| Author |
Message |
    
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 270
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 24.99.130.74
| | Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 6:29 pm: | 
|
Coppertree asked the questions in the following quotation on another thread. Being as they really didn't continue the topic of that thread, I thought it best to answer them here.
Copper's original post:
quote: Hi 78,
Oh so you are following the Russian Orthordox faith, then, I did not know that and others who read may not know that either. It is out a view of candid discussion that I asked that. Although I don't know ,if was worth it !Take it easy !
So you are subject to your local parish priest in your religion?
Was the Russian church part of the break in th 11 century ? Does you church think that they and you are a continuation of the original Catholic church
Sorry if these questions bother you, I think that they are fair.
Copper, the Orthodox Church, whether Russian, Greek, Romanian or national expression, adheres to One, Apostolic faith. We all believe the same thing.
As to your comment "take it easy", I'm not sure what you mean. Please know there was no "unease" meant in what I wrote, just background information.
Yes, the OCA has its roots in the Russian Church, which was founded in the 10th Century AD through in Kiev. As the Latins schismed from the One Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church in or about 1054 (the history is a little more complex that black and white dates - the Latin Church had undoubtedly ceased to confess the Apostolic faith far earlier) the Russian, or more precisely at that time, the Kievan Church existed and stood faithful to the Apostolic faith.
And, yes, the Orthodox Church teaches that it is, indeed, the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church. I think history bears that out as well. I presume, you would protest.
The questions don't bother me, you've never asked - though you seem to believe you've accomplished some kind of "gotcha". Congratulations.
As to whether I am "subject" to my parish priest, you would have to define what you mean by that term before I could possibly answer. If, however, you mean it in an MCM/Shepherding sense then the answer would be most emphatically no.
(Message edited by mcmstaff78 on September 02, 2007) |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 272
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 24.99.130.74
| | Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 6:37 pm: |
|
BTW, Copper, in the interests of full disclosure, perhaps you would share what faith tradition to which you adhere and/or local church you attend? |
40days40years
Intermediate Member
Username: 40days40years
Post Number: 383
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 172.190.210.77
| | Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 12:23 am: |
|
You know actually I think it is the Protestant branch of Christendom which adheres more to the Apostolic Faith since they make more of an effort to adhere to the direct words of the Apostle Paul and Jesus. The spread of the Gospel, freedom, democratic republics, the fight against governmental corruption, social justice. The vehicle God used for that was the Protestant Reformation in my opinion. Look at all the missionaries that came out of America and Britain to the world? The RCC and the Orthodox tend to end up getting locked into tradition by very old men who have no intention of overriding their church traditions in favor of the words of the Apostle Paul. That's kind of how I view it anyway.
"Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works" (James 2:18) I think that applies to the branches of Christianity. What branch of Christianity was used by God to bless humanity the most in the last 400 years? I believe that Pauls admonition to the Galatians can also be applied to the RCC and Orthodox streams, just like it was applied to those that wanted to put the Galatians back under the rituals and laws of the Old Testament. I believe in the Nicean creed like the Orthodox but I think the Protestant reformation allows people to filter the truth directly from Pauls pen without having to put it through a filter of tradition 2000 years old which is rusty in spots.
McmStaff my guess is you annoy Copper because you talk about western Christianity like it is not part of the Apostolic Faith and is somehow removed from the lineage or succession of the Apostles since it will not adhere to the Orthodox institutions and traditions (like icons for instance). That is the impression you give to non Orthodox Christians. Bottom line if you want works then I would have to say God has blessed Luthers message of Faith. Either way the Protestant stream has both the Faith and the Works.  Now me individually that is another story but I am a work in progress.
Sure there are problems with some of the preachers in the media spot light but I would rather have them there then not since there has to be some worth to being able to live in a society and have the freedom to turn on the television or radio and hear the Gospel presented in an easy comprehendable manner. To me anyway it's worth something. God will straighten it out in the end but the main thing is the gospel is preached. |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 276
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 24.99.130.74
| | Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 8:15 am: |
|
40 - Some observations by way questions:
First, how can Protestants have Apostolic Succession when they deny such a thing exists? Doesn't it make that who issue, from a Protestant side, moot?
Second, which of the 30,000 or so Protestant interpretations "adhere to the direct words of the Apostle Paul and Jesus" most accurately? Sola scriptura is not an issue that has worked out particularly well for Protestants. I find it hard to believe that someone 1500 years after the fact understood the words of Christ and the Apostles better than the Fathers of the first few generations after Christ.
