Oneness/JesusOnly Pentecostalism & Unitarianism & Universalism vs. Binitarianism vs. Social Trinitarianism vs. orthodox Trinitarianism). -- etc. etc. etc.
- Filioque or no Filioque? :-\ Hmm?
What's your point? you have proven NOTHING!
No disagreement amnogst the Orthodox themselves??? Why was Nicea II convened in the first place, huh? Why did Orthodoxy only triumphed in 9th century and not earlier??? Why did the best exposition on the use of icons which of course is based on a faulty notion of eschatology, relation between nature and grace, etc. only appeared in John of Damascus who was a medieval rather than a patristic figure???
And answer this, why was there another big controversy no less raging in the medieval period over Hesychasm with St. Barlaam of Calabria who was a priest himself stoutly against it!
Let me remind you that the patristic Orthodoxy isn't exactly the same as Byzantine Orthodoxy. The two are not the same! The distinction between essence and energies is a latter innovation, no less as promoted Gregory of Palamas himself. This is different from the Cappadocian distinction between person and nature.
"do we abide by Prima Scriptura or by Sola Scriptura? (Luther seems to have had the first in mind; the Reformed the later)."
Only in your mind. Luther held to sola Scriptura! Scripture alone. Listen here, you don't interpret Scripture but Scripture interprets you, get it? This is the meaning of sola Scriptura, the evangelical power to set bound sinners free.
do we believe in simple or dual ellection? (Calvinists versus Lutherans).
It's not dual election. It's double predestination!
How about this? Old Calendar or Gregorian? Crossing oneself with two or three fingers? (the St. Tikhon controversy)? One Nature out of the Incarnate or Two Natures? One energy or two energies? Eastern rite only or it and Western rite also? Moment of consecration - Cabasilas or explicit??? or the whole action or only the prayer itself only??? "Monophysites" - canonical or non-canonical??? The number of the Apocrypha - how many books??? Pseudepigrapha part of the NT canon or not???
Well, ... You are sure raising Your voice (in writing, no less), but I can You can pretty much see for Yourself the rather obvious weakness of Your argumentation:
- no Council is disputed among us, (that includes Niceea II and the Palamite Synods); neither is the holiness and Orthodoxy of either St. John of Damascus or Gregory Palamas under question amongst us.
- there were no controversies amongst us after Iconoclasm, that's why that Sunday in Lent which celebrates the Seventh and last Ecumenical Synod is called as such [ie, The Triumph of Orthodoxy against all heresies].
- that's also why our Church Calendars don't celebrate the so-called Eighth & Ninth Ecumenical Synod: there was no controversy amongst us regarding the Essence-Energies distinction (which dates back at least to the fourth century and the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers); Barlaam was a man intellectually raised in the West: the controversy which he and a small fracture raised up is not remembered by us precisely for that reason: it wasn't major. [During Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysism and Iconoclasm the East was pretty much ruptured in two great halves, fighting with each-other theologically, and even using persecutions (Arians and Iconoclasts) -- but no such thing happened to us with the so-called Eighth & Ninth Ecumenical Synods: that's why these two Synods didn't make it into public conscience and calendars].
- Luther's phrase was Sola Scriptura, but the way in which he understood it was Prima Scriptura. That's why there are rifts amongst present day Lutherans regarding how to worship, with one side (traditional) holding to the old ways via their Prima Scriptura understanding of Sola Scriptura; and the others who want to completely reshape worship due to their Sola Scriptura approach to Sola Scriptura.
- the fact that it's called `double predestination` doesn't change the fact that many hold to it, whilst many reject it for single or simple predestination.
- both calendars (Slavs are on the Old one; Romanians and Greeks on the new one). : the *schismatical* Old calendarists are very small in number, and -as said- they aren't in communion with us.
- all Orthodox cross themselves with three fingers. (as said, the Old Believers are a small *schism*)
- One Person in Two Natures, each with its own will and action (again, none of the Great Synods are disputed amoingst us, including the Fourth & the Sixth).
- the Western rite isn't in schism with anyone. (Which isn't to say that there aren't some small *schisms* which use a Western rite)
- opinions regarding others aren't part of our faith (what the Catholics do is their business, they aren't Orthodox).
