Eastern Christianity

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='WhiskeyWalsh' date='07 January 2010 - 02:18 PM' timestamp='1262899100' post='2031969']
. . .

Dogma, in the sense of the doctrines promulgated through the seven ecumenical councils and other local councils before and after the Schism, is (as stated before) a concession to human weakness that attempts to constrain the maximal quality and content of a life in Christ into a more finite form.

. . .[/quote]
I agree.

One of the things that helped me to get beyond the idea that I could form a mental conception of God and in so doing have a real grasp upon Him was to remember that the Holy Fathers never spoke about the dogmatic formulas of the councils as "definitions" but referred to them instead as "decrees," because - of course - it is impossible to define God. In fact, the purpose of the conciliar decrees is simply to protect the faith from heresy by decreeing certain ways of speaking about what the Church received from Christ the Lord (i.e., in connection with His incarnation, life, passion, death, resurrection, and ascension), and in the process establish - for lack of a better word - [i]fences[/i] around the mystery of God, which by its very nature always transcends human thought and language; and this approach to dogma is confirmed by what St. Hilary of Poitiers said in his treatise on the Holy Trinity, for as he put it: "The error of others compels us to err in daring to embody in human terms truths which ought to be hidden in the silent veneration of the heart."

[brightsadness]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='07 January 2010 - 03:45 PM' timestamp='1262904325' post='2032044']
They see it as an act of "mercy".
[/quote]


Having attended the second marriages of Orthodox relatives, both divorced and widowed, I am aware that the ceremony has some different prayers. Chief among them is a request for forgiveness for the "sin of a second marriage." It seemed both humble and kind to me. But I understand that it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

[Guest WhiskeyWalsh]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 January 2010 - 06:07 PM' timestamp='1262905626' post='2032071']
I was under the impression that Orthodox believed that Rome did have primacy (though not divine protection), only not supremacy (and certain not infallibility). I do think that some form of Rome's primacy is fairly easy to prove from the paper trail left by the early Church.
[/quote]

The idea of an ecumenical patriarch, a bishop of bishops, emerged in large part to Rome's (both the city and the Empire) pivotal role in spreading Christianity. Rome was hub of communication and of transportation, it was a place to petition the aid of or work with secular authorities, and almost every major city in the ancient world had contacts (both ecclesiastical and secular) in Rome. Thus, because of the bishop of Rome's unique set of resources, many bishops in the early church looked to the Roman bishop as being one of bulwarks of the church, as the bishop of Rome could easily communicate and (sometimes) represent the interests of other churches, especially those on the Western side of the continent and in North Africa. When Rome ceased to be the center of the Empire, the bishop of Constantinople assumed many of the same roles, and indeed (for better or worse) also assumed the title of ecumenical patriarch, which title the bishop of Rome also claimed. So, in terms of an administrative duties and due to his proximity to the Imperial throne, the Eastern churches did consider the Pope of Rome first among equals, a person who would defend and represent the interests of the Church to the secular authorities. However, the idea of the Pope of Rome assuming a greater ecclesiastical power than other bishops was an innovation that no other bishop in the ancient world claimed. Specifically, this power was embodied in the idea that the ecumenical patriarch had universal pastoral authority over the whole of Christendom, which is to say that the Pope of Rome was the only bishop with real ecclesiastical authorities, all other bishops deriving their authority from the authority of the Pope of Rome. Regardless of whether the Pope became directly involved in the administration and pastoral care of other metropolia in the West outside of Italy and its surround islands - which he didn't in a major way until the gradual reunification of Western Europe under the Franks - this new understanding of the ecumenical patriarch made the rest of the bishops in Christendom basically titular bishops.

What the Orthodox Church rejects regarding the office of the Papacy, amongst the most well know (universal jurisdiction), its that a bishop can exercise pastoral authority outside of a given geographical area, which is basis for our rejection of universal jurisdiction. The ancient cannons state very clearly that there is to be only one bishop per metropolitan area and that a bishop must have a specific flock for which to care; there can be no such thing as a "bishop at large" because such a bishop lacks the servants of God whom he is supposed to serve. The idea of a "universal" bishop falls under this definition, as it does not specify the bishop's geographical authority, but claims all authority under the palladium (or omiphorion, as we say in the East) of Rome. The cannons also state that one bishop may not interfer in the sacramental or pastoral life of another bishop's jurisdiction without the consent of the first bishop, and again, the office of an ecumencial patriarch would violate this cannon.

