Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[xzins]

Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years?

Wednesday, 11 July 2007

Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.

The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.

It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.

One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.

First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.

The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.

The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.

All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.

Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.

How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.

[Zero Sum]

Kosta: Maybe, but why would God bother with tricks He must have foreknown wouldn’t work?

Kolo: I’ve no idea, Kosta mou, no idea, but our ways aren’t God’s ways are they? In any event, it didn’t seem to bother +Athanasius the Great.

It didn't seem to bother +John of Damascus, either. Concerning Providence:

When, therefore, we give heed to these things we ought to be filled with wonder at all the works of Providence, and praise them all, and accept them all without enquiry, even though they are in the eyes of many unjust, because the Providence of God is beyond our ken and comprehension, while our reasonings and actions and the future are revealed to His eyes alone. And by “all” I mean those that are not in our hands: for those that are in our power are outside the sphere of Providence and within that of our Free-will.

[Zero Sum]

You're very welcome, and thank you for posting those additional words from +John Chrysostom. I take to heart +Benedict's exhortation to "Never grow tired of praying for Christian unity". Christian unity is something for which "Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestants" must never cease to pray fervently. In God's time, it will be done.

Peace to you.

[Kolokotronis]

I am pleased you are reading +John of Damascus, a true theological giant among the Fathers and a champion of Orthodoxy against the iconoclasts. After he retired from the court of the caliph at Damascus, he entered the monastery of +Sabas outside of Jerusalem, which is still operating.

Troparion - Tone 8

Champion of Orthodoxy, teacher of purity and of true worship,
the enlightener of the universe and the adornment of hierarchs:
all-wise father John, your teachings have gleamed with light upon all things.
Intercede before Christ God to save our souls.

Kontakion - Tone 4

Let us sing praises to John, worthy of great honor,
the composer of hymns, the star and teacher of the Church, the defender of her doctrines:
through the might of the Lord¹s Cross he overcame heretical error
and as a fervent intercessor before God
he entreats that forgiveness of sins may be granted to all.

[kosta50]

It didn't seem to bother +John of Damascus, either. Concerning Providence..."we give heed to these things we ought to be filled with wonder at all the works of Providence, and praise them all, and accept them all without enquiry even though they are in the eyes of many unjust, because the Providence of God is beyond our ken and comprehension, while our reasonings and actions and the future are revealed to His eyes alone...

Do we have a choice? It's one thing to accept natural disasters and "fate" as Providence of God, no matter how "unfair" they seem; it's an altogether different thing to accept without inquiry the writings of an ancient biblical author as speaking God's words!

We are mixing apples and oranges here, Zero Sum. We are confusing everything that is not subject to our free will, with the presumption that everything in the Bible is indeed the word of God.

We are making here a giant leap of faith that the individuals who wrote the books that eventually make up different canons are truly and unquestionably inspired, and that whatever seems unfair in the Bible is like questioning the 'fairness' of an earthquake or, indeed, our own mortality!

This is no different than Muslims making a leap of faith that whatever is in the Koran was dictated to Mohammad word-by-word by Allah. What makes our right and their wrong if not a leap of faith? Because we find their writings unjust and cruel and detestable, but things detestable in our Bible, such as dashing babies to pieces, are dismissed because we have decided that they are Providential truth? Where is objective proof of that?

The burden of proof is not on those who doubt extraordinary claims, but rather on those who are making them. So, I am asking you to provide unquestionable proof that everything in the Bible is indeed a Providential word of God, as claimed, and that questioning the fairness or even the veracity of its stories is on the same level as questioning the 'fairness' and veracity of earthquakes or any cataclysmic event we see in the universe.

[Kolokotronis]

“We are mixing apples and oranges here, Zero Sum. We are confusing everything that is not subject to our free will, with the presumption that everything in the Bible is indeed the word of God.”