- the Liturgy can't be chopped down (a parallel look at the various ancient and present Liturgies will help).
- we're not in communion with the Monophysites. (I think I've said that already, haven't I?).
- all the books of the LXX, save 4th Maccabees, which only the Greeks have in an Appendix. (We Romanians count them as 80 in total, OT + NT, but it depends on how You group them).
- 27 books in the NT.
"- no Council is disputed among us, (that includes Niceea II and the Palamite Synods); neither is the holiness and Orthodoxy of either St. John of Damascus or Gregory Palamas under question amongst us."
That's not the point. So, you are barking up the wrong tree. There you've proven my point.
"- there were no controversies amongst us after Iconoclasm, that's why that Sunday in Lent which celebrates the Seventh and last Ecumenical Synod is called as such [ie, The Triumph of Orthodoxy against all heresies]."
Hesychasm was not a controversy??? The Blessed Martyr Patriarch Cyril lukaris did not stir up any controversy after his death culminating in the Confession of the Synod of Jerusalem or Dositheus???
that's also why our Church Calendars don't celebrate the so-called Eighth & Ninth Ecumenical Synod: there was no controversy amongst us regarding the Essence-Energies distinction (which dates back at least to the fourth century and the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers); Barlaam was a man intellectually raised in the West: the controversy which he and a small fracture raised up is not remembered by us precisely for that reason: it wasn't major. [During Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysism and Iconoclasm the East was pretty much ruptured in two great halves, fighting with each-other theologically, and even using persecutions (Arians and Iconoclasts) -- but no such thing happened to us with the so-called Eighth & Ninth Ecumenical Synods: that's why these two Synods didn't make it into public conscience and calendars].
It was major alright, just that it was an in-house fighting! The Essence-Energies distinction do not date back to the Cappadocians but precisely to Gregory of Palamas. Do you ever recall Dimitri Staniloae ever appealing to the Cappadocians in making that distinction?
"Luther's phrase was Sola Scriptura, but the way in which he understood it was Prima Scriptura. That's why there are rifts amongst present day Lutherans regarding how to worship, with one side (traditional) holding to the old ways via their Prima Scriptura understanding of Sola Scriptura; and the others who want to completely reshape worship due to their Sola Scriptura approach to Sola Scriptura."
When Luther said sola Scriptura he precisely meant Scripture alone. This is why he was able to make his stand at the Diet of Worms. The authority of church councils can stand only as they conform clearly to Scripture on things pertaining to salvation. Other than that, there is no such as prima Scriptura. It is not an unqualified acceptance of councils as subordinate or derivative authority rather precisely acceptance of councils in so far as they agree with Scripture. This is the difference.
" both calendars (Slavs are on the Old one; Romanians and Greeks on the new one). : the *schismatical* Old calendarists are very small in number, and - as said- they aren't in communion with us."
At the end of the day, Orthodoxy is as divided as Protestants! How about breakway or splinter groups such as the True Orthodox or Genuine Orthodox (Synod of Greece) on the issue of the Old Calendar also??? It's not just some isolated Old Believers in Siberia.
"we're not in communion with the Monophysites. (I think I've said that already, haven't I?)."
Who's we? you speak for the entire canonical jurisdictions represented by the Patriarch of Constantinople? The Armenian Apostolic Church is monophysite and is in fact one of the oldest Christian communities in the world. So, how come they are regarded officially as canonical?
"all the books of the LXX, save 4th Maccabees, which only the Greeks have in an Appendix. (We Romanians count them as 80 in total, OT + NT, but it depends on how You group them)."
Which council or communion are we referring to here? The Russian orthodox have their version, the Ethiopian have theirs and so on. So much for fool-proof consensus on the very Word of God itself!
Uhm, again: we're not in communion with the Monophysites (whether Armenians, or Ethiopians, or otherwise), ... nor are they in communion with us either ... Nor is there any animosity between those that hold to the Old Calendar and those that hold to the New. (The Slavs are in communion with us and the Greeks). [The "Old Calendarists" and "Old Believers" are numerically insignifficant schisms]. In case You still don't understand: to be on the Old Calendar is one thing; and to be an "Old Calendarist" is quite another.
