‘Explorer: The Secret Lives of Jesus,’ Dec. 17, National Geographic Channel

Catholic Online ^ | December 8, 2006 | David DiCerto

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "You allowed us to break away from you in the first place so you are fully responsible. ..."

Alright, I just noticed that you are Orthodox and not Catholic. My apologies for the mistake. So, the amendment is that my latter comments are really directed to Roman Catholics and not the Orthodox. The underlying principle is the same. The fact that we do not have a man-led centralized power structure, whether iron-fisted or less so, does not make us responsible for people going off into crazy cults. The exact same thing has happened under Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy from the beginning. Forgetting about the original Protestants, there is a long list of groups that broke away, practically RIGHT AWAY.

Maybe that's why the authority, especially in the RCC, tightened after a time, and kept tightening. However, it seems to me that this would be admitting a failure in God's original set up and system.

[Forest Keeper]

I won't speak for Catholics, but the orthodox have no problem with folks interpreting scripture. They just want folks to get educated, and evidence their Christianity a bit first (same as St Paul wanted only folks who had their home life in order, and had only been married once being considered for the office of Bishop).

Well, that's not how I would express what I think my understanding is. Perhaps you could interpret on some inconsequential matters, but I'm pretty sure that you are not allowed to disagree in any way with the consensus patrum. While the actual number of holdings might be relatively small, I would imagine that their necessary implications would be pretty broad based. (Perhaps this is more true in the RCC.) Can you think of a couple of "bigger" issues upon which two good Orthodox may interpret differently? That is, outside of Revelation, since I don't think anyone has rules on that. :)

Here's what our church feels is a good basis for being able to witness to folks: ... [5 years of seminary courses]

That is a very impressive basis. :) Does your church really say that one should not witness without this kind of education? It's funny, I would tell a new believer that if he knows enough to believe in the Gospel of Christ, then he knows enough to witness it. Of course I would want him to learn more, and continue learning as I do, but my church's attitude is to turn them loose right away if they are so moved. :) Many times new believers can make very effective evangelists.

Thanks for posting the curriculum. It was interesting to read. Would all the Russian classes be replaced with Greek classes at a different seminary? I was just surprised at the emphasis on Russian history and that sort of thing. I mean, would someone graduating from this seminary be qualified to start serving in a Greek Orthodox Church?

[NYer]

When the Roman Church bolted from the other 4 major Church provinces in the East, she ceased to have any argument to speak for the whole Church.

Bolted? I believe you have it backwards.

Yes, "the Church" authoritatively interprets scripture, but now that Rome and Constantinople destroyed her unity, followed much later by serious Christians' attempts at reform (whom Rome separated herself from as well) who exactly is the Church?

If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth

[NYer]

You allowed us to break away from you in the first place so you are fully responsible.

God has given man "free will". The Church cannot overide the will of God.

In addition, and using your logic, all the unworthy priests who have ever lived are a direct reflection on your faith. Why didn't you stop them?

This follows the same logic as above. Free will. Applying your logic then, if God knows everything and He knows that someone is about to murder someone else, why doesn't He stop them?

By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23).

But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26).

[bornacatholic]

Matt 16:18,19 is not "man made"

[bornacatholic]

A denomination (take a new name) is not the Church established by Jesus in Matt 16:18,19.

You think it failed and became heretical. IOW, the promises of Jesus were unreliable. Of course, that makes Jesus Satan

[kawaii]

That is a very impressive basis. :) Does your church really say that one should not witness without this kind of education? It's funny, I would tell a new believer that if he knows enough to believe in the Gospel of Christ, then he knows enough to witness it.

That's absurd. Would you say someone after making cash on a single stock deal knows enough to advise people on their investments? Certainly not, and salvation is a lot more important than investments. Folks new to the faith may be enthusiastic but may well preach things that are well outside Christianity.

That said that's the curriculum at the seminary near me. There are tasks within the church which don't require such a degree of course.

[kawaii]

Thanks for posting the curriculum. It was interesting to read. Would all the Russian classes be replaced with Greek classes at a different seminary? I was just surprised at the emphasis on Russian history and that sort of thing. I mean, would someone graduating from this seminary be qualified to start serving in a Greek Orthodox Church?

The main reason for the focus on Russian is to be able to minister to Russians. It is a Russian church. Also the classes are conducted in Russian, so it's kind of neede throughout the curriculum. The Greeks probably have greek classes at their seminaries but I'm not sure.

[Forest Keeper]

The authority to bind and loose is given to the apostles to the church. Do you deny scripture?

Never, just certain interpretations of it. :) Wouldn't you say the same?

[kawaii]

I don't see how one can misinterpret those words.