Kosta, who is “we”? The Church doesn’t confuse these things, though individuals certainly do. And who, among those in The Church, presume that everything in the OT and the NT is the inerrant word of God? Are bats really birds because “The Bible tells me so”? In the Christian era, that is an idea which only gained currency after the Reformation and then only because, I am convinced, the Reformers thought that would allow them to frame arguments against the ecclesiology of the Roman Church.

What +John of Damascus wrote, as quoted by ZS, is exactly within the consensus patrum. There is nothing confused or confusing in it. You ask, “Do we have a choice?” Of course we do. We have more options than either of us could imagine, as the Fathers well knew.

So far as I know, bibliolatry has never been a sin of The Church. I am surprised you insist that it is or has been.

[kosta50]

Kosta, who is “we”? The Church doesn’t confuse these things, though individuals certainly do.

We the Church, Kolo; all of us. Outside of the few dogmas, it always befalls on an individual.

And who, among those in The Church, presume that everything in the OT and the NT is the inerrant word of God?

Herein lies the rub, Kolo: the Church doesn't actually teach that the scriptures are inerrant word of God, but that the Church teaches what it is in the Bible inerrantly. So, why don't we have patristic commentaries on Hosea 13 and hundreds of other examples of God's behavior that simply doesn't resemble Christ?

You yourself have discovered that out of whole 2 commenatries on Hosea 13, one was outright inapplicable and the other one is by a heretic who used copy-and-paste method to create something that's obviously not in the Bible.

You see, if the questions are there and the Church claims it knows the answers but won't explain them, what are we to think?

[Kolokotronis]

“You see, if the questions are there and the Church claims it knows the answers but won’t explain them, what are we to think?”

We are to think that the questions are of no consequence among the Orthodox.

[kosta50]

We are to think that the questions are of no consequence among the Orthodox

What do you mean they have no consequence? I mean, there is a vast universe out there, Kolo, and frankly everything we talk about on this forum is somewhat unreal. Yet, we prefer to believe that which seems unreal, and ignore that which we know is real.

The Church ought to provide answers if for no other reason than because if you love others as you love yourself, and in order not to turn away a brother seeking truth. But, unfortunately, that's not the case. The Bible is not what is selected for divine liturgies. But that's what 99% of the faithful get; the rest is ignored.

Several years ago I asked an OCA priest about some of the OT issues (divine cruelty and where is Christ in it) and his answer was "you need to read more!" Well, to repeat the Ethiopian eunuch's line—who will interpret it for me? Lactantius?

[Zero Sum]

Kosta: So, I am asking you to provide unquestionable proof that everything in the Bible is indeed a Providential word of God, as claimed, and that questioning the fairness or even the veracity of its stories is on the same level as questioning the 'fairness' and veracity of earthquakes or any cataclysmic event we see in the universe.

I can't prove that. All I can say is that in the OT, I do see shades of that which is completed in Christ. As you said, a lot of it is allegorical, and some of it is just downright cryptic. But if it really is just a "shadow" of the fullness to come, then that shouldn't be too surprising.

[kosta50]

I can't prove that

Okay, that's fine and fair. It's a tough question, and you answered it straight and honest. Please do understand that I am not questioning your belief. I am only questioning when someone makes a belief into a matter-of-fact claim. As in "I believe the Bible is the word of God" and "The Bible is the word of God."

All I can say is that in the OT, I do see shades of that which is completed in Christ. As you said, a lot of it is allegorical, and some of it is just downright cryptic. But if it really is just a "shadow" of the fullness to come, then that shouldn't be too surprising

I am open to that. Maybe, for starters, you can demonstrate for me those parts of the OT that show Christ in the making. How's that?

[Zero Sum]

Kolo: Are bats really birds because “The Bible tells me so”?

