Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.8K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 367
- Technical Topics 367
Ecumenism
Fr. Peter and I have been having a rousing discussion on Ecumenism and what it means to Orthodoxy. We disagree on this point, which makes the discussion very good. In my opinion the ecumenical movement, namely the WCC, is not beneficial in any way to our church. This following excerpt comes from the WCC website: "1.8 The challenge of what it means to be part of the universal church of Christ is posed in new and dramatic ways by the process of growing globalization. Every church must begin its examination of its ecumenical relationships by self-examination: in its life and witness in this global context has it been consistently guided by the common calling to unity, mission and service?"
I feel by accepting this "universal" church negates the use of the creed, since Catholic (universal) is now defined by anyone who believes in Christ. Is this of God? Uniting everyone to one Church? We all believe in Christ, whom we share no common opinion seems to be the motto of the WCC.
Many of these other denominations are full of heresies, could be possibly be one? These people refuse to recognize the Divine Liturgy, which was given to us by God, and since God is being worshipped in heaven at all times and in every hour, they would be doing liturgy(Rev. 8). How can we be united with denominations that reject correct worship?
I believe this to be a trick as the antichrist will need the political, financial, and religious all united for him to quickly take power, as his time will be short.
Being a member of something would mean you agree with its goals and or agenda. I know the idea is to share our faith with other denominations but at what price? Should I become a member of the church of satan so as to "share Orthodoxy" with them? Should I become a mason and do the same? How about the Rainbow Coalition, there are many homosexual Christians there I could share Orthodoxy with, or even Al qaida, should I join up with them in an attempt to unite and share my faith with them? Of course not, neither should be part of the WCC who clearly has an agenda, wether they know it or not, to make all religion relative, we can all worship different ways and it doesnt matter, we can all believe what we want to, its the same God right? Quite a resounding NO, in my opinion. Hopefully we will get a nice discussion going without any nonsense.
I feel by accepting this "universal" church negates the use of the creed, since Catholic (universal) is now defined by anyone who believes in Christ. Is this of God? Uniting everyone to one Church? We all believe in Christ, whom we share no common opinion seems to be the motto of the WCC.
Many of these other denominations are full of heresies, could be possibly be one? These people refuse to recognize the Divine Liturgy, which was given to us by God, and since God is being worshipped in heaven at all times and in every hour, they would be doing liturgy(Rev. 8). How can we be united with denominations that reject correct worship?
I believe this to be a trick as the antichrist will need the political, financial, and religious all united for him to quickly take power, as his time will be short.
Being a member of something would mean you agree with its goals and or agenda. I know the idea is to share our faith with other denominations but at what price? Should I become a member of the church of satan so as to "share Orthodoxy" with them? Should I become a mason and do the same? How about the Rainbow Coalition, there are many homosexual Christians there I could share Orthodoxy with, or even Al qaida, should I join up with them in an attempt to unite and share my faith with them? Of course not, neither should be part of the WCC who clearly has an agenda, wether they know it or not, to make all religion relative, we can all worship different ways and it doesnt matter, we can all believe what we want to, its the same God right? Quite a resounding NO, in my opinion. Hopefully we will get a nice discussion going without any nonsense.
Comments
Why do you generalize the thought that by preaching to other or trying to get to them, being orthodox and them being ANYTHING and not only of any other denomination, we accept everything they say?
They have done mistakes, ok....who doesn't. They have committed faults about the Son, anddd......The Son said: "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:32 NKJ) So if we don't lend our hands to them and bring the true Christ to them we would be disobeying Christ's commandment. Not only through His commandments to all Christians to preach but also because of the clergy men who are filled with the Holy Spirit whom they must let work through them for the good of others.
Just some simple thoughts and one more thing please......my church priest was teaching about the Church history and how the Arab conquest brought the Egypt to be filled with more Muslims then Christians after it was the opposite. And He gave a simple reason that explains all of this: "But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. (Matthew 12:25 NKJ)
I would love a simple and short answer please.....i just can't take long answers that will confused me.
it seems to me to be unfair to categorise an organisation in complete contradiction to its stated aims. You appear to have stated several times that the WCC has the aim of becoming one world church or religion. Yet the WCC very clearly and explicitly states as its #1 declaration.
The WCC is not and must never become a superchurch.
You then suggest that the aim of the WCC is to unite all churches without any shared belief. Yet the WCC #2 statement says.
The purpose of the WCC is not to negotiate unions between churches (which can be done only by the churches themselves).
and
Membership in the WCC does not imply that a church treats its own conception of the church as merely relative.
and
Membership in the WCC does not imply the acceptance of a specific doctrine concerning the nature of church unity.
It is not helpful to your argument to state things about the WCC which are shown to be entirely unfounded and untrue. It is clearly possible to be a member Church of the WCC - as the Coptic Orthodox Church is - without accepting the need for a WCC super-Church, without entering into a union with any other community, without changing our view that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and without accepting any other communities view of what Christian unity means. This is all very clear so I am not sure why you are ignoring it.