I think the Orthodox hobby horse that is worth listening to in regards to the Pope of Rome, outside of the various cries of the worldliness and temporal corruption in regards to Rome (because the Byzantine empire, of course, was not worldly and full of betryal, intrigue, and power plays), xenophobia, and papal infallibility (which as Brian rightly pointed out earlier was a much, much later doctrine in the Western church), is that if the traditional Roman Catholic thesis of the Pope of Rome is true, it cannot also be true that bishops of other jurisdicitions retain the Apostolic authority granted to them by Christ in his sending out of the Apostles and the manifestation of the Holy Spirit upon all of the Apostles during Pentecost. Its not enough that other jursidicitions would retain their local traditions of liturgy, prayer, liturgical arts, governing practicies, etc... even if all the ancient churches submitted to the authority of the Pope of Rome. It is that a bishop of an area would only be a bishop, the most important caretaker of Christ's flock, only via the proxy of the eccleastical authority of the Pope of Rome, and not by virtue of the bishop's ordination and the investitutre of his office through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, that outpouring being cannonically sanctioned by the laying on of hands by two other bishops of the Church.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='WhiskeyWalsh' date='07 January 2010 - 04:18 PM' timestamp='1262899100' post='2031969']
...consider how you are using your analogy of growth with regards to the "evolution" of the Church. If we consent that the Church can, and indeed has changed, then we must then admit that the church was in some way incomplete in its beginning, otherwise I'm not sure how you're using the term "growth." Moreover, it does not matter whether the church changes violently or slowly over time, but if we admit that the church changes, then it would seem that the mystical body of Christ is incomplete. I'm not willing to say, either, that there's an essence of the church (its Creeds, dogma, etc...) that does not change and some accidental characteristics that do change. Such a position is not a straw man, as I've heard this advocated from a number of different voices, but such a Aristotelian distinction finds no basis in the Early Church, in the New Testament, or in traditional Second Temple Judaism. Christ tells us that, " There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known" (Lk. 12:2). What we can take from this statement, and what many Eastern fathers have taken from this passage, is that if anything [i]has appeared[/i] to change since the beginning of Church (which is a misnomer, since the Church, like Christ, has neither beginning nor end), it is only because the complete mystical body of Christ was and continues to be revealed through the Holy Spirit in the economy of theophantic events. Moreover, Orthodoxy has always understood such revelations in the spirit of economia, in that God provides revelation insofar as He offers it as a medicine to the faithful to encourage them towards theosis. Man comes to know God, directly, through such theophantic events (especially seen in the liturgy of the Holy Mysteries and in prayer), and any didatic or dogmatic theology - which makes use of analogies and metaphors to describe the indescribable - we find beyond this direct communion with God is in some sense a [i]loving[/i] concession to human weakness to make use of rational faculties to aid in the task of salvation and to root our heresies. The church is already full grown, but whether one can observe the church in its fully glory will depend upon the enlightening of one's heart, a process that occurs through the cultivation of constant prayer.[/quote]

Remember that when we speak of doctrinal evolution or the dynamism of a living Church that grows and changes, we speak not of the Church Triumphant - the glorified Church that transcends time and space - but rather of the Church Militant; the incomplete Church of our time and space. The two are one, yes, but the perfect and changeless Church Triumphant is only perceived by faith and mystical experience from our mortal perspective. "Our" Church, properly speaking, refers to the Church of our spatiotemporal world, which still marches toward the Eschaton. And this Church Militant is - as a matter of fact - limited and imperfect in many ways. For one, it is incomplete in that as I type this, there is (presumably!) yet more souls that in the coming hours that will enter into it. Second, it is imperfect in its understanding of the sacred mysteries, being limited by the weakness of human nature in this fallen world. Third, it depends on its growth in both numbers and doctrine in order to grow closer to the Truth.