Obviously not. Although there are some confused people who might say that, that's generally not what people mean when they say that Scripture is "inerrant". In fact, it's not just Protestants who make claims of Scripture's "innerancy", although as you have noted, different people/groups can mean different things by this. So at what point does it become "Bibliolatry"? Here's what some Orthodox sources say (although they're from the OCA, so it may just be a "Western" thing.) You guys tell me how well these reflect the general Orthodox attitude (click on the links if you want to see how they put it in context with Tradition):

For the Orthodox, the Bible is the main written source of divine doctrine since God Himself inspired its writing by His Holy Spirit (see 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Pet 1:20). This is the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible, namely that men inspired by God wrote the words which are truly their own human words -- all words are human! -- but which nevertheless may be called all together the Word of God. Thus, the Bible is the Word of God in written form because it contains not merely the thoughts and experiences of men, but the very self-revelation of God. http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=3

***

The Bible is central in the life of the Church and gives both form and content to the Church's liturgical and sacramental worship, just as to its theology and spiritual life. Nothing in the Orthodox Church can be opposed to what is revealed in the Bible. Everything in the Church must be biblical. http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=32&SID=3

***

The Bible is called the written Word of God. This does not mean that the Bible fell from heaven ready made. Neither does this mean that God dictated the Bible word for word to men who were merely His passive instruments. It means that God has revealed Himself as the true and living God to His People, and that as one aspect of His divine self-revelation God inspired His People to produce scriptures, i.e., writings which constitute the true and genuine expressions of His Truth and His Will for His People and for the whole world.

The words of the Bible are human words, for indeed, all words are human. They are human words, however, which God Himself inspired to be written in order to remain as the scriptural witness to Himself. As human words, the words of the Bible contain all of the marks of the men who wrote them, and of the time and the culture in which they were written. Nevertheless, in the full integrity of their human condition and form, the words of the Bible are truly the very Word of God.

The Bible is truly the Word of God in human form because its origin is not in man but in God, Who willed and inspired its creation. In this sense, the Bible is not like any other book. In the Bible, in and through the words of men, one finds the self-revelation of God and can come to a true and genuine knowledge of Him and His will and purpose for man and the world. In and through the Bible, human persons can enter into communion with God.

All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:16-17).

It is the faith of the Orthodox Church that the Bible, as the divinely-inspired Word of God in the words of men, contains no formal errors or inner contradictions concerning the relationship between God and the world. There may be incidental inaccuracies of a non-essential character in the Bible. But the eternal spiritual and doctrinal message of God, presented in the Bible in many different ways, remains perfectly consistent, authentic, and true. http://www.archdiocese.ca/home/homeScripture.htm

The RC's go even further (again, click the link to see how they relate this to their particular view of Tradtion):

The Bible not only contains the word of God; it is the word of God. The primary author is the Holy Ghost, or, as it is commonly expressed, the human authors wrote under the influence of Divine inspiration. It was declared by the Vatican Council (Sess. III, c. ii) that the sacred and canonical character of Scripture would not be sufficiently explained by saying that the books were composed by human diligence and then approved by the Church, or that they contained revelation without error. They are sacred and canonical "because, having been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that have God for their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church". The inerrancy of the Bible follows as a consequence of this Divine authorship. Wherever the sacred writer makes a statement as his own, that statement is the word of God and infallibly true, whatever be the subject-matter of the statement. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm

All I am willing to say is that I believe the people who collected and preserved these ancient writings were not fools for recognizing the treasures therein, and I take it on faith that the Scriptures, Old Testament and New, are a primary source of God's revelation to mankind. Also, I hold the opinion that whatever we might find disturbing is not to be simply discarded (I have first-hand experience of the results of this, and it ain't pretty), because further examination or interpretation might reveal treasures that we never could have imagined we might find.

[Zero Sum]

Kosta: Maybe, for starters, you can demonstrate for me those parts of the OT that show Christ in the making. How's that?

"Christ in the making." Now there's a strange way to put it. :)

I've already quoted from homilies by +John Chrysostom that show Christ as the "Lion of Judah" and the "Lamb of God". In addition, here are some considerations from +John of Damascus on baptism and the Sabbath.

[kosta50]

Those paragraphs seem to mirror pretty much the Orthodox Church's position on the scripture. In Orthodoxy, the Gospels are revered like in no other church I have seen.