It is also very clear that in the time which the WCC has existed the number of Protestant groups has increased and not decreased, so it would not seem to have achieved its secret aim of creating one world church at all.
It is necessary for me to ask again whether you think our holy father Pope Shenouda should be condemned for having been the President of the WCC for many years, and whether you think a great many of our bishops and priests should be condemned for praying with members of other Christian groups, and also participating in various ecumenical groups.
I would appreciate a clear answer. Do you condemn our patriarch, bishops and priests for these activities?
Father Peter
You want my clear answer as to if I should condemn our bishops and our Pope? I am not God, how can I judge? Do I think they are making a mistake, of course and I am allowed to voice my opinion. Have I not provided several sources? Believe me over time ecumenism will erode Orthodoxy. Again this all plays a part in the arrival of the antichrist, I hopefully have made myself clear. I would have quoted some good sources for that but you didnt seem to recieve them well last time.
You see Pope Shenouda, and several Bishops and priest I know, have wrote against protestantism, making their stance very clear. It would be difficult to condemn people who strongly disagree with protestantsim, so depsite the WCC's obvious agenda, I would find it difficult to believe they would all the sudden want to be one with them. What I do think is much worse, is clergy who believe protestantism is the same, or part of the body of Christ, which is to imply that they are Orthodox. It also implies a number of other things to accept such heresies as Christian, that is much worse in my opinion.
Are you referring to me when you say?
What I do think is much worse, is clergy who believe protestantism is the same, or part of the body of Christ, which is to imply that they are Orthodox. It also implies a number of other things to accept such heresies as Christian, that is much worse in my opinion.
This is exactly what His Holiness has said about other churches which are not part of our Orthodox communion. I have said no more than he has often done. I have never said the Protestantism is the same as Orthodoxy, I am not sure why you would twist my words. Saying that a person who loves Christ has a relationship with Christ is not the same as saying everything they believe is Orthodox. His Holiness has said this about the Roman Catholic Church which our bishops have called a sister Church. In the Offical Dialogue between the Oriental Orthodox and the Reformed Protestant Churches, His Holiness and HE Metropolitan Bishoy with other episcopal participants have said with the Protestant participants..
Impelled by the prayer of our Lord "that all may be one" (Jn 17.21) and helped by the Holy Spirit, we, the participants in the Oriental Orthodox-Reformed dialogue, seek to understand each other's traditions and grow together towards holistic Christian fellowship and visible unity.
...
The representatives of both families were of the opinion that they and their respective churches were enthusiastic about the possibility of engaging in dialogue and were committed to pursuing it with all sincerity and prayer so that these two families could move towards greater Christian fellowship.
...
In offering this statement, we recognize the mystery of God's act in Christ and seek to express that we have shared the same authentic Christological faith in the one incarnate Lord.
This shows very clearly that our Orthodox Churches believe that we have much in common with some Protestants, and with Roman Catholics, and with the Byzantine Church. I am saying no more than our Pope and Patriarch teaches. This view does not preclude criticism of the views of all of these groups. It does not mean that we have to say that these groups are Orthodox or what they teach is Orthodox. But if a group says the same as we do about Christ then our Patriarch and bishops show that this is a matter to give thanks to God for. I hesitate to disagree with HE Metropolitan Bishoy.
You have said - those who pray with heretics should be excommunicated and deposed. His Holiness has served for many years as the President of the WCC, he prays with those from other groups, he speaks of such other groups even as sister Churches. I do not see how His Holiness can escape the judgement you have implied. I follow the example and teaching of His Holiness and our bishops, this allows for both a criticism of many aspects of the teachings of those outside our Orthodox communion, but also a recognition that they are in some relationship with Christ.
As for not allowing threads criticising Protestantism, that is rather different to asking you to provide a clear answer about your own views.
Father Peter
If the goal is to unite through our common belief in Christ then you atleast admit that there is some kind of attempt at unity. How can we be one based only on Christ, that itself is a very protestant idea. If we are unified in our common belief in Christ only then yes the rest of Orthodoxy will be relative, what is the use of doing what we do? Again my question is, what is the point? Why are we seeking unity? And why is it that you insist on me condemning our bishops? I most certainly disagree with them strongly on this stance, I let truth speak for itself. I am not a judge Fr. Peter, as I said before it comes down to interpretation, are protestants heretics. Also if you dont mind, I would like you to start citing your sources. So one more question, should we set aside the established foundations of our church, the early church fathers, in order to accomplish unity based on false pretenses? Here is unity, when everyone becomes Orthodox. This wont happen in the liberal WCC.
But as you state, it is not the view of our bishops, with whom you disagree.
When His Holiness speaks of the Roman Catholic Church as a sister Church I am not sure what he can mean other than in some real sense they are united to Christ. The reason that our Fathers such as St Timothy of Alexandria and St Severus insisted that those coming from the heresy of Chalcedonianism should not be baptised or chrismated was because he believed that in some sense they were part of the Body of Christ, otherwise he would have insisted that they were all baptised and chrismated. The great majority of those who were members of heretical groups were not received by baptism, because these were also considered in some dilute sense to be part of the Body of Christ, otherwise it would impossible for their baptism to be considered Christian.