Did God reveal the whole of Old Testament prophecy to Adam? Did any prophet have knowledge of what would be revealed to future prophets? Were the Scriptures given all at once? Were they canonized by God Himself in a manner that was objectively verifiable to men? Did the Blessed Apostles themselves know all that they needed to know when they received the Holy Spirit? Was the council of Jerusalem the last and only time that our leaders would wrestle with theological questions? Was the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity clearly preached before the first council of Nicaea? It is a matter of fact, not opinion, that the Church Militant has grown in her doctrine (unless, for example, the canon of Scriptures is not considered doctrinal). A small seed, growing slowly into a tree. Such seems to be God's way...taking time, and lots of it, to bring forth His many creations.


[quote]...Dogma, in the sense of the doctrines promulgated through the seven ecumenical councils and other local councils before and after the Schism, is (as stated before) a concession to human weakness that attempts to constrain the maximal quality and content of a life in Christ into a more finite form...exercising "universal dogmatic authority" makes no sense considering the diversity of spiritual illnesses and needs within the faithful.[/quote]

My point is that Eastern Christians acknowledge the need for the universally binding nature of the first seven councils. I merely find it peculiar that God would see the need to protect the clarity of the faith by means of universally binding decrees for only the first 700 years of Christianity. I find it just as peculiar as the Protestant notion that God protected the tradition of the Church only until the scriptural canon was known.

[quote]This is not accurate as the notion of doctrinal development has never been accepted by the Orthodox church. If it appears that the Orthodox church heavily refers to the pre-schism Fathers (both East and West) in forming its current phronema (midset), it is because Fathers lived in a state of extraordinary holiness and familiarity with God that is not as easily seen today. Yet, there are many modern saints that have enjoyed this depth of communion with God, and its no surprise that their life and writings (if they had any) are treated with the same weight and respect as that of the Fathers...Such men did not develop the understanding of the faith, but mystically participated in the fuller revelation of the faith, which they reveal indirectly and incompletely through their writings and teachings.[/quote]

And yet, unless I have some massive hole in my admittedly small knowledge of history, it is a simple matter of historic record that doctrines were (are) only gradually understood by the Church. It is interesting to rearrange the scriptures of the New Testament according to the chronological order in which they were written. You see a definite increase in both awareness and understanding of doctrine (and many scholars would say - not without good arguments - an increase in doctrine, period). The same may be done with the writings of the early Church. Do you disagree with this?

[quote]We should consider what we mean by objectivity...What the Church shares in common is the participation in the uncreated energies of God as experienced through the Sacraments and prayer.
[/quote]

Objectivity from the heavenly perspective must not be the same as objectivity from our perspective. From our spatiotemporal perspective as mortals in a fallen world, something objective is that which is verifiable by either certain logical proof or certain sensual experience. Our faith assures us that the Holy Spirit is an objective reality; yet the Holy Spirit is nevertheless perceived and understood only subjectively. The written text of Scripture is an objective reality, but the discernment of that text as divinely inspired and its interpretation are subjective in nature. This is why we need an objective teaching voice. Anything less would produce anarchy, like a nation with a constitution but no government by which it may be interpreted and applied.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful response and welcome to the forum. As one prominent Phatmasser would say: God grant you many joyful years!

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='WhiskeyWalsh' date='07 January 2010 - 08:13 PM' timestamp='1262913183' post='2032131']
The idea of an ecumenical patriarch, a bishop of bishops, emerged in large part to Rome's (both the city and the Empire) pivotal role in spreading Christianity. Rome was hub of communication and of transportation, it was a place to petition the aid of or work with secular authorities, and almost every major city in the ancient world had contacts (both ecclesiastical and secular) in Rome. Thus, because of the bishop of Rome's unique set of resources, many bishops in the early church looked to the Roman bishop as being one of bulwarks of the church, as the bishop of Rome could easily communicate and (sometimes) represent the interests of other churches, especially those on the Western side of the continent and in North Africa. When Rome ceased to be the center of the Empire, the bishop of Constantinople assumed many of the same roles, and indeed (for better or worse) also assumed the title of ecumenical patriarch, which title the bishop of Rome also claimed. So, in terms of an administrative duties and due to his proximity to the Imperial throne, the Eastern churches did consider the Pope of Rome first among equals, a person who would defend and represent the interests of the Church to the secular authorities. However, the idea of the Pope of Rome assuming a greater ecclesiastical power than other bishops was an innovation that no other bishop in the ancient world claimed. Specifically, this power was embodied in the idea that the ecumenical patriarch had universal pastoral authority over the whole of Christendom, [b]which is to say that the Pope of Rome was the only bishop with real ecclesiastical authorities, all other bishops deriving their authority from the authority of the Pope of Rome. [/b][/quote]