Infallibility should be defined, as different groups understand the concept differently. A parallel example is the word "saved." The difference between what we Orthodox consider "saved" and most if not all Protestants do, is like night and day.

Consider the word "sin," the central term in Christian theology. It's understanding in the west is diametrically opposite to that of the east, like night and day.

So, we are very much talking right past each other, using the same terminology but not the meaning.

Until we know what we mean when we say the Bible is (in)fallible, we cannot have a constructive discussion. My definition can be summarized as follows: does the Old Testament reflect accurately God, as we know Him through Jesus Christ? I say I don't see it. The Church say it does if the Old Testament is interpreted correctly. I ask for correct interpretation of examples of alleged divine cruelty and I get nothing. In short: I am not convinced because all I do is express doubt and all the other side does is make extraordinary claims without extraordinary proofs!

The Protestants are not too far apart. They simply sya the Bible isthe word of God. When I ask the how do they know that, they tell me they are "guided by the Holy Spirit." When I ask them to show me that this is so, they can't. I am not covninced! Again, I express doubts and the other side makes extraordinary claims without extraordinary proofs!

When exactly did "inspired" become synonymous with "infallible?" yes, of course the scriputrees are inspired, something or someone inspired (i.e. moved, animated) the authors to sit down and start writing.

The fact that they called bats birds to me means that they wrote most of the book and not God, even if God served as their inspiration to write by certain revelations about the world, for God would not deliberately mislead people into making factual errors because God is not the source of corruption; we are.

Also, I hold the opinion that whatever we might find disturbing is not to be simply discarded (I have first-hand experience of the results of this, and it ain't pretty), because further examination or interpretation might reveal treasures that we never could have imagined we might find

That may very well be true. It certainly rings that way. But we are the stories about Sabbaths rmeind us that we are judged by the intent, not the act itself. As you posted in your next post, St. John of Damascus reminds us of that when he talks about the "breaking" of the Sabbath, and Jewish obssessive-compulsive traditions regarding mitzvot.

It is utterly un-Orthodox to argue that if we discard or doubt something in the Bible it's not gonna be pretty. You will never be sent to hell in the Orthodox Church, you will never be subject of fire and brimstone terrorist approach to "loving" God with all our hearts and minds and soul.

One way, it seems, we know God is through love and mercy. The latter seems to be absent in all living beings except in (some of) us, in whom it exists as a divine potential, which we can either nourish for the good, or we can abuse it for evil ends.

God—our Christian God—does not draw us by fear but through love. People run away from that which is fearful, which is why som many in th west have abandoned the wrathful God. How can you love a tyrant?

And is it not scriptural that our Christian God does not return evil for evil? But rather provides us with more blessings? How can then such things as earthquakes and tsunamis and what not be seen as God's wrath? And how does the OT God's drowing of the entire world reflect that Christ who never returns evil for evil?

[Kolokotronis]

I can agree with your first quote. The second is more troublesome:

“Nothing in the Orthodox Church can be opposed to what is revealed in the Bible. Everything in the Church must be biblical.”

That’s not well put at all. Nothing in the Orthodox Church is opposed to what is in fact revealed in the Bible, but that really isn’t saying much. It all depends on what is in fact revealed. Like I have said, it is not true, nor is it revealed nor does The Church teach, that bats are birds. It is simply false that “Everything in the bible must be biblical” unless the out is the fact that Christ did many things which are not recorded. This is the sort of loose talk for which the OCA and the Antiochians, and for that matter some of the clowns we have for professors at the GOA seminary, have been engaging in for the past 30 years or so and which accelerated when the Antiochians allowed a whole protestant sect into Orthodoxy and ordained their “priests”. Luckily, their westernizing and heretical teaching as been recognized for what it is and they are being marginalized.