This is not the same as saying that the teachings of these heretical groups are not defective in a variety of ways. But the clear practice of our Fathers - and the majority opinion of Orthodoxy through the millenia has not been that of St Cyprian - is that there is some gracious activity of God in the communities separated from the Orthodox Church. This is why our sister Orthodox Churches accept the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church as Christian. This is why our bishops have all agreed that the Byzantine Church is in some sense a true Church despite 1500 years of separation from our Orthodox communion.
You keep referring to St John Chrysostom and his writing against those who attended Jewish worship, but clearly the majority of bishops do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church, or the Byzantine Church, for instance, are another religion such as that of the Jews, so I am not sure why you are now referring vaguely to those who are evil and practice witchcraft? Are you now saying that those who are outside our Orthodox communion are in that state? This is not the teaching of our ancient Fathers, nor of our present ones. They are clear, there are errors in these other groups, and their faith is defective - but Christ is not defective and is at work in many hearts beyond our formal Orthodox boundaries - otherwise I could not have become Orthodox.
Father Peter
By the way, it was only as of recent that the RCC started participating in ecumenism, I am not even sure if they are members of the WCC yet, perhaps you know better than I. Last I knew they were not.
You can't have it both ways. Either a group is a member of our visible Orthodox communion or it is not. Protestantism is only a variety of Roman Catholicism, this is a well known understanding of Orthodox commentators. Instead of having a Pope as the head of the Church, each person is made their own Pope. But functionally it is the same Church. Protestants are a form of Catholics - that is why they are Protestants after all, they are seeking to reform Catholicism.
You cannot separate out those groups you want to condemn for not being part of the Church and leave some other groups who are equally not part of our Orthodox Church.
Many Protestant groups have sacraments so I am not sure why you are again lumping ALL Protestants together. Both Lutheran, Anglicans and Methodists are sacramentalists. Even some evangelical Protestant groups also insist on the sacrament of baptism as necessary for salvation. Even Calvin taught that baptism of an infant bestowed a saving grace.
As far as your use of St Cyprian goes, all those who are not part of our Oriental Orthodox communion are not members of the Church at all. You cannot pick and choose which groups you will apply your logic to. Why would you attack the Roman Catholic Church - well because you are the one who has said that anyone outside our Church is not a Christian and is not part of the Body of Christ - you said this. The Roman Catholic Church is not part of our visible Church therefore it must logically come under the condemnation you propose - even though you may not wish to say so.
And if you are making a distinction because the Roman Catholic Church has sacraments, well so do the Protestant churches of the Lutherans, Methodists and Anglicans. Their worship is also liturgical. In some cases much more liturgical than many modern Roman Catholic Churches.
So you must decide who you are excluding from the Body of Christ - if it is only Protestants then on what basis? It must be for some specific reason and not simply because you have lumped them all together. A traditional Anglican is nothing like an African Pentecostal for instance, and may well hold doctrines which are almost identical to a Roman Catholic - I know this to be the case. So if it is based on whether or not a group has sacraments then you must also include many Lutherans, Methodists and Anglicans. What about the Old Catholics? Are they to be considered in some way part of the Body of Christ or not, they separated from the Romna Catholic Church in the 19th century over the doctrinal developments which took place in Rome?
If you are considering the Roman Catholics and Byzantines as special cases then it would be helpful if you were very clear about why they are different, even though they are also separated from our Orthodox Church.
Father Peter
As much as I adore St. Mark of Ephesus and his fierce defense of Orthodoxy, Im not in any position to cast judgment on anyone. Your argument is flawed to the core by suggesting that protestants are part of the catholic church, even the early protestants were not part of the catholic church AFTER they split from it. The argument is absurd, I have to accept protestants if I accept the RCC. Well clearly I disagree with many things in the RCC, what i clearly state that I do agree with is they worship liturgically and believe in the sacraments. How am I to accept the protestants? Should I accept anyone who believes in Christ and then makes up the rest?
The reason Catholicism is different, and I have no idea why I have to explain this, is quite simple, history. Quite literally no protestant denominations existed until the 16th century. There were heresies of course, which are now reflected in many of these denominations. Here is my question to you, why convert to Orthodoxy if its all the same in your eyes? Maybe it is not but you have refused to give me your view of protestantism, so I am going by what you are posting.
If you can provide an answer then it will be possible to discuss whether it is reasonable for you to decide that St Cyprian applies to some and not others.
Mark of Ephesus is not a saint in our Orthodox Church. At the time of his life he was separated from our Orthodox Church. Again, by the teaching of St Cyprian he was not a Christian. You cannot pick and choose who you like and who you don't. If you are going to use St Cyprian then it must be the case that all those who are not part of our Orthodox Church are not Christian at all.
Protestants do not protest the Church. That is just not true. They protested against the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church such as the sale of indulgences.