Third, if you own some of the results are you willing to own all of them? The materialism that dominates modern culture, the anti-Christian sentiment can be directly traced, IMO, to the underlying presuppositions of Protestantism. I presented a few threads a while back demonstrating that someone like A-F was simply the ultimate Protestant. |
coppertree
Member
Username: coppertree
Post Number: 87
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 172.165.132.117
| | Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 1:43 pm: |
|
HI 78,
As you noted I did say take it easy on a prior thread to you, for this every reason,
Quote from you to me,
"I think history bears this out as well. I presume you would protest ."
And,
"..though you seem to believe you've accomplished some kind of ' gotcha'. Congratulations"
On these threads from the beginning of them , back in 04 the discussion has about Maranatha, Morningstar Ministries and Every Nation . Much was been covered about them, from many avantage points, and debates . One could have learned a great deal for these threads, in the interest of those reading here, I feel that it is a small matter to ask in regards to accurate and forthcoming scholarship and thoughts.
I have asked you this question here before on these threads for that reason. If one does not say, it could be conferred that most persons are of a similar view after we all were in Maranatha or another of its antecedents, for sometime in most cases.
If one had an abrupt change in religion, it would be good to note that for general understanding of those reading.
When the discussion turned from Ted Haggard into theology, the format changed with your posts to J. Kerms, et all. It was an interesting discussion , that needed some facts to go forward. I was not trying to catch you, but to allow a full discussion to take place. Especially in relation to a discussion on grace, and priests praying to relieve sin in the early church that you brought up initially.} |
40days40years
Intermediate Member
Username: 40days40years
Post Number: 387
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 172.191.73.107
| | Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 10:14 pm: |
|
MCMStaff before I respond more, do you believe in modern Apostles? and if not do you believe in Apostolic giftings which are only manifested through the Orthodox church?
You said: Copper, the Orthodox Church, whether Russian, Greek, Romanian or national expression, adheres to One, Apostolic faith. We all believe the same thing.
40/40: no differances of opinion with that many people?
Then you said: Yes, the OCA has its roots in the Russian Church, which was founded in the 10th Century AD through in Kiev. As the Latins schismed from the One Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church in or about 1054 (the history is a little more complex that black and white dates - the Latin Church had undoubtedly ceased to confess the Apostolic faith far earlier) the Russian, or more precisely at that time, the Kievan Church existed and stood faithful to the Apostolic faith.
Your saying 1000 years after the start of the church the Orthodox still had it right?
You kind of talk to us like we don't follow the early church councils which most here heartily agree with but 1000 years out of the box is not early church councils sorry. To me an Apostolic faith is one Paul would approve of and Paul did not seem to be a ritual kind of guy. Anyway please clarify, thanks. |
40days40years
Intermediate Member
Username: 40days40years
Post Number: 391
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 172.190.9.233
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 6:32 am: |
|
MCMStaff78 could you please do me a favor.
You love to refer to men as Fathers or Holy Fathers. I am sorry there is no excuse for this, it really makes me angry. I have my heavenly Father and I have my earthly father RIP!
Jesus specifically says to call no man FATHER but you continuously violate scripture and call men by this title! STOP IT NOW! Obey Jesus I don't care what the Orthodox men say you must OBEY SCRIPTURE! I HAVE TWO FATHERS! STOP disobeying scripture!!! Every time you type father you know it's a sin so stop it.
So stop with the Holy Orthdox BS that violates scripture. This is a major sin---Stop It! |
40days40years
Intermediate Member
Username: 40days40years
Post Number: 392
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 172.190.9.233
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 6:57 am: |
|
Cool breeze I feel better now.
Family squabble stuff |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 280
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 24.99.130.74
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 7:06 pm: |
|
40, do you call your biological father, father?
Please, save the BS for someone else. The Apostle Paul himself implies that he is "father" to the Corinthian believers in 1 Cor. 4:15 where he sates "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel."
The Apostle John uses the term "fathers" in reference to some believers in 1 John.
The Lord, in that same passage, said "call no man 'teacher'" - do you term people "teachers"?