The first paragraph of the third quote is fine. The second is likely correct but potentially dangerous. The final sentence of the third is definitely true only within the context of The Church. The Church doesn’t properly opine on what happens outside The Church in this regard. Obviously the fourth is fine. The fifth is likely OK as far as it goes but again, its not well worded.

ZS, these quotes from the OCA are an example of why the likes of Kosta and I will tell people that you cannot come to a true understanding of Orthodoxy without living it. Words on a page just don’t do, though words might bring someone to a point where they might begin to live out Orthodoxy.

“The RC’s go even further....”

I’m not surprised.

[kosta50]

"Christ in the making." Now there's a strange way to put it.

Why? The full revelation was a gradual process that ended with Christ. Which is why I am not surprised that so many Eastern Churches rejected the Book of Revelation, a kind of Christian "latter-day-saints" phenomenon, and why it had to be included into the canon by bargaining, in exchange for the Book of Hebrews.

I've already quoted from homilies by +John Chrysostom that show Christ as the "Lion of Judah" and the "Lamb of God"

There is no direct quote in the OT that expresses that. You will find hints which can be interpreted many ways (i.e Deut 18: 15) “A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren like unto me, unto Him shall ye hearken,” which is anything but vague vis a vis who this prophet will be, let alone a prophet who is none other than God Himself.

In addition, here are some considerations from +John of Damascus on baptism and the Sabbath.

All these texts are collages of various bits and pieces, cherry-picked to suit the author's purpose. My point is that there is nothing in the Old Testament  that explicitly hints at what the Gospels tell us. All of this is simply retro-engineering after the fact, and it may very well be that what the prophets saw was Christ in their minds but couldn't express it fully, nor did anyone see it at the time when they were written.

The same kind of implicit "prophesy" is seen in Nostradamus. All of it is 20/20 vision after the fact, but no one was predicting Hitler using Nostradamus until Hitler came, or even while he was in power because there is really nothing explicit in Nostradamus' writings; all of it has to be "extrapolated" after the fact.

This type of 'fuzziness' naturally creates varieties of opinions, as some people read into the verses what they want and what they are already predisposed to find. My point is that it all defaults to implication and never to something explicit.

Of course, in retro-vision and with the help of cherry-picked lines, one can construct just about anything. And people have. Sometimes, even the verses were changed (i.e. the"variants") in order to make their job complete!

The west is missing the point: being a Christian is not memorizing the infallible bible but a way of life, and that way of life is found in the Church. We are told that Christ came to fulfill the law and the prophets and that the law and the prophets are love. If God is love then if you can't find love and mercy in what we do, it's not from God.

That is the one thing we can be sure of when we speak of God, because mercy is not found anywhere in nature. We humans are capable of it, but we must learn it from others. It doesn't come to us naturally. Then, if it isn't found in rocks, and plants and animals and even in natural man, perhaps it is not of this world.

[Kolokotronis]

“... and it may very well be that what the prophets saw was Christ in their minds but couldn’t express it fully, nor did anyone see it at the time when they were written.”

I believe that is precisely one of the points of +Athanasius the Great in “On the Incarnation”. And its an important point. It can, and is, argued that the pre-figurings of Christ and the Trinity and Panagia which the Fathers and the writers of the NT found in the OT were not there for the OT people, but rather for the generations of the Incarnation and post Incarnation to establish Who Christ is. The thinking is that these pre-figurings are meaningless in a Christian context, without the reality of the Incarnation.

You are of course correct that there is nothing in the OT which explicitly points to the Christ of the NT, but that does not necessarily mean that the pre-figurings found by the Fathers were “retro-engineering”. Perhaps it does, but if the Incarnation is the once for all miracle we believe it is, then that reality could very well lead men to an understanding of scripture which was denied to earlier people.

“The west is missing the point: being a Christian is not memorizing the infallible bible but a way of life, and that way of life is found in the Church.”