If you are unable to say which Protestant denominations have the sacraments and which don't then it just shows that you are unfairly lumping them all together so that you can condemn them all together. My local Episcopalian priest believes in the sacraments and practices the sacraments, and actually has icons in his Church. You cannot lump him together with a Pentecostal, and if you choose to do so then your argument is shown to be unfair and untrue.
Many of these protestant groups are non-sacramental - but what of those who are not? What of those that do believe the sacraments are means of grace? You try to dismiss this by saying that none of them believe that any more, but that is not a fair criticism. Many of them plainly do hold to a sacramental view of at least baptism and the eucharist.
Just because Catholicism used to be Orthodox 1500 years ago doesn't mean that it is now. And since it is not Orthodox now it is not so very different from the Lutheran Church which is not Orthodox now, or the Episcopal Church which is not Orthodox now. All of these groups hold doctrines which are considered heretical. I am unable to see how the heresy which the Catholic Church teaches is OK and does not disqualify it from being considered Christian, but the heresy of the Lutherans does disqualify it from being considered Christian.
Each of these groups believe in the sacraments and has liturgical worship, and as I have said, many Episcopal Churches have a much more liturgical form of worship than many Catholic Churches. So I cannot see on what basis you consider Catholics to be Christian, and Lutherans and Episcopalians to not be Christian. Especially since many Episcopalians actually believe in Catholic doctrine more than many Catholics. Please don't use the argument that there are too many different beliefs for you to consider. Let us just compare your attitude towards Lutheran/Episcopalians and Catholics.
Can you explain how you distinguish between Lutherans/Episcopalians and Catholics. Let me also add that Lutherans and Episcopalians do not believe in the pre-tribulation rapture.
Father Peter
As I told you before I am in no position to judge anyone, I have repeatedly told you that I am however pointing out flaws in protestantism, not the people. You mention many churches that supposedly use liturgy, which ones do they use? Also you mention the anglican church, which ordains homosexuals. So how sacred are the sacraments in that church that a homosexual can administer it. Again, why convert Fr. Peter? Why did you convert? What is the sense in that when its much easier not to? Also if you say the Creed, then you surely should believe in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church right? While other churches say this very creed that does not make them Orthodox. You are using circular reasoning to try and prove this argument wrong. Protestantism was founded by men not Christ, history teaches us that. So it is men making their own rules and telling God how He is going to be worshipped as opposed to God dictating how He is to be worshipped.
Please do not go in circles in order to trick me by twisting my words around. You are assuming I said things I didnt and misinterpreting others. Being a preist does not give you the right to do this, I am sorry if this offends you but I feel I have been very clear and am very upset that you would do such a thing. At any rate that will probably get me in trouble.
Let me try and clarify what I understand you are saying, so that I am not misunderstanding.
You have quoted a canon, and said that it expresses your views, which says that anyone praying with a heretic should be excommunicated and deposed.
You have then said that you disagree with the behaviour of our patriarch and bishops because they do pray with members of other groups, but you do not wish to go as far as to say they should be excommunicated and deposed.
You have spoken of Protestant churches being a seat of Satan, and not Christian, but then said that the Catholic Church and Byzantine Church are not the subject of your criticism.
Now that you have clarified things I understand that you do not believe anyone is a Christian who is not a member of our Oriental Orthodox Church and this includes Roman Catholics and Byzantines.
You are then criticising me for considering that in some sense some of these groups are Christian, which is what His Holiness and our bishops, including HE Metropolitan Bishoy have said. I cannot really argue this point more than I have - it is what our bishops teach. Why did His Holiness sign a document calling the Roman Catholic Church a sister Church?
Why did I convert? Because I believe that the fulness of life in Christ is only found in the Orthodox Church. That does not require me to believe that the community I grew up in is a 'seat of Satan', which is what you keep insisting it is, or even worse, that it was engaged in witchcraft.
The problem with your argument is that you are trying to insist that because Orthodoxy is the fulness of life and truth then every other group must be entirely evil - a seat of Satan. You have used this phrase many times and it is your signature. That doesn't wash. It isn't what our bishops teach. In all of the documents produced by our own Orthodox Church when it has been dialoguing with those outside of Orthodoxy there is a clear celebration of the measure of truth which is held in common, and the only possible reason for His Holiness Pope Shenouda and our bishops praying with Roman Catholics and others, including serious Protestants, is that they believe that these people, separated from our Church, nevertheless worship the same Christ, and even, as in the case of the Roman Catholics and Byzantines, that they are a sister Church.
You may not agree with Pope Shenouda on this, but I know that I do.
Father Peter
I do strongly believe that Protestantism is of satan, it is clearly part of the falling away or apostasy St. Paul speaks of, as well as the strong delusion. Again I am not attacking the people, as you always seem to think I am, but the belief they adhere to. Many people fall into heresy without even knowing it. As I said before the canons speak for themselves, why dont you complain to the authors, I am in no position to depose someone. Your defense is, Pope Shenouda and other Bishops pray with them so should they be deposed? You have shown little to no evidence that Protestantism is part of the body of Christ. It is obvious that this falling away St. Paul speaks of began with the RCC and continued with protestantism.