[wmfights]

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

FWIW

[kawaii]

The rock (St Peter's faith) is not the same as the keys (given to the church).

Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.


Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.


Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

[Forest Keeper]

God has given man "free will". The Church cannot override the will of God.

I agree, no one can. That's why I think it is unfair for us to be criticized for the cults that break away from Biblical Protestant Christianity. That's the issue I was responding to.

Applying your logic then, if God knows everything and He knows that someone is about to murder someone else, why doesn't He stop them?

Because it is clear that God has decided to allow sin in the world. Perhaps He has a millions reasons for this. One that I can think of is that the existence of sin helps believers know, appreciate, and love God to a higher degree. My point in saying what I said, though, was the same as the above. It is unfair to diminish or criticize my faith based on the actions and beliefs of others who do not hold my faith.

Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23).

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of John 6:70. That was a direct reference to Judas. I don't see any direct relation to "the Church", which wasn't even established yet. My view is that Judas was never a member of "the Church". He was "chosen" for a specific purpose, but he was never a believer.

Again, in Matt. 7, Jesus doesn't reference members of "the Church", even implicitly. He only says "many" or "those". I do not think He was talking about actual believers. I WOULD agree that there are many who call themselves members of the RCC, AND many who call themselves members of the Baptist church (my church) who will not enter Heaven. I think that is totally separate from being a member of "God's Church".

[Forest Keeper]

Matt 16:18,19 is not "man made".

While I happen to also think it is "man-made", the actual phrase I used was "man-led". Of course, we will have an honest disagreement on the interpretation of this passage. My view is that God would not choose to build His Church on the single person of a sinner. At least we can agree that Peter was a sinner. :)

[Forest Keeper]

That's absurd. Would you say someone after making cash on a single stock deal knows enough to advise people on their investments? Certainly not, and salvation is a lot more important than investments. Folks new to the faith may be enthusiastic but may well preach things that are well outside Christianity.

True, but I wasn't talking about teaching a Sunday School class, I was talking about witnessing the faith to others. Since we believe that the basics of faith are simple enough for a child to understand, AND we don't have the additional complexity of formal Tradition, we think it is fine for newbies to go tell what they know, to give a reason for their faiths. THAT is Biblical, isn't it? :)

[Forest Keeper]

The main reason for the focus on Russian [in the seminary curriculum] is to be able to minister to Russians. It is a Russian church. Also the classes are conducted in Russian, so it's kind of needed throughout the curriculum. The Greeks probably have Greek classes at their seminaries but I'm not sure.

OK, sounds good. I didn't really think I was uncovering some sort of controversy. I was thinking that I've been told that theologically speaking, "Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy". So, I just wondered if given the heavy emphasis on Russian studies that you posted in that curriculum, whether a graduate of a Greek seminary would come away with the same theology, "close enough".

[Kolokotronis]

"I was thinking that I've been told that theologically speaking, "Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy". So, I just wondered if given the heavy emphasis on Russian studies that you posted in that curriculum, whether a graduate of a Greek seminary would come away with the same theology, "close enough"."

The theology is identical. There are differences in praxis among the churches, most of which are culturally based. In the Greek Orthodox seminary at Brookline, all the seminarians have to become proficient in Greek and have a working knowledge of Greek history because, as Kawaii said, as priests they will be serving a community and in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, most of the communicants are to one degree or another Greek, the demographics of my parish to the contrary notwithstanding.

[kawaii]

True, but I wasn't talking about teaching a Sunday School class, I was talking about witnessing the faith to others.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. There is nothing worse for the faith than someone with ancillary knowledge of it, reading a book, misinterpreting the context, and pursading other's to follow their misinterpretations.

[bornacatholic]

Of course, we will have an honest disagreement on the interpretation of this passage.

*Agreed. And the New Testament teaches us to bring our disagreements to the Church and to hear the decision of the Church; and, if we do not hear the Church, we are to be treated as publicans ect

And, as you well know, the Church, which wrote the NT, has always taught that Jesus was quite clear about building His Church upon Kepha/Cephas/Peter, the Rock

So, what's your beef?...:)

[kosta50]

I just wondered if given the heavy emphasis on Russian studies that you posted in that curriculum, whether a graduate of a Greek seminary would come away with the same theology, "close enough"

The theology is no different. By definition, in order for one bishop to be in communion (literally speaking, Eucharistic communion) with another bishop is for the two bishops to recognize that both of them teach the same theology the Church taught everywhere and awlays, just as the Apostles taught the same faith, thereby assuring Apostolic Succession.

Just as the Christian Canon was established by the same process of concordance (concensus) among the Fathers of the Church, assuring us that all that is the New Testament is the word of our Lord Jesus Christ, taught by the Apostles.