And the Barlaamite party was numerically insignifficant: compare this to the Arians, Monophysites, or Iconoclasts; as for Cyril Lukaris, his party consisted of just one man: namely himself. :-\
I also don't get the "in-house fighting" comment: in case You haven't noticed, all the ancient heresies appeared in the East, and ran like wild-fire, and spread turm-oil. That's because we were the advanced and evolved ones back then, having many schools of philosophical and religious and scientifical thought. The West was in ruins. The East was an Empire of cities, while the West had only one metropolis: Rome. That's why Rome was such a great pillar of Orthodoxy in the first millennium, [peasants or rural communities are high on respecting their elders and their ways --> we are now the retrograde peasants, so we're the pillar of Othodoxy now-a-days] before Carol the Great had the not-so-great idea of building them schools, `cuz he wanted them to be `cool` and evolved like the mighty East. So, after he build them schools of philosophy and theology, what appeared was the Scholastic movement, some two centuries later, with Thomas Aquinas et al. (heterodox Filioque, Papal Primacy based on philosophical monism, etc)
The reason that the 8th and 9th Synod haven't received so much attention is due precisely to the fact that they were NOT "in-house fighting":
-- The 8th was about the Filioque and Papal Primacy: we didn't split the Eastern Empire in two halves because of that, as we did in the case of the previous heresies which I've mentioned before. Nor did we fight amongst eachother like crazies about either one of these two things.
- The same goes for the 9th Synod, aka the Palamite Synod: it was never a dispute amongst ourselves; we didn't split the Eastern Empire in half about it; we didn't fight amongts eachother like crazies about it.
-- In case You still don't get it: the Orthodox don't think that Palamas' theology is a novum: it's in the Apostolic and Cappadocian and 'medieval' and what-have-you Fathers as well --> *You Yourself* mentioned John Damascene [600 yrs prior to Palamas]; but now You want to play a diferent tune, and say it started with Palamas: You can't stay consistent with Yourself during the course of ONE or TWO days ... but You DO pretend to have the very same mind like men that lived *millennia* before. (The case rests).
Rome and Romania are also ancient Christian communities; and so are Greece, Gaul, Georgia, Syria, North-Africa, Ethiopia and India: what's Your point? The only `recent converts` are the Germanic and Slavic tribes (the first to Catholicism in the 500s, and the later to Orthodoxy in the 1,000s).
- The West is Catholic.
- The East is Orthodox. [I'm here].
- The Orient is Monophysite.
- the three are NOT in communion.
(It's a good thing though that You didn't say or imply that we're in communion with the Jewish Orthodox or Presbyterians Orthodox as well) :-) :D
Lucian,
The ancient Christians did not agree in everything too. So the Prots are more closer to reality than the myth of so called Orthodox consensus.
For example, they did not agree on how the Second Coming should occur. Was it pre-millenial or not? They had their theories.
When one knows 1 Cor 11:19, it is not a big bother why there are several denominations.
Further, the number of denominations is not the result of sola scriptura. This is the result of freedom of religion, a product of democracies.
Just try finding multiple denominations in China, or better yet try to find multiple denominations (Christian) in Iran, let us see.
Multiple denominations is not a product of sola scriptura, it is a product of a free society.
LPC
I've explained the Fathers' view of the end-times to the Triabloguers before geting permanently banned from their blog for snapping at Jason Engwer. It basically goes like this: combine the Genesis chronology from chapters 5 and 11 (after the LXX) with Psalms 90:4 & 2 Peter 3:8. What You'll get is a "perfect parallelism" between the Creation narative and the reast of Biblical history, supporting the view of Christ as the second or last Adam (6th day, 5500 AM). The end of the world = 6000 AM = 500 AD. The 1,000 yrs reign = the 7th day = 1,000-1,500 AD. "the day without evening" (Revelation 21:25), the very threshold of Eternity. Obviously, this didn't happen exactly as expected: there was a kingdom on earth, all right, during that time-span, and it was a Christian one, but it wasn't THE Kingdom, but just an image thereof. I'm obviously talking here about Byzantium: 395-1453 AD. The Fathers aren't [meant to be] Prophets also. :-) That's why to talk today about chilliasm makes no sense.