I was pretty much with you until that portion I put in bold. Perhaps some historian will correct me, but I do not believe that Rome ever claimed that the authority of bishops came from the pope (as if the pope were the source of sacramental efficacy).

Alas, it is late. I look forward to writing (and reading) more tomorrow.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='WhiskeyWalsh' date='07 January 2010 - 08:13 PM' timestamp='1262913183' post='2032131']
...Specifically, this power was embodied in the idea that the ecumenical patriarch had universal pastoral authority over the whole of Christendom, which is to say that the Pope of Rome was the only bishop with real ecclesiastical authorities, all other bishops deriving their authority from the authority of the Pope of Rome...this new understanding of the ecumenical patriarch made the rest of the bishops in Christendom basically titular bishops.[/quote]

This part of your post relates directly to the last part, so my response is provided in my concluding thoughts, below.

[quote]What the Orthodox Church rejects regarding the office of the Papacy...is that a bishop can exercise pastoral authority outside of a given geographical area, which is basis for our rejection of universal jurisdiction. The ancient cannons state very clearly that there is to be only one bishop per metropolitan area and that a bishop must have a specific flock for which to care; there can be no such thing as a "bishop at large" because such a bishop lacks the servants of God whom he is supposed to serve. The idea of a "universal" bishop falls under this definition, as it does not specify the bishop's geographical authority, but claims all authority under the palladium (or omiphorion, as we say in the East) of Rome. The cannons also state that one bishop may not interfer in the sacramental or pastoral life of another bishop's jurisdiction without the consent of the first bishop, and again, the office of an ecumencial patriarch would violate this cannon.[/quote]

The bishop of Rome has a specific flock to care for; the diocese of Rome. In this respect he is like every other bishop. Western Catholics believe that the bishop of Rome has a special duty, as uniquely being successor to a specific apostle (rather than successor to the apostolic office in general, as is the case with other bishops), to strengthen his brethren (the rest of the bishops), feed Christ's flock (the universal Church), and use the keys of Christ's kingdom. This unique duty, progressively understood by the Church Militant throughout history, does not remove the bishop's obligations to his own diocese; it merely adds an extra burden and makes him servant of all servants.

[quote]I think the Orthodox hobby horse that is worth listening to in regards to the Pope of Rome...is that if the traditional Roman Catholic thesis of the Pope of Rome is true, it cannot also be true that bishops of other jurisdicitions retain the Apostolic authority granted to them by Christ in his sending out of the Apostles and the manifestation of the Holy Spirit upon all of the Apostles during Pentecost...a bishop of an area would only be a bishop...via the proxy of the eccleastical authority of the Pope of Rome, and not by virtue of the bishop's ordination and the investitutre of his office through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit...
[/quote]

Why? If what you say is truly representative of Rome's teaching, Rome would not recognize the Orthodox as having the Eucharist. But Rome does recognize the validity of the Orthodox sacraments.

[Ziggamafu]

As my OP was meant to indicate, it seems to me that the core issue is whether or not it is proper to the Church Militant to grow and evolve in its awareness and clarification of the doctrines of the Church Triumphant. I think that this evolution of the Church by means of its increasing awareness of its "Triumphant" identity is clearly testified to in history. It is not as if gradually accepted doctrines are truly "new" - as if invented and tacked on to the apostolic faith - but only uncovered, as the implications of history and the apostolic kerygma are progressively understood. I think that the progressive authorship of Scripture and the lengthy discernment process regarding discernment of it as such is a clear example.

