"The Pillar and Ground of the Truth"?

Patristic theology, and traditional teachings of Orthodoxy from the Church fathers of apostolic times to the present. All forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.
JamesR
Member
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon 8 April 2013 7:10 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (but considering Traditional Orthodoxy!)
Location: NorCal

"The Pillar and Ground of the Truth"?

Post by JamesR »

Perhaps it is not the best time of year to criticize or question the Church, but this is something I've noticed for quite a while now, and while I've talked about it with my Priest, I still don't feel like it has been adequately answered. Here is the problem: I cannot accept that the Orthodox Church is the "pillar and ground of the truth" like St. Paul says. The reason to me is that it just seems like the Church has always been so inconsistent with its stance on issues, and always more influenced and united with secular power than with the truth.

A few historical issues that come to mind are the topics of slavery, polygamy vs. monogamy, fornication and tollhouses. In regards to slavery, this is a complex issue. The Church's modern position is that it is wrong and evil, however, historically, that doesn't seem to be the case. How come then many monasteries hosted slave auctions for Gypsies and the Russian Church was the biggest supporter of Serfdom in Europe? Among the Fathers, most seemed to be silent on the issue of slavery. And the ones who did speak about it either condemned it entirely as evil (like St. John Chrysostom and one of the St. Gregories, can't remember which) or at least did not approve of it. That being said, why didn't the Church listen to the Fathers and why has it waited until now to finally condemn the practice? It didn't stop the Church in the past from indulging in the practice, and the Church never did anything about the issue. Once again, it seems like the Church just ignored the Fathers and went with the secular world until the secular world decided to condemn it. Have you ever noticed that the Church didn't officially condemn slavery until AFTER the secular world had abolished it for the most, relatively recently?

It seems to me like the Church cares more about appealing to the secular world than adhering to the truth. It's quite shameful honestly that the secular world stood up for a good cause whereas the Church didn't do squat. Aren't we supposed to be the pillar and ground of truth that enlightens humanity and tries to promote good? It seems like the secular world did pretty well in regards to this issue without the Church--which only indulged in slavery and Serfdom. Likewise, why did we wait so long before finally condemning it? Once again, it seems like the Church only condemned it because it wants to match the trend of the secular world and make itself appear more appealing and modern to potential converts.

In regards to marriage--polygamy vs. monogamy, this is another topic that is not as clearcut as we would like to believe. How come in our modern times, the Church condemns polygamy, but during its earliest period, it did not? St. Paul never condemned the practice, nor did any of the New Testament writers. The closest we see is that he developed the concept of marriage as a Sacrament in Christ, but never limited a marriage to only one man and one woman--except in the case of clergy. So why does the Church condemn polygamy? Another example of it trying to match secular society's Puritanical Victorian ethics, adding to the Apostolic Faith? Next up, how about fornication? By fornication I mean sex between two unmarried people. This is NEVER condemned anywhere in the Bible--Old or New Testaments. Only adultery--which involved married people--was condemned, and the word "pornea" used in the New Testament that is often mistranslated as "fornication" actually only means "sexual immorality" and was mostly associated with temple prostitution. The closest mention we see at all to fornication in the Scriptures is an Old Testament law which said that if a man "seduced" an unmarried woman and they had sex, then he had to pay a larger dowry to her father and they got married.

So why does the Church condemn fornication as of now? Seems very inconsistent to me.

Finally, some of the more modern issues; what about the tollhouses? This is something that the Church has been inconsistent on since day one. Some Fathers say they are 100% real, some Fathers believed in a concept similar to tollhouses involving a temporary state of judgement after death, but denied the doctrine in its totality, and some Fathers did not mention the issue at all or flat out rejected it. But what does the Church teach in modern times? Usually nothing; it's something that World Orthodoxy is silent on because it is such a taboo and scandal that the Church hasn't formulated an official position on. They don't tell their converts about this at all; my Priest never did, and when I brought it up, he seemed to be sweating bullets. Is this an example of dishonesty, manipulation and doctrinal cherry-picking that the Church has employed in order to fit in with modern society? It appears so to me.