"Uhm, again: we're not in communion with the Monophysites (whether Armenians, or Ethiopians, or otherwise), ... nor are they in communion with us either ... Nor is there any animosity between those that hold to the Old Calendar and those that hold to the New. (The Slavs are in communion with us and the Greeks). [The "Old Calendarists" and "Old Believers" are numerically insignifficant schisms]. In case You still don't understand: to be on the Old Calendar is one thing; and to be an "Old Calendarist" is quite another."
Oh in case you have not come out of your bunker, reconciliation has been underway for years between the Chalcedonians and the Orientals.
And wake up the smell the coffee ... the Old Calendrists do not recognise the New. Old Calendar and Old Calendrists are the same thing. You make a distinction without a difference here.
And the Barlaamite party was numerically insignifficant: compare this to the Arians, Monophysites, or Iconoclasts; as for Cyril Lukaris, his party consisted of just one man: namely himself. :-\
Wrong. The controversy stirred over Hesychasm was so significant that a synod had to be convened to settle the matter. Do you know what a synod is?
The Blessed Martyr Patriarch had his supporters, including students sent to study in Geneva, Germany and England. He commissioned Maximus Kallipolitis to translate the Bible into contemporary Greek. This shows your ignorance.
"I also don't get the "in-house fighting" comment: in case You haven't noticed, all the ancient heresies appeared in the East, and ran like wild-fire, and spread turm-oil. That's because we were the advanced and evolved ones back then, having many schools of philosophical and religious and scientifical thought. The West was in ruins. The East was an Empire of cities, while the West had only one metropolis: Rome. That's why Rome was such a great pillar of Orthodoxy in the first millennium, [peasants or rural communities are high on respecting their elders and their ways --> we are now the retrograde peasants, so we're the pillar of Othodoxy now-a-days] before Carol the Great had the not-so-great idea of building them schools, `cuz he wanted them to be `cool` and evolved like the mighty East. So, after he build them schools of philosophy and theology, what appeared was the Scholastic movement, some two centuries later, with Thomas Aquinas et al. (heterodox Filioque, Papal Primacy based on philosophical monism, etc)"
In case you don't know, in-house precisely means within that particular jurisdiction or communion. So, there, a lesson in English for you! You don't know what you're talking about, Lucian.
It shows. Poor grasp of details and picking up some cliches form your indoctrination class and buzz words and string these together here ... you still don't make any sense.
Look here, let me give you a lesson in Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy and evolution don't go together. Don't confuse Newman with Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy means PRESERVATION, not DEVELOPMENT which is the papal innovation. In Orthodoxy, reason can be a stumbling-block to revelation, unlike in Romanism. Experience precedes reason, reflecting ordo theologiae of persons having the priority of nature, ordo cognoscendi precedes the ordo essendi. This is why to attain tue knowledge of God, Orthodoxy has apophatic and cataphatic approaches. You call yourself Orthodox and you still insist on evolution which is a philosophical concept???
'The reason that the 8th and 9th Synod haven't received so much attention is due precisely to the fact that they were NOT "in-house fighting":
-- The 8th was about the Filioque and Papal Primacy: we didn't split the Eastern Empire in two halves because of that, as we did in the case of the previous heresies which I've mentioned before. Nor did we fight amongst eachother like crazies about either one of these two things.
- The same goes for the 9th Synod, aka the Palamite Synod: it was never a dispute amongst ourselves; we didn't split the Eastern Empire in half about it; we didn't fight amongts eachother like crazies about it.
-- In case You still don't get it: the Orthodox don't think that Palamas' theology is a novum: it's in the Apostolic and Cappadocian and 'medieval' and what-have-you Fathers as well --> *You Yourself* mentioned John Damascene [600 yrs prior to Palamas]; but now You want to play a diferent tune, and say it started with Palamas: You can't stay consistent with Yourself during the course of ONE or TWO days ... but You DO pretend to have the very same mind like men that lived *millennia* before. (The case rests).'
You DO pretend that the Essence-Energies distinction is apostolic and patristic. But you know full well that it is not so. The case on this issues rests.
And to repeat you have not proven me wrong at all. Anyone reading this blog will know so. Only in your warped mind that you have the truth. Truth CREATED by you Lucian.