You have time and time again ignored my statement that it comes down to interpretation. Are they heretics? Many of these Protestants are ignorant of Orthodoxy and Christian history in general, so could someone be considered a heretic who is unknowingly participating in a heretical church? If confronted with the truth of Orthodoxy and that particular protestant denies it for their own version of the truth, then yes quite clearly they have falling into heresy and are therefore heretics.
I do not know the reasoning behind Pope Shenouda or other bishops praying with protestants so I feel it would be unwise for me to comment on it. If you would like I can give to you Fr. Mikhail's email, he is a close associate and personal friend of the Pope who from his own mouth said "There is no salvation outside of the Orthodox church." You can question him on that, he is a great theologian and will give you a much better explanation than mine.
If you want to know my view then ask me, please stop trying to trick me through circular reasoning and misinterpretations. I feel I have backed up my argument very well, if I havent I will give you plenty more sources so that you may better understand the importance of staying true to Orthodoxy.
Ioannes,
You can't have it both ways. Either a group is a member of our visible Orthodox communion or it is not. Protestantism is only a variety of Roman Catholicism, this is a well known understanding of Orthodox commentators. Instead of having a Pope as the head of the Church, each person is made their own Pope. But functionally it is the same Church. Protestants are a form of Catholics - that is why they are Protestants after all, they are seeking to reform Catholicism.
You cannot separate out those groups you want to condemn for not being part of the Church and leave some other groups who are equally not part of our Orthodox Church.
Many Protestant groups have sacraments so I am not sure why you are again lumping ALL Protestants together. Both Lutheran, Anglicans and Methodists are sacramentalists. Even some evangelical Protestant groups also insist on the sacrament of baptism as necessary for salvation. Even Calvin taught that baptism of an infant bestowed a saving grace.
Father, I apologize for stepping in on this debate, but I felt overwhelmingly compelled to comment. You stated that Roman Catholics and Protestants are the same; I must agree with this as in the sense that both have rejected and scorned their perceived Mother(s). But Protestants are, by no means, reformers in any sense. Men like Jan Hus and Martin Luther were reformers. When your Mother is not acting like the wife She ought to be, you must guide her back to the proper ways, NOT reject her, call her a whore, and abandon her. The Protestant "Reformation" was not a reformation in any sense, it was a rejection of authority, the establishment of a new standard, the modern commonplace Anarchistic Christianity.
Shall you compare a government like the historical British Empire to the semi-Anarchistic tribal Goths, Vandals, Franks, Prussians, Suedes, Alamanni, and all other Germanic tribes which bore no mark of loyalty or order as they swept past the Rhine and into Gaul, Italy, and Spain, and, yes, even into northern Byzantine lands? Allow me to restate the comparison without digression: Can you find any comparison between the British Empire and the Anarchistic Germanic tribes? If no comparison can stand, then how shall you compare the highly organized, hierarchical Roman Catholic Church with the countless disorganized, counter-hierarchical Protestant sects?
The words of the Fathers can be twisted in any such manner that they can be used in defense of any new dogma, and I shall, for the sake of not offending my esteemed members of the Coptic Orthodox Church, avoid the example of Saint Cyril in relation to Monophysitism and Miaphysitism. We must recall that the context in which each Father was speaking; they were addressing the heresies of their time. At the same time, we must also stand on the ground that we each have the complete intention of preserving the faith of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
I will not condemn anyone for his or her faith, since it is in no means my place to do so; but I will defend my own faith to the death if it need be. By stating such, I am condemning other religions, but not their followers. I will speak with a man and explain how he is mistaken, but I will never state that he is damned for his mistaken beliefs.
We must defend our faith from the threat of Ecumenism, the equality of perceived truths. No statement can be both true and false, therefore, if one statement is true, an opposing statement cannot be true.
An argument weighing generalizations is good for the sake of simplicity, but generalizations can stray from a proper understanding of the situation. Hence, I shall provide a specific example; consider a man known as Benny Hinn. He was once Greek Orthodox, but something inspired him to move on to "bigger and better" things. He is now a member of the Charismatic movement, performing miracles in the name of the Holy Spirit. He has been sued countless times for unbelievable fraud. He waves his hand with a simple "fire on you" and the entire cheering audience collapses. At one "Healing," he "healed" a crippled woman in a wheelchair so that she could walk! (Many of the actual crippled people were found and they revealed that Benny Hinn would hide them away before the show to work miracles on perfectly healthy members of his flock) Benny Hinn began a fundraiser to fund an airplane with a chapel in it, to become the first "international church." This is what protestantism is riddled with, and Hinn has proven an embarrassment to us Greeks.
With all this in mind, one cannot easily give protestantism any sense of equality to even the Catholic Church, let alone our most blessed Mother Orthodox Church.
I do not believe I have ever said that Protestantism is the same or equal to Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy. It is clearly not. But again you are choosing to conflate a man like Benny Hinn with those who seek to be godly.