It's just, how am I supposed to trust the Church's position on everything when it seems to be so inconsistent and influenced by the secular world? I mean, all throughout the Church's history it seems to have been closely united with the State. Just look at the Russian Church. I hate to say it, but the See of Russa is a joke; it always has been. Ever since day one it has been a theocracy tightly united to the State and has opposed anything that challenged the State. It supported Czar Nicholas who was a horrible leader, and supported the violence that the Black-class clergy and government used against the early Bolshevik protestors--many of whom ere White-class clergy who wanted a change because so many people were starving and dying. I hate to say it, but I can see why Lenin hated the Russian Church so much; it only cared about pleasing the State, supporting Serfdom and persecuting anyone who opposed the State. And now look at the Russian Church: barely 20 years after the fall of the USSR and it is already trying to reunite itself with the State by supporting Putin so much.

Or how about "Saint" Constantine? The man was far from a Saint; he was baptized by an Arian, murdered his own family and didn't do anything admirable. The only reason the Church Canonized him is because he gave the Church a lot of wealth and power. That's unfair and entirely contrary to Christ's message, you can't buy your way into Sainthood through giving the Church money. If Constantine were just an average joe who wasn't a rich and powerful ruler, he wouldn't even be considered for Canonization. Yet, I'm told to see myself as the worst of sinners because I lust, whereas Constantine is regarded as a Saint. That doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not denying that I'm a sinner, but I doubt I've done anything that would make me a worse sinner than Constantine, but he's a Saint and I'm nothing. Why is that? Because he had money and power, whereas I don't, and because the Church liked to unite itself to the State.

How am I supposed to accept that it's the pillar and ground of the truth?

"'Blessed are the peacemakers' For those are peacemakers in themselves who, in conquering and subjecting to reason all the motions of their souls and having their carnal desires tamed, have become in themselves a Kingdom of God."-St. Augustine of Hippo (Confessions)

User avatar
joasia
Protoposter
Posts: 1858
Joined: Tue 29 June 2004 7:19 pm
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Location: Montreal

Re: "The Pillar and Ground of the Truth"?

Post by joasia »

CHRIST IS RISEN!

JamesR,

It's just, how am I supposed to trust the Church's position on everything when it seems to be so inconsistent and influenced by the secular world?

Indeed, how can you make proper discernment of the Apostolic traditions when your mind is so full of secular arguments? All your questions are important, but you need to give some leeway of trust that Christ's Church which He established on earth, is the full truth. You have yet a lot to learn about what is the truth. You seem to have been influenced by much propaganda against the truth.

How am I supposed to accept that it's the pillar and ground of the truth?

Not with your mind, but with your heart. I hope that one day you will be able to sort it all out. Give it some time. Christ wants us all to come to the full understanding of His teachings. But, secular politics that attacks the Church is the devil's work. It's a distraction from the truth. I (and everyone else here) can answer all your questions, but I wonder if you really care to hear an answer or whether you are just angry and want to blow off steam. If you are not serious about the faith, then I don't think you will appreciate the answers.

Joanna

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. (Ps. 50)

User avatar
searn77
Jr Member
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed 24 November 2010 10:00 pm
Faith: Orthodox Old Calendarist
Jurisdiction: Metropolia of Americas & Brit. Isles

Re: "The Pillar and Ground of the Truth"?

Post by searn77 »

In order to get a better take on why St. Constantine is a saint, I'd recommend the book Defending Constantine by Peter J. Leithart. While I've only been reading the book off and on, I have learned much about St. Constantine's life including how important of a role he played in the saving of countless Christian's lives and with the Council of Nicea.

Troparion of St. Philaret of New York
Let us the faithful now come together to praise our father, protector and teacher the pillar of the Orthodox faith and firm defender of piety even the wondrous hierarch Philaret and let us glorify our Saviour Who has granted us his incorrupt relics as a manifest sign of his sanctity.

User avatar
Jean-Serge
Protoposter
Posts: 1381
Joined: Fri 1 April 2005 11:04 am
Location: Paris (France)
Contact:

Re: "The Pillar and Ground of the Truth"?

Post by Jean-Serge »

Indeed, JamesR, what you say is full of secular and inaccurate arguments :

  • Church and state in Russia: you cannot understand the situation only reading the anti-church historians that will describe the things in a way to criticize the church and Russian political system, that had their defects. This is basically the way things are presented in Western world, because the Western world is opposed to orthodoxy. Church also worked also on social issue, helping poor people. They was also a sort of christian union defending workers. Find other readings on the subject.

  • "Czar Nicholas who was a horrible leader" : which one. The II was a pious, holy man, devoted to his family. He was very intelligent too. The ability to rule is another question. It is classical secular view

  • fornication is not a sin and would have become only at the Victorian era. Is this a joke? Porneia: the early fathers described porneia or fornication like a sin and it is clearly written in their canons see Basil the Great and Saint Gregory. Your explanation is typically protestant: can you find a father saying porneia is not fornication?