The East seems to tacitly acknowledge certain ecclesiological needs by recognizing the infallible nature of decrees in the first seven ecumenical councils, as well as the necessity / importance of those councils (if I understand correctly). I doubt - though I'm not certain - that Orthodox scholars deny the progressive awareness of doctrine as evidence by the chronology of biblical authorship and the subsequent "ironing out" of what the apostolic kerygma means / implies during the first few centuries of Church history. I do not think that the Church Militant was born "full-grown" anymore than I believe Christ descended full-grown from the Heavens. Just as the spatiotemporal Incarnation of Christ needed to breast-feed, then crawl, then walk (etc.), the same is true, doctrinally speaking, of the spatiotemporal Church (Militant).

And if this Western position is true, then it is fairly easy to see the current doctrines regarding the papacy as natural, organic, blossoms, which slowly flowered from the role Peter played in apostolic history and, more importantly, the Church's reflection on the famous passage in Matthew's gospel. Christ gave Peter the keys of the kingdom, and the scripture clearly recalls Isaiah 22:22, thus signaling a very plausible institution of the office of prime minister. To say that Peter was representing all of the apostles in his reception of the keys seems to ignore the context of the passage, to say nothing of historical context.

[Apotheoun]

The threads linked below give background information on the theological differences between the East and the West, and so they might help to advance the discussion in this present thread (n.b., some of the threads are quite long):

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=9772"]Should We Proselytize the Eastern Orthodox?[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=95027"]Another Reason We Should Convert the Orthodox[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=95012"]Melkites[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=90683"]The Greek Orthodox Churches[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=52356"]Greek Orthodox Relations Question[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=94337"]The Creed[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=72774"]Why Does the Filioque Debate Matter?[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=81541"]God as Unknowable[/url]

[Ziggamafu]

Apo,

Do any of those threads provide Eastern responses to the specific issues I've raised here? I remember saying something similar in a previous thread awhile back, but I don't think it was given much attention. What are your thoughts?

Thanks!

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='08 January 2010 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1262982484' post='2032588']
Apo,

Do any of those threads provide Eastern responses to the specific issues I've raised here? I remember saying something similar in a previous thread awhile back, but I don't think it was given much attention. What are your thoughts?

Thanks!
[/quote]
I think the Eastern understanding of primacy and the synodical nature of the Church is discussed in several of the threads (e.g., the "[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=95012"]Melkites[/url]" thread begins with that topic), but it is only one issue among many discussed in those threads.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='08 January 2010 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1262980366' post='2032566']
The threads linked below give background information on the theological differences between the East and the West, and so they might help to advance the discussion in this present thread (n.b., some of the threads are quite long):

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=9772"]Should We Proselytize the Eastern Orthodox?[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=95027"]Another Reason We Should Convert the Orthodox[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=95012"]Melkites[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=90683"]The Greek Orthodox Churches[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=52356"]Greek Orthodox Relations Question[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=94337"]The Creed[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=72774"]Why Does the Filioque Debate Matter?[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=81541"]God as Unknowable[/url]
[/quote]
Dude, I remember a couple of those thread.

[i]Greek Orthodox Relations Question[/i] and [i]Why Does the Filioque Debate Matter?[/i] = Classic Revprodeji discussions. Win.

Those were fun times... *sigh*

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='08 January 2010 - 06:21 PM' timestamp='1263000067' post='2032746']
Dude, I remember a couple of those thread.

[i]Greek Orthodox Relations Question[/i] and [i]Why Does the Filioque Debate Matter?[/i] = Classic Revprodeji discussions. Win.

Those were fun times... *sigh*
[/quote]
They were pretty fun. Why aren't there any good theological discussion at Phatmass anymore?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='08 January 2010 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1263001630' post='2032767']
They were pretty fun. Why aren't there any good theological discussion at Phatmass anymore?
[/quote]
I'm finding these frequent anarchy discussions fascinating, personally. Very informative.