I think I will withdraw from this thread now.
Father Peter
Dear Mixalhs,
I do not believe I have ever said that Protestantism is the same or equal to Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy. It is clearly not. But again you are choosing to conflate a man like Benny Hinn with those who seek to be godly.
I think I will withdraw from this thread now.
Father Peter
Fr. Peter I am not sure as to why you are withdrawing, I thought this was a very enlightening discussion. You have told me that you believe Protestants are part of the body of Christ and that they are Christians. I also assume that you would consider the RCC the same. Since you are also making generalizations that all protestants are Christian because they believe Christ we should apply this logic to everyone that believes Christ. That being said, using this logic, we come to the conclusion that Satan and his angels are indeed Christian. (James 2:19) The whole book of James condemns this idea that all we need is faith or as Luther put it "Sola Fide". So it seems quite absurd to say that protestants are Christian because they believe in Christ. Or even the argument that, well they are similar to us and broke away from the RCC so it is ok, they are the same, to paraphrase your previous statements. Mike is correct in saying that if one argument is true, how can the opposing argument be true as well, this is what I have been telling you continually. By engaging in this type of activity, ecumenism, we will destroy our own selves, maybe not now but eventually ecumenism and this liberal mentality with erode away our very foundations. We must be careful to stray from the "universal salvation" heresy. It stems from the idea that people dont believe Christ would condemn countless people because they didnt willingly obey Him. You have yet again failed to answer my question, why are we doing this? What is the purpose? How does this benefit God and our church?
I think Fr. Peter withdrew because he does not have an argument. He reduced himself to trying to get me to condemn others, after scolding me previously for what he called, condemning others. I am thankful that Fr.Peter has let this conversation go on as long as it has.
There is not much more I can say. You are criticising our Pope and Patriarch for engaging in ecumenical activity and you are saying that it is a liberal mentality, and therefore that Pope Shenouda must also have a liberal mentality.
I am not sure I can continue in a way that would change your opinion if you disagree with His Holiness. I have to be honest and say that in the 16 years I have been Orthodox I have not met a single person who shared your opinion.
Surely that must give you some cause to be more circumspect in what you say. I have never met an Orthodox Christian who shares your views, yet I have met many bishops personally who disagree with you, and clearly our Pope and Patriarch does.
Your position is - "it is absurd to say Protestants, [and Roman Catholics by implication, and Byzantines] are Christian because they believe in Christ". Pope Shenouda, and the leaders of all of our Orthodox Churches, and all the bishops of all our Churches of whim I have heard, disagree with you. Otherwise we would not all have signed Synodal agreements saying that some of these groups are indeed Christian, and even sister Churches. They may certainly have many errors. I do not disagree with that.
But the way in which you approach the fact of these errors is not the same as our Fathers in the past, nor our Fathers in the present. You are not disagreeing with me, but with all of the Synods of our Orthodox Churches.
Father Peter
You make the claim also that our early church fathers dont agree with this stand, then prove it. I am tired of your babbling on and on about how Bishops disagree with my standpoint, you have yet to produce one shred of evidence to reinforce your claim, while its very clear I have, and you either demonize them (St Cyprian) or just plain ignore them (St John's Discourses against Judaizers). I am amazed that you do not even take into consideration that this could at any point be true, you just write it off. You keep telling me how no Orthodox believes this (a generalization) so it must be false. Or how our leaders do not, as if for some reason they are not open to error or you have a Roman Catholic view of our Pope. He certainly has made mistakes in the past, resulting in his exile, so it would not be wrong to say either he or I could possibly be wrong. The reason you are not convincing is because you havent even attempted to prove anything, you had tried to tie me up in my words and trick me somehow, but cannot show anything besides your own opinion, your own interpretation, and our bishops. I hopefully one day will discuss it with them all, but until then I am not going to condemn anyone. By the way, I know several people who share this view, priests, monks, and bishops. I dont name drop because it just looks foolish and proves nothing.
I wish you much blessing from God, but I do not wish to continue this discussion with you.
You agree that you disagree with Pope Shenouda and our bishops.
You also say of His Holiness Pope Shenouda... .
You also agree that... I am happy to agree with Pope Shenouda, and I do not believe I can change your opinion therefore it seems pointless to continue to argue. But I am grateful that you have made clear that I am agreeing with Pope Shenouda in my views. It does not seem to me that I need to prove anything since I agree with our bishops. Surely you must take your disagreement up with them.
Father Peter
I truly wish that you would present some sort of evidence since you are trying to convince me then prove this issue false. If I am wrong I will repent, apologize and rid myself of these falsehoods. I am just trying to defend the church as much as I hope you are, and every Copt for that matter. I personally feel I have left you no other option with the evidence presented and that is why you choose not to indulge in this conversation, but again if proven false I will indeed repent. And if you choose to ignore this debate from now on, thank you atleast for letting us discuss a matter without being authoritative about it.