  • slavery: slavery is different from serfdom first. The church has not to state systematically the word on social issue, but the christian position can be understood from christian principles. Slavery is not a thological issue by the way.

-polygamy : you may have not not noticed but created Adam and Eve, not Adam with Eve, Isabel, Salomé, Maria, Jennifer etc... :D From the 2nd century, we have Christian authors, like Tertullian, saying polygamy is not practiced by christians

The church is the pillar of the truth for religious matters. Outside this, there are only men with their sins and their mistakes... The church is a hospital, with people curing, other not, some making efforts to be cured, other not at all... It is not the place where you'll only find perfect men and women...

By the way, the authority in the church is not the Bible but the Tradition that includes the Bible and the orthodox way to understand it, not through protestant innovation telling you fornication is OK to justify people's sin.

Priidite, poklonimsja i pripadem ko Hristu.

User avatar
Barbara
Protoposter
Posts: 3983
Joined: Sat 29 September 2012 6:03 pm

Re: "The Pillar and Ground of the Truth"?

Post by Barbara »

I think it's very important - if not essential - that JamesR QUESTIONS openly and honestly the way he does here.

So many in the general public whisper behind others' backs, but keep a false smile pasted on. Then criticisms fester and discontent begins, which only leads down the slippery slope.
It is great our young inquirer is sorting through things so thoroughly.
How many other kids know about ANY of this material ?
They are SO zoned out it's frightening. Whereas he is presenting questions about central topics, which anyone might wonder about.
Not just he.
So this is valuable for all readers to consider how would they themselves answer if someone posed these arguments.
In fact, I had never thought of several of these topics that he raised.

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: "The Pillar and Ground of the Truth"?

Post by Maria »

Barbara wrote:

I think it's very important - if not essential - that JamesR QUESTIONS openly and honestly the way he does here.

So many in the general public whisper behind others' backs, but keep a false smile pasted on. Then criticisms fester and discontent begins, which only leads down the slippery slope.
It is great our young inquirer is sorting through things so thoroughly.
How many other kids know about ANY of this material ?
They are SO zoned out it's frightening. Whereas he is presenting questions about central topics, which anyone might wonder about.
Not just he.
So this is valuable for all readers to consider how would they themselves answer if someone posed these arguments.
In fact, I had never thought of several of these topics that he raised.

Yes, it is important to answer sincere questions of our youth.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

User avatar
Jean-Serge
Protoposter
Posts: 1381
Joined: Fri 1 April 2005 11:04 am
Location: Paris (France)
Contact:

Re: "The Pillar and Ground of the Truth"?

Post by Jean-Serge »

This canon of Saint Basil and its commentary by Saint Nicodemus are really clear about fornication. They show fornication is not reduced to sacred prostitution as claimed previoulsy but with any sex had outside marriage. I guess that Saint basil and Saint Nikodemos knew Greek language very well.

26. Fornication is not matrimony, but is not even the beginning of matrimony. So that if it be possible to separate persons joined in fornication, this would be the best course to take. But if they insist upon marriage at all costs, let them pay the penalty for fornication, and let them have their way, lest anything should happen that is still worse.
(Ap. c, LXVII; cc. XXII, XXIII, XXV of St. Basil.).

Interpretation.
After allowing those who have been raped before the wedding to contract a marriage in his cc. XXII and XXV, the Saint finally in the present Canon decrees this generally and more exactly, to wit: that as for those men who fornicate beforehand, either with a virgin or with a whore, and after the fornication seek to marry, the truer and better course is for them not to marry, but even if they should succeed in marrying, it is better that they be separated, since it is for this reason that marriage is called honorable and the marriage bed undefiled, namely, because it is free and clean from any previous sin and rape, whereas, on the contrary, fornication and rape are neither marriage nor a beginning of marriage. But if the fornicators themselves will on no account consent to being separated, let them be punished as fornicators, with a seven-year sentence, that is to say, but let them remain unseparated, in order to avoid having any more serious thing happen, or, more explicitly speaking, in order that after being separated they may not keep on secretly indulging in fornica¬tion, or, in order that while both of them are united with other persons they may not secretly commit adultery with each other, or in order to keep them from committing suicide because of their being unable to put up with excessive love and separation. Read also Ap. c. LXVII and the Footnote thereto.

Priidite, poklonimsja i pripadem ko Hristu.

Post Reply