[Guest WhiskeyWalsh]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 January 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1262925322' post='2032254']
Remember that when we speak of doctrinal evolution or the dynamism of a living Church that grows and changes, we speak not of the Church Triumphant - the glorified Church that transcends time and space - but rather of the Church Militant; the incomplete Church of our time and space. The two are one, yes, but the perfect and changeless Church Triumphant is only perceived by faith and mystical experience from our mortal perspective. "Our" Church, properly speaking, refers to the Church of our spatiotemporal world, which still marches toward the Eschaton. And this Church Militant is - as a matter of fact - limited and imperfect in many ways. For one, it is incomplete in that as I type this, there is (presumably!) yet more souls that in the coming hours that will enter into it. Second, it is imperfect in its understanding of the sacred mysteries, being limited by the weakness of human nature in this fallen world. Third, it depends on its growth in both numbers and doctrine in order to grow closer to the Truth.[/quote]



[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 January 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1262925322' post='2032254']Did God reveal the whole of Old Testament prophecy to Adam? Did any prophet have knowledge of what would be revealed to future prophets? Were the Scriptures given all at once? Were they canonized by God Himself in a manner that was objectively verifiable to men? Did the Blessed Apostles themselves know all that they needed to know when they received the Holy Spirit? Was the council of Jerusalem the last and only time that our leaders would wrestle with theological questions? Was the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity clearly preached before the first council of Nicaea? It is a matter of fact, not opinion, that the Church Militant has grown in her doctrine (unless, for example, the canon of Scriptures is not considered doctrinal). A small seed, growing slowly into a tree. Such seems to be God's way...taking time, and lots of it, to bring forth His many creations.[/quote]




[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 January 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1262925322' post='2032254']My point is that Eastern Christians acknowledge the need for the universally binding nature of the first seven councils. I merely find it peculiar that God would see the need to protect the clarity of the faith by means of universally binding decrees for only the first 700 years of Christianity. I find it just as peculiar as the Protestant notion that God protected the tradition of the Church only until the scriptural canon was known.[/quote]

Ok, I think I can respond to your question properly now. The Seven Ecumenical Councils, and all of dogmatic and didactic theology, is done for the enlightenment and correction of the faithful. However, even if the Seven Ecumenical Councils never occurred and no didactic theology was ever written, the clarity and integrity of the faith would have still been perfect, because as we have said, the Church IS the body of Christ. Such dispensations or occurances of economia are meant to strengthen the faith of individual believers and to expose the errors of heretics, not to strengthen the church: the church is complete, otherwise Christ would have no reason to warn faithful to not change even an "iota" of his teaching. This command was not given as a warning to safeguard the church, but as a warning to the faithful not to fall away from the church, as the church will persist even if an individual does not.


[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 January 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1262925322' post='2032254']And yet, unless I have some massive hole in my admittedly small knowledge of history, it is a simple matter of historic record that doctrines were (are) only gradually understood by the Church. It is interesting to rearrange the scriptures of the New Testament according to the chronological order in which they were written. You see a definite increase in both awareness and understanding of doctrine (and many scholars would say - not without good arguments - an increase in doctrine, period). The same may be done with the writings of the early Church. Do you disagree with this?[/quote]



[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 January 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1262925322' post='2032254']Objectivity from the heavenly perspective must not be the same as objectivity from our perspective. From our spatiotemporal perspective as mortals in a fallen world, something objective is that which is verifiable by either certain logical proof or certain sensual experience. Our faith assures us that the Holy Spirit is an objective reality; yet the Holy Spirit is nevertheless perceived and understood only subjectively. The written text of Scripture is an objective reality, but the discernment of that text as divinely inspired and its interpretation are subjective in nature. This is why we need an objective teaching voice. Anything less would produce anarchy, like a nation with a constitution but no government by which it may be interpreted and applied.[/quote]

Thank you very much for your thoughtful response and welcome to the forum. As one prominent Phatmasser would say: God grant you many joyful years!
[/quote]

sorry its taken me so long to respond, I'll have more to say on these quotes in the near future

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='08 January 2010 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1262980366' post='2032566']
The threads linked below give background information on the theological differences between the East and the West, and so they might help to advance the discussion in this present thread (n.b., some of the threads are quite long):

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=9772"]Should We Proselytize the Eastern Orthodox?[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=95027"]Another Reason We Should Convert the Orthodox[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=95012"]Melkites[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=90683"]The Greek Orthodox Churches[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=52356"]Greek Orthodox Relations Question[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=94337"]The Creed[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=72774"]Why Does the Filioque Debate Matter?[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=81541"]God as Unknowable[/url]
[/quote]
Awesome Threads


WhiskeyWalsh -- Welcome to Phatmass!