Exactly right, because the created purpose of man is to attain theosis, to become like Christ. You mentioned earlier that even the concept of sin is different in the East from the West. As you know, the Greek word for sin is “amartia”. That’s the word the NT uses and it means “to miss the mark” or “to be off the mark”. The mark is Christ. Is this what the West believes? No, not even close. So, what are we taught? Well, as +Symeon the New Theologian says:

“In the future life the Christian is not examined if he has renounced the whole world for Christ’s love, or if he has distributed his riches to the poor or if he fasted or kept vigil or prayed, or if he wept and lamented for his sins, or if he has done any other good in this life, but he is examined attentively if he has any similitude with Christ, as a son does with his father.”

And we learn this leading a Christian life during which we die to the self, our lives being hidden in Christ. We lead that life in The Church as liturgical people.

[kosta50]

The thinking is that these pre-figurings are meaningless in a Christian context, without the reality of the Incarnation

Exactly. It's a one-way mirror. Those on the other side could not see, but we can; that mirror being the Gospels, which are, for the lack of a better word retrovision.

The Gospels are the prism through which we can separate the white light of the Old Testament into its component colors.

The world had to wait for Christ to be able to find Him in the prophets' visions without making sweeping generalizations about the entire OT.

For, there is mercy and love in the OT, but its' not that of the Gospels. The New Testament reminds us that law and the prophets are love [cf Mat 7:12, Mat 22:37-41, Rom 13:10]

The love and mercy of the OT are limited to the Jews. But through Chirst we believe God loves not only the Jews but all of mankind. That message was never discovered in the OT before Christ.

but if the Incarnation is the once for all miracle we believe it is, then that reality could very well lead men to an understanding of scripture which was denied to earlier people

That's what I am trying to say. All the visions and inspirations of the prophest could not predict the extreme humility of Incarnation! The extreme humility of the King of Kings born in unglorious way, becoming a man, to a teen-age unwed Mother. Nor could they foresee that He would be tortured and humniliated by mere humans and put to death for our salvation. No one foresaw a humble (the Calvinsits would say "weak") God.

+Symeon the New Theologian...In the future life the Christian is not examined if he has renounced the whole world for Christ’s love, or if he has distributed his riches to the poor or if he fasted or kept vigil or prayed, or if he wept and lamented for his sins, or if he has done any other good in this life, but he is examined attentively if he has any similitude with Christ, as a son does with his father.”

+Symeon the New Theologian is a gold mine of eye-openers. in his "On Faith," he says "I neither fasted, nor kept all night vigils, nor slept on the bare ground, but—in the words of the Pslamist—I humbled myself and God saved me."

[MarkBsnr]

***The Gospels are the prism through which we can separate the white light of the Old Testament into its component colors. ***

Amen, dear sir.

I see that this has settled down to a reasonable and lucid discussion. A very pleasing development, if I may say so. The more I am learning here, the more I found out what I still have yet to learn.

[Kolokotronis]

"+Symeon the New Theologian is a gold mine of eye-openers."

+Symeon the new Theologian is magnificent. It is little wonder that he alone among the saints is often depicted with a mandillora instead of a simple halo. I remember when I first read his homilies, many years ago. It was part of a series of his on the baptism of tears. At the time I thought it was complete hogwash. I've changed a bit since then. :)

"I neither fasted, nor kept all night vigils, nor slept on the bare ground, but—in the words of the Psalmist—I humbled myself and God saved me."

In his humility, by grace, he attained a similitude of Christ, whose "Extreme Humility" is a rebuke to a world which would have its God some sort of divine terrorist.

EXTREME HUMILITY

[irishtenor]

***“The west is missing the point: being a Christian is not memorizing the infallible bible but a way of life, and that way of life is found in the Church.”***

If that is what you think, you are WAY off. You should spend more time around REAL protestants. We drink beer and everything :>)

We do encourage people to memorize scripture, but that is not the end all to living a life of Christ. We also encourage charity, loving your neighbor, witnessing, etc.

***Exactly right, because the created purpose of man is to attain theosis, to become like Christ.***

We call it sanctification, the Holy Spirit working in us to be more Christ like.