While we are at it, how many types of union there is with the divine? How many modes? Is it only one, viz. via the Incarnate God only or through the Spirit also alongside? As I have said before the Essence-Energies distinction introduced by Palamism ADDS to the union between Christ and the human race.
Secondly, this somewhat implies inevitably that this union is a preliminary to and not part of the deification process itself, thus functioning much like the CREATED grace of Roman theology. So much for criticising Rome on this issue.
Thirdly, If Jesus is wholly God and wholly man in ONE Divine Person, then any union which takes place would transfer the same total and complete holiness to man (the communicatio idiomatum). This is so since the union between Jesus and man is not natural but personal - i.e. a union of persons, not nature (this reverses the Hypostatic Union of course) After all even the Orthodox recognise that deification requires the gnomic or PERSONAL will to be actualised.
"Rome and Romania are also ancient Christian communities; and so are Greece, Gaul, Georgia, Syria, North-Africa, Ethiopia and India: what's Your point? The only `recent converts` are the Germanic and Slavic tribes (the first to Catholicism in the 500s, and the later to Orthodoxy in the 1,000s).
- The West is Catholic.
- The East is Orthodox. [I'm here].
- The Orient is Monophysite.
- the three are NOT in communion.
(It's a good thing though that You didn't say or imply that we're in communion with the Jewish Orthodox or Presbyterians Orthodox as well) :-) :D"
What's your point, Lucian? ;-D As I have said before and I'll say it now, reconciliation and rapproachment has been taking place for years. You've missed the boat to Tuscany! ;-)
And Presbyterian Orthodox??? It's good thing you didn't Baptist Orthodoxy, huh? ;-D There is no such thing as Presbyterian Orthodox. There is a denomination well known amongst conservative Christian circles, the OPC, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Another lesson in theology, the Orthodox here does not refer to a particular Presbyterian tradition -it is supposedly confessional but an it's an adjective to precisely underscore its commitment to old-school Presbyterianism.
There are no multiple jurisdictions anathemasing one another in Orthodoxy? Lucian, you gotta be kidding YOURSELF! There are no divisions even within e.g. the Church of Greece? Call the pope the antichrist and YOU'll be amazed to see the reaction.
There's no division even within the Oriental??? It's not the just the Monophysites, but the Nestorians (Assyrian Church of the East), the Jacobites (Syrian), etc.
What's your point, Lucian?
Orthodoxy says that deification is a progression. Then what was the INCARNATION, the CROSS, RESURRECTION all about? The Light of Mt. Tabor is achieved. It is given. The Light is hidden under the present reality.
Listen here: FAITH COMETH BY HEARING. Looking at icons is not faith. Hearing the Word, that is faith. The contrast is not between things seen and unseen. The difference is precisely between hearing the Promise and the eschatological reality. You see how superior the true Protestant faith is to Orthodoxy, Lucian?
Uhm, ... I know what Orthodox Presbyterians are, A.S. :-\ No, there are no various Orthodox Churches anathemizing eachother. No, there are no divisions in the Orthodox Church of Greece. Yes, dialogue is going on, but we're not united with anyone You make mention of. No, Nestorians aren't Monophysites, and the two are obviously not in communion with eachother; nor with us; nor with Rome; nor are we with Rome; etc. As for You various interpretations of various Scriptural passages, they belong to You, not to us, and we're not quarreling amongst ourselves about their meaning.
In case You don't understand: there ARE divisions among the Protestants (various beliefs among them); but there are no divisions within Orthodoxy.
A.S.
Here again is Lucian believing the myth of Orthodox, "one", "holy", "apostolic" church.
They do not anathemize they just hit each other....anathemizing is just words, best to do it in action.
If any one wants a proof of myth of "one holy apostolic church", just watch this news video of a fist fight between Greek and Armenian Orthodox believers..
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24627868-401,00.html
LPC
How is the fact that we beat Armenians prove (in Your mind) that we are not one in faith? Armenians are not of the same faith as we: thye're Monophysites.
Again: we're one faith; Protestants aren't.
Again: Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox [a.k.a. Monophysites or Myaphysites], Jewish Orthodox, and Presbyterian Orthodox are FOUR DIFFERENT FAITHS ... in case You guys still didn't get it. :-\
Lucian,
Your reasoning is an absolute example of special pleading. You deny me the right to call Rick a Protestant but you do the same thing in denying the Armenians Orthodox.
