- I would add that the visible/sacramental Church point is underscored by the Donatist heresy. The Lord s Supper is in some sense the sacrament par excellence.Message 1 of 6 , Aug 20, 2010View SourceI would add that the visible/sacramental Church point is underscored by the
The Lord's Supper is in some sense the sacrament par excellence. It creates
the Church because it unites us with the Body of Christ, which is the
Church. If the Body of Christ consecrated by an unworthy or even heretical
priest (not yet suspended or defrocked) is 'valid' and grace-bearing, than
so, too, are that priest and the communicants in his parish equally "The
Church" in a visible and sacramental way, regardless of their error.
(This assumes the Divine Liturgy was served according to Tradition, on a
valid antimens, bread and wine were used vs something else, all the
appropriate prayers and actions were done, the priest has not been suspended
or defrocked, etc.)
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Benjamin Harju
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Christopher's comment about Donatism is helpful here. Your friend's
> response: "...are they the true visible church simply because they are
> members of the Orthodox Church? Of course not," is incorrect. Of course
> they are part of the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church is itself the
> sacrament of the Kingdom, the abode of the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox Church
> as such is more objective in nature than what your friend has conceived. As
> a comparison: As a Lutheran, if a wicked congregation administers the
> Sacrament of the Altar, or a wicked person receives that Sacrament, do you
> as a Lutheran believe that there is no Sacrament present? Of course not.
> That's not what Lutheranism teaches. It's like that.
> Think of it this way: the Orthodox Church is the sacramental home where God
> makes His Holy Spirit "available" for our salvation. We already know that a
> bad priest cannot thwart God's working regarding this (the ruling against
> Donatism). And if people in a certain place don't "get it," that doesn't
> mean the Orthodox Church suddenly disappeared. Rather, God gives them time
> for repentance, and where that is lacking then such a place may find
> themselves removed from the Church in some objective way. Think of the
> letters in Revelation, where Christ warns certain congregations about what
> they are lacking, and that they risk having their lamp stand removed. Or
> think of St. Paul's comments in Romans about the olive tree having branches
> pruned off so that wild branches (the Gentiles) can be grafted in. He warns
> about the possibility of such "new" branches being trimmed off again due to
> our slothfulness and faithlessness. Bad congregations can be still part of
> the Church, until such time as they are removed from the Church, or until
> Christ returns and He removes them at the Last Judgment.
> All of this is to speak of the Church according to where we are sure she is
> - the Orthodox Church. If God's Church extends beyond this to congregations
> not in communion with her, we have no certain knowledge of this and leave
> to God to work out. We are called to focus on following Christ in the
> certainty He provides in His Church, and in this Church to take care for
> souls by walking circumspectly. So, again, let's say there's a bad
> congregation - a bad one. Just because they are still in the Church doesn't
> mean that I should associate with them in their badness, that is, join them
> in their spiritually dangerous walk before God and risk having God's
> judgment fall upon me. The saints give examples against that. Rather, such
> congregations need to be helped to come to repentance, and I *assume* there
> is a mechanism to that end in the Orthodox Church.
> In Christ,
> Benjamin Harju
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...<xcjorr%40gmail.com>>
> > I believe Arius and Nestorius were both accorded the honors of their rank
> > (presbyter and Patriarch, respectively) during the Councils and Nicea and
> > Ephesus. It is only once they were defrocked and anathematized for
> > unrepentence that they were not treated with the honor of their Order.
> > Fathers weren't Donatists. This is why it was so scandalous that St.
> > Nicholas slapped Arius.
> > Christopher
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Oruaseht <oruaseht@...<oruaseht%40yahoo.com>>
> > >
> > >
> > > In a recent discussion with a friend about Orthodoxy vs. Lutheranism
> > being
> > > the "real deal" visible Church on earth, my friend posed this response
> > > me:
> > >
> > > "If an Orthodox Church has some wacky priest and they are not doing and
> > > receiving what God has given, are they the true visible church simply
> > > because they are members of the Orthodox Church?
> > >
> > > Of course not."
> > >
> > > His comment is regarding Orthodox priests/parishes who are either
> > teaching
> > > non-Orthodox doctrine or living in a non-Orthodox life. What is the
> > Orthodox
> > > take on "Heretical Orthodox?"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > ------------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- I agree with everyone else. The hypocrite is externally a member of the body of Christ, but not so internally. Hopefully he will repent. One example of thisMessage 2 of 6 , Aug 20, 2010View SourceI agree with everyone else. The hypocrite is externally a member of the body of
Christ, but not so internally. Hopefully he will repent.
One example of this is the way in which heresies are dealt with in Orthodox
councils. Each side is presented, and there is discussion. Many times--in
ecumenical as well as local councils--participants have accepted the true faith
Theodoret of Cyrus, for example, was initially a Nestorian, and wrote one of the
Three Chapters that were condemned by the 5th ecumenical council. He repented,
however, accepted the true dogma, and was later canonized a saint. His
exegetical writings have been influential ever since. (I use them myself.)
From: Oruaseht <oruaseht@...>
Sent: Thu, August 19, 2010 11:38:20 PM
Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Heretical Orthodox
In a recent discussion with a friend about Orthodoxy vs. Lutheranism being the
"real deal" visible Church on earth, my friend posed this response to me:
"If an Orthodox Church has some wacky priest and they are not doing and
receiving what God has given, are they the true visible church simply because
they are members of the Orthodox Church?
Of course not."
His comment is regarding Orthodox priests/parishes who are either teaching
non-Orthodox doctrine or living in a non-Orthodox life. What is the Orthodox
take on "Heretical Orthodox?"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]