tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19364700.post2199474931940990484..comments2023-07-26T04:54:13.903-07:00Comments on Robin's Readings and Reflections: Thoughts on Eastern OrthodoxyTerrell Clemmonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17367926808246409525noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19364700.post-58673048564025117712007-08-24T16:07:00.000-07:002007-08-24T16:07:00.000-07:00As an Orthodox Christian I can't just go and take ...As an Orthodox Christian I can't just go and take communion whenever I want. We fast, we obstain from certain other things too in preparation. The eucharist is to be understood only in conjunction with all the other sacraments of our church. Moreover, communion is a sign of unity, not a means towards unity. There are many things, though, that are a means toward unity. We have blessed bread and wine for everyone contiguous with the concecrated bread and wine. By insisting on unity of faith first, the Orthodox church hasn't excommunicated anyone. I am at a loss to understand why anyone would want to just waltz up the chalice---cowboy like---and take communion anyway if they felt the church was in error or only partially legitamite. Unless, of course, it was just to prove a point. This would waterdown the euacharist. People have died as a result of not taking the eucharist seriously. In my last post I quoted copiously from St. Irenaeus about tradition and the Orthodox faith. Now let me quote Tertullian:<BR/><BR/>Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their Bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that that first bishop of theirs shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,---a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles...But should even they effect the contrivance...their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare...that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man.<BR/><BR/>And he goes on. Even though this was written in the early 3rd century, it has pointed relevance for today. It is said by critics of Orthodoxy that the Orthodox church is ancient, but not ancient enough. That it goes back far, but not far enough---to the time of the scriptures and the apostles. Well, as Tertullian asks, "let them produce their lists." Can protestants show a historical succession? They point to the bible. But so do the Orthodox. The real descriptions of Christian practice came afterwards. Perhaps, therefore, the church fathers are our best guide.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07650331727535936922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19364700.post-44770707869709731842007-08-24T14:33:00.000-07:002007-08-24T14:33:00.000-07:00I appreciate that evangelicals are starting to be ...I appreciate that evangelicals are starting to be interested in Eastern Orthodoxy. An honest articulations of the Orthodox position, followed by a forthright response, is something that is rare and, as an Orthodox Christian, I appreciate it. Let me say that, in addition to Orthodoxy teaching its members that we are the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, there is an equal emphases (or should be) on not judging and avoiding all forms of triumphalism. Bishop Kalistos Ware has said, in his book The Orthodox Church, that we know where the church is but we can’t always say where it isn’t. And the question of the validity of other ecclesial organization’s sacraments is always left to God and not touched. That said, let me quote one church father. St. Ireneus. I don’t expect these quotations to settle the matter. I think it may shed some light on it.<BR/><BR/>To get some sense of the historical proximity of Ireneus to the Apostles, Ireneus was born only 15-25 years after the death of the apostle John. Here is what he said:<BR/><BR/>“It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity…<BR/>But Polycarp [b. 69 - d. 155] also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he [Polycarp] tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true…<BR/>Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?"patrickphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04406638030791262845noreply@blogger.com