If you are going to deny the name orthodox to Armenians, then you should let me deny the name Protestant to Rick. Comprende?
But let us go down to where the rubber meets the road.
Please tell me when you celebrate Christmas, what calendar you use and we will see if you are a "one holy, catholic, apostolic church"
LPC
L.P.,
my point is simple: they are not of the same religion as we are; neither side pretends to be as such. -- We don't say that we're all part of some invisible Church, denominational lines notwithstanding.
As for Rick, You can deny him to be a Luyheran anytime (I honestly don't think he'll mind, being a Baptist and all that). But to deny he's Protestant? I honestly don't think so ... I also wish You good luck proving to him and convincing from the Bible alone he's wrong and You're right.
The latest fist fights, brawl which broke out between the Armenians (non-Chalcedonian) and the canonical Greek orthodox over who has the right to use the church at Bethelehem is really an excellent reminder of how the Orthodox view each other!
the Orthodox view each other
Uhm, ... again, ... for the nth time: there's no "each other" here: we are two different faiths, two different Churches. :-\ None of us says to be one with the other different faith/Church.
The two Churches/faiths split over 1,500 yrs ago, just like we split with the Catholics 1,000 yrs ago, so it's hardly the latest news ...
Lucian,
Split? So the "True Church" marked by so called "Unity" splits? What duh?
What is the difference between an American Lutheran and Australian Lutheran? Just the nationality.
What is the difference between Greek Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox? Just the nationality.
See the analogy? Hope so.
So in our discussion, I like to ask --which is an oxymoron if I follow your reasoning --- which is the "true" Orthodox church? Would it be the Greek, Slavics, Russian?
The issue of the calendar in Orthodoxy, is one classic example of why the so called "one holy, catholic, apostolic church" marked by their " visible unity" is a myth. They can not even unite on a calendar.
So I ask, when do you celebrate Christmas? Dec 25 or Jan 5?
The moral is -- before some one point the pile of dung in our front yard, first he should look at the mountain of manure in his back yard.
LPC
Lastly Lucian,
Our confession is Jesus is the Christ. Our confession is not about the Church, it is about the Christ. We take comfort not in that we belong to a Church, we take comfort in that we have the Gospel, the promise of God for the forgiveness of our sins.
So when you wake up from the myth as some othe Orthodox ones did, will not ask you to join but believe in the confession that Jesus is the Christ too.
Solus Christus.
It is Christ alone, not Church alone. There is difference.
LPC
What is the difference between Greek Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox? Just the nationality
Uhm, ... again, for the n-th time: NO! The Armenians are Monophysites.
Or were You trying to say that the American Lutheran and Australian Lutheran are actually two different faiths, that You don't agree among eachother? (If so, then why did You bring this up, since I had no idea about it, nor did I bring it up).
Our confession is not about the Church, it is about the Christ.
Not if You're a (confessional) Lutheran: the Creed, aka the Confession of Faith, remember? Which is in the Catechisms, which are in the Book of Concord, remember?
They can not even unite on a calendar.
Uhm, ... we don't possess the same Calendar for the same reason we don't possess the same language or the same alphabet or the same customs or the same blood etc. But there is no division among us about it. (There are indeed schisms which hold to the Old calendar as if it were an article of faith, but they are not in communion with us, nor do we pretend to be 'united in spirit' with them, etc).
Lucian,
keep on contradicting yourself There are indeed schisms which hold to the Old calendar as if it
were an article of faith, but they are not in communion with us, nor do
we pretend to be 'united in spirit' with them, etc
So which Orthodox church is the one holy apostolic one? Would that be the Slavic, Greek or Russian?
That alone is a question that illustrates the division in that body, so which one?
This is what happens when you contradict the truth of the statement, you wind up contradicting yourself in every turn.
I am a confessional Lutheran in that I subscribe to the meaning (not the words only) of the words in the BoC as a faithful or accurate exposition of Scripture.
Jesus is the Christ as a confession is elaborated in the BoC.
Read the theme of the BoC - its theme is JBFA which is Christ alone saves us --- freely.
If you take away the label Lutheran or confessional or what ever at all, that would not make any difference to my identity.