I have not condemned St Cyprian at all, simply said that his views have not been taken as the basis of Orthodox practice towards those from other Christian groups. That is not to condemn him, it is simply to report what is historically the case. Even the Byzantines tend to accept Roman Catholics as Christians. There have been many occasions when our Orthodox Church has been temporarily reconciled with either the Byzantines or the Roman Catholics, on all of these occasions the Byzantines and Roman Catholics were considered as Christians and were not baptised. It was not the practice of St Timothy and St Severus and all of our Fathers to baptise, chrismate or ordain those coming from the Byzantine or Catholic Churches, even though they were anathematised. They were always accepted as those who were Christian in some sense. So again, and finally, I am in agreement with our Fathers of the past, and with our bishops of the present.
You mention Fr. Athanasius Militanios, and I have not listened to him or read his works, but I am guessing by his name that he in not a member of the Orthodox Church, but is a Byzantine. If he is not a member of our Orthodox Church then I assume that you consider him not to be a Christian, and if he is not a Christian I am not sure why you are using him as an authority, unless it is in an academic sense?
Father Peter
I greet you as such for a particular reason and hope to expound on this during this post. Let me begin by saying that the words, thoughts and actions of an Orthodox Christian should be founded in love, pure love, that is, love as shown to us from God. Discussions, at times beneficial and at times inflammatory, must have a common purpose, a goal in mind, namely that we grow with one another in the faith, showing one another love, unrequited love, as Christ showed unto us. When Christ’s disciples did not understand what He was saying, He did not immediately thrash them and remove them from His circle of followers; His actions were done with love, and I hope that we have the same intent in our actions and our discussions when we speak with one another on these forums.
Ioannes, firstly, I ask deeply for your forgiveness before I continue typing this message. I must begin by saying that I commend you in one point, specifically that you love the Orthodox Church and wish to protect it and its teachings at all costs. I understand where you are coming from. Having said that, I pray and deeply hope that you see that this is the intent of Fr. Peter as well. I think both you and Fr. Peter will resoundingly agree on one thing: if there is a threat to the Church in which the teachings of the Church will be compromised, it will not be acceptable by any standards. Let us take this as the basis of our discussion.
As I recall, the Jews and Christians lived peaceably with one another in the early centuries; indeed, we know that some Christians continued to practice Judaic actions prior to the Council of Jerusalem. It is thus evident that there was not simply a turning against of Judaism and its people. It is only after many decades and centuries that we begin to see evidence of a struggle being overtly manifest between the two groups. When the Fathers wrote concerning the Jews, we must keep two things in mind: that the Fathers wrote out of love, admonishing those with the Spirit of God guiding them, and that the Fathers resorted to this sort of expression only after it was apparent that the position of the Jews was not in line with that of Christians. As a father who grows upset and weary of his son who does not obey him, he attempts to discipline him, but this discipline is done out of love.
I have seen it written within these pages that we all acknowledge that several other sects of Christianity are not entirely aware either of the existence or the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Should we not take this as an opportunity to educate those who are around us? We say that they have the resources at their fingertips to be able to access the Truth, but perhaps we should reflect on ourselves when we say this… we too have these resources, but do we make use of them, or do we simply admit to their existence and claim them for ourselves, as though we are placing a fine antique on a shelf without ever looking at it and its intricacies.
I think it is also incredibly important that we recognize that Fr. Peter is here willingly to assist us in our path towards salvation. He does not present himself as a dictator, or the end-all-be-all, but he is a shepherd who seeks to guide us towards God and His love. We all may learn from one another on this journey, but recognize that those who teach do so out of love, and we too must similarly do so out of love. I understand that when we are very passionate about a certain subject, we tend to use very emotionally charged language, but I ask that we take a moment before responding to any post on this site or to any comment that is made at any point in our lives before provided a retort. At this time in the Great Lent, should we not be incredibly wary of what it is that comes out of our mouths? Did Christ Himself not say that it is not what goes into a man’s mouth that defiles a man but what comes out? Perhaps we can take this to be immediately instructive within our own lives, learning to gain mastery over our emotions.
I have seen on one of the many posts here that there is an idea that some contention exists between what is actually believed in the Orthodox Church. Note that even before an Ecumenical Council took place, which was mentioned earlier in one of these posts, that the Fathers of the Church would write to the accused, seeking to discover whether or not they actually believed in what they believed and to clarify this at great length. Having said that, let us take a look at our own Fathers. A single sentence cannot simply be extracted from the writings of the Fathers and used as the basis of an entire mentality; this was made clearly evident by Fr. Peter’s post, who wishes to read the entire works before commenting on what is said to be believed in this particular case. With this in mind, let us not simplify the great teachings of Orthodoxy when they come to such detailed topics. Great men have spent their lives explaining this to us; I don’t think that it is appropriate to simply agree or negate their positions by glancing at what they said for a few moments before immediately drawing conclusions and commenting.
We are all here for the same purpose, and that is to learn and to share with one another what we have learned through words of love, words that are conducive to growth. This is a blessed time when we seek to grow spiritually, but not at the expense of tearing down those who are around us.