As one spiritual father has written:
quote:When interpreting Matthew 23:9, it would be helpful to read the entire 23rd chapter of Matthew in order to get a proper understanding of the context of this passage. This 23rd chapter of Matthew contains the Lord's indictment of the scribes and pharisees for their hypocrisy, their focus on the externals of religion without genuine repentance and a corresponding conversion of heart. So, not only does Jesus condemn the scribes and pharisees for their use of the address "Father" in a vain and empty way, but in the very next verse says: "Nor are you to be called teachers, for you have one teacher, the Christ" (Matthew 23:10). Yet, many contemporary non-denominational TV preachers describe themselves as "Bible teachers" and no one has ever argued that the Church should not have Sunday school teachers on the basis of this passage. Indeed, Jesus Himself acknowledged Nicodemus to be a "teacher of Israel" (John 3:10) and in the Book of Acts we read that certain men in Antioch were called "teachers" (Acts 13:1), to give only two examples. Therefore, as can be clearly understood when one reads the 23rd chapter of Matthew in its entirety, Jesus takes issue not with these titles and roles in and of themselves, but rather with their self-aggrandizing abuse by the scribes and pharisees.
Oh, and yes, 1000 years after the start of the church the Orthodox not only still had it right, but still have it right.
And there are disagreements regarding minor issues and politics and stuff like that. Being sinful human beings, we sometimes squabble the way families do. But regarding dogma, that which defines the boundaries of the faith, we all believe the same thing. |
40days40years
Intermediate Member
Username: 40days40years
Post Number: 394
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 172.191.72.146
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 7:26 pm: |
|
Okay here is the thing. It is a lot harder to stop using the term teacher or leader in ordinary life, (due to practicality) then it is to stop using the word Father towards other men. Ideally a leader should be a servant but that is another subject. It is the spirit of the thing and it appears those who were part of the Reformation made an effort to limit the use of the term Father in obedience to the commands of Christ. It's a little thing but it's a big thing. Sure the Apostles viewed those that were brought to the Lord through their ministries as their spiritual children (analogy) but should they and the others that came later be referred to as Father continuously? Should a priest be addressed as Father in a sprititual context in light of the fact of the priesthood of all believers? Should the term Father be institutionalized in the church?
Words are tricky things but I think it is important to look at the spirit of what Jesus meant when he said what he said. I guess if I was talking to a Roman Catholic priest I was not familiar with I might call him Father out of common courtesy since it would be rude to just call him priest.
(Message edited by 40days40years on September 04, 2007) |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 281
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 167.193.134.61
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 4:56 pm: |
|
Why not? (to answer all your questions). The term is one of affection as well as one of recognition of those whom God has graced.
And since when is the practicality an issue in obeying God? Either the Lord meant the everyday usage of these terms, and you are sinning as much as anyone when using them for any but God, or He meant something else.
I would suggest to you that the Lord was not prohibiting the use of any of these terms generically, but in the context of self-appointed "fathers" and "teachers" who take scriptures (the Law of Moses in the context of the Gospel passage) and lay their own interpretation on it and cause others to follow them rather than God. The scribes and pharisees took the sacred tradition handed down to them, added their own little twists, and created their own followings and rabbinic "schools". A true spiritual father and teacher takes the Apostolic faith and passes it along faithfully, not adding his own interpretation, but rather that which was handed down to him even as the Apostle Paul wrote "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (2 Thes. 2:15) |
j2theperson
Member
Username: j2theperson
Post Number: 73
Registered: 9-2005
Posted From: 65.27.68.96
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 7:36 pm: |
|
I'm not offended by the use of the term "father" in a religious setting. It's not something I would do personally, but if other people want to it's no skin off my nose.
However, I am curious...is it all right for an Eastern Orthodox person to not use the term father if they're uncomfortable using it? |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 286
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 24.99.130.74
| | Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 7:07 am: |
|
I'm not clear as to why an Orthodox believer would not be comfortable using the term. First, even for non-believers, it is generally, as 40 points out, simple common courtesy, though my priest gets called "reverend" frequently by those who come for our food program. My wife, when we were married, was Episcopalian and two Episcopal priests officiated at our wedding along with a Methodist minister. Even though I didn't agree with the practice at the time, I called both priests "Father" out of respect and courtesy.
The "official" title of an Orthodox priest is "Priest [so and so]", but "father" is a term of affection and a recognition of one who has been Graced by God for a unique function within the Church. My guess is someone "uncomfortable" with the term would be likewise "uncomfortable" with Orthodox ecclesiology which would make me ask "why are you Orthodox?" A person growing up in the Church wouldn't be uncomfortable and a person converting would have, undoubtedly, dealt with the issue already.
But that said, I'm not aware of any hard and fast rules regarding it. One's relationship with one's priest is not a master>servant one but more doctor>patient. While all of us sinners exhibit a pretty similar spiritual "epidemiology", the spiritual treatment for each individual may vary greatly. |
|