LPC
The Orthodox Church is in the following countries: Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece and Romania. -- we are one faith. Your question is without sense. Some of these Churches are on the Old Calendar, and some are not, but none of them is in any schism with another. There are indeed schismatics [few in number], and who are on the Old Calendar, but they're not part of the Orthodox Church. (i.e., to be "on the Old Calendar" is *NOT* the same as to be an "Old Calendarist").
The Armenians that You've mentioned are a completely different faith, called Monophysitism, and they, together with the Copts (Egyptians), Syriacs, Ethiopians, and Thomists (Indians) broke away from us around the year 500 AD, some 1,500 yrs ago. Then, 500 yrs later, in 1,000 AD, the Great Schism happened, when Rome broke away from us.
And the Nestorians You've mentioned still exist in a few remote villages in Syria, and they are of another alltogether different faith called -obviously- Nestorianism .
And there are also Monotellists (Monoenergists) in and around a small monastic community in the Mount of Lebanon; but they're in communion with the Church of Rome.
Clearer? :-\
Lucian,
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_calendar.aspx
There are indeed schismatics [few in number], and who are on the Old
Calendar, but they're not part of the Orthodox Church. (i.e., to be "on
the Old Calendar" is *NOT* the same as to be an "Old Calendarist").
But actually my question does make sense because the point of the
question is that if you are so united, how come you can not even agree
on the calendar? Thus you argument that sola Scriptura produces schismaticism does not hold.
Then, 500 yrs later, in 1,000 AD, the Great Schism happened, when Rome broke away from us.
Actually the Bishop of Rome excommunicated your Bishop from what I could read.
I am sure if I ask those Orthodoxies about you, they would say you are
schismatics because you are not at fellowship with them.
Well I do not think of course I can convince you of the myth of "unity"
you pronounce, but many people who do not see is not because they do
not have eyes, they just refuse to see.
LPC
http://www.nestorian.org/
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/
Assyria is not in Syria. It's in modern-day Iraq.
come you can not even agree on the calendar?
Who is the "we" in this sentence? And what exactly do You mean by "agree" on the Calendar? (As in "agree" with the same language, or what? Or "agree" with the same nationality? Or with the same way of building Churches? Or with the same type of chanting?). And since when is the Calendar an article of the faith? (Does in say in the Creed "I believe in One Holy Calendar" ?)
As said, there are a few schismatics [i.e., they have the same faith as we do, but they refuse our communion with them]. (In case You don't now what few means, we have 20 million Orthodox here in Romania, as opposed to some 40,000 Old Calendarists).
But what I pointed out to You are not merely schisms: Lutheranism is NOT Calvinism, which is NOT Anglicaninsm, which is NOT Presbyterianism, which is NOT Baptism, which is NOT Adventism, which is NOT Pentecostalism -- they are different Protestant faiths. Nor are the numbers of NON-Lutheran confessions so procentually insignifficant.
Assyria is not in Syria
And Budapest is not Bucharest.
Sola Scriptura, applied, (text without meaning, whose meaning people in all good conscience and honesty want to deduce using the best of their wits and abillities) leads to a theological "Big Bang" with no end in sight.
We Orthodox are NOT pretending to be "united" ("in spirit", or in any other way) to either the Roman Catholics, Monophysites, or Nestorians -- neither do they (either with us, or with eachother)
Not how much you ramble, you know in your heart you have not proven anything. You have been exposed as ignorant of your own faith, for crying out loud(!) You said Budapest is not Bucharest. Sure. No one mentioned that in the first place. But you mentioned Syria as where the Nestorians are isolated or confined to!
So, you can pretend all you want, but you are here to just show the superiority of Orthodoxy which is a just a SHOW. As they say in America, it's show time!
I hope you catch the drift Lucian.
You have been exposed as ignorant of your own faith, for crying out loud(!)
With what occasion? What part of my faith am I so ignorant of? (The location of Syria and Assyria is part of geography, not Church dogma). I don't consider a lack of knowledge about exotic minutiae to be a "show of ignorance" -- do You? :-\ I'm neither Rain Man, nor Indiana Jones: I'm simply Craciun Lucian. If this is the best You've got, then ...
Post a Comment