I beg for all of your forgiveness and hope that no one takes offense to what I have written. I simply wish that we strive to discuss things with one another with a single goal in mind: to come closer to God, both our own selves as well as those around us.
Pray for me in this time of repentance and self-reflection, that I may be able to learn to control my emotions and my tongue, seeking to acquire the light of Christ and emanating that light and love to those who are around me,
childoforthodoxy
Unfortunately this Holy Orthodox Church is being liberalized by weak and unknowing clergy who think they are doing Gods work in seeking unity with those who have fallen away, despite St Paul and St Peter's several warnings against these apostates. What communion does dark have with light? These denominations are directly opposed to us in doctrinal matters. The beginning of the "reformation" shows the creation of many new doctrines that are completely opposite of the Orthodox, and yet we are to believe Fr. Peter when he says they are Christian. Well he must be right because other clergy agree with him, although scripture does not and a multitude of Saints writings do not. Fr. Peter you are intellectually defunct, failing to present any clear argument as to why Protestantism is Christian. Again by your absurd logic that would mean that Satan, our adversary, and his angels are in fact Christian. (James 2:19)
^
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20)
I don't know if anyone else sees the gross irony in the posts by the above 'individual' (I use the term very loosely). This is an 'individual' who has admitted to being a former Protestant. Based on his posts, it is clearly apparent that he has never left. He practices some sort of pseudo-Orthodoxy with Protestant underpinnings. What defines a Protestant you may ask? Simple, private interpretation of scripture combined with defiance against Church hierarchy. It seems, this 'individual' knows the scriptures and the writings of the Church Fathers better than the Coptic Orthodox Church hierarchy (viz. the Patriarch as well as the Bishops who are part of the Holy Synod). Perhaps this 'individual' needs to take lessons in humility and obedience to truly understand what Orthodoxy entails. Should he wish to truly consider himself Orthodox, a willingness to submit to the wisdom of Church hierarchs is necessary. Otherwise, he may as well return to 'the seat of Satan' he once was a part of.
Father Peter, forgive me, [Moderated: Personal language] I could no longer remain silent. I ask for your forgiveness again and that you pray for me.
[coptic]+ Iryny nem `homt>[/coptic]
Father Peter, forgive me, I could not remain silent while this poor excuse for an Orthodox continued to berate you in such a fashion. His ignorance and arrogance have reached a point where I could no longer remain silent. I ask for your forgiveness again and that you pray for me.
Kefas, I'm sorry, but I found this uncalled for and not necessary. Constructive debates and discussions can be conducted without anyone being insulted. I think we all need a little more respect in how we address each other in these threads--we are all brethern and members of the Body of Christ. I hope Ioannes was not offended, although I myself felt struck when I read this line.
Pray for me.
Kefas never commented on the content of my argument except for the fact that I interpreted the scriptures of my own accord. Everyone does to an extent and it must be referenced with the help of the early church fathers and that I do, so as not to pervert Gods word. Kefas is just speaking off the top of his head and like Fr. Peter offered no actual evidence to show that the argument is incorrect. I am not offended and yes we are all part of the same Orthodox church, I know that by saying things such as these that I am liable to get such feedback filled with such condescending negativity.
Thank you user for your input, but I brought this upon myself and I accept the consequences for defending the faith. As said before if this argument is wrong I will flee from it and repent, and hope that I will be forgiven.
[coptic]+ Iryny nem `homt>[/coptic]
^
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20)
I don't know if anyone else sees the gross irony in the posts by the above 'individual' (I use the term very loosely). This is an 'individual' who has admitted to being a former Protestant. Based on his posts, it is clearly apparent that he has never left. He practices some sort of pseudo-Orthodoxy with Protestant underpinnings. What defines a Protestant you may ask? Simple, private interpretation of scripture combined with defiance against Church hierarchy. It seems, this 'individual' knows the scriptures and the writings of the Church Fathers better than the Coptic Orthodox Church hierarchy (viz. the Patriarch as well as the Bishops who are part of the Holy Synod). Perhaps this 'individual' needs to take lessons in humility and obedience to truly understand what Orthodoxy entails. Should he wish to truly consider himself Orthodox, a willingness to submit to the wisdom of Church hierarchs is necessary. Otherwise, he may as well return to 'the seat of Satan' he once was a part of.
Father Peter, forgive me, [Moderated: Personal language] I could no longer remain silent. I ask for your forgiveness again and that you pray for me.
It is true that private interpretation may never be held above the Oecumenical consensus of the Holy Orthodox Church, however, Hierarchs do not determine truth; Truth determines truth.
Consider what you have said above and place it in the context of the 63 year long, complete persecution of pious Orthodox Christians under Soviet tyranny.
Consider that the patriarch was replaced with Stalin's personal puppet.
Consider that Saint Tikhon, the Patriarch of Moscow, deemed it necessary to grant autocephaly to his entire American jurisdiction because he knew how the Hierarchy would be abused by the Soviets.
Consider how the Russian Patriarchate was abused during the enforcement of atheism.
Now tell me that we must believe everything our Hierarchs tell us.