Statements On uniate ENCROACHMENT On Orthodox Territory

[ioannis]

And it is, of course, a fact that is in dispute, so trying to base an argument on that claim is essentially worthless in any context larger than your own church.

If there is any pretense here, it is in the implied assertion that the Romans know that they are wrong. Instead, they "know" that they are right, and if this be error, it doesn't affect that they will act from what they "know" and not what you "know".

I realize many of them don't know, and many more probably don't care. And what difference if the arguement that we are indeed the One True church is worthless to the world - it is true nonetheless. I am not here to serve peoples beliefs, I am here to serve Christ. You seem to think I am somehow obliged to acknowledge and conform to what others think - I am not. In fact, my only resonsibility when it come to them is to confess the truth.

If everyone argued as you do, then there would be constant religious war.

So I should sell my faith and conform my beliefs to avoid persecution?

If by war you mean one that involves physical violence, well then let them smite both my left and right cheeks. But if you mean a rivalry of sorts, then " better, indeed, a laudable war than a peace which severs one from God" (Saint Gregory the Theologian). This stand of the Church is actually charitable, for it protects the Flock of Christ from heresy and provides heretics with motives and reasons for returning to the Church.

Well, (a) education is fine, but saying that it is all different, that is just untrue.

Untrue?? There is no "partial" truth, no "partial church". Either you have all the truth that was delivered and promised or you have a corruption. I mean, any "good" lie is cloaked with truth, and the father of lies is who?

It seems you are an ecumenist at heart - you believe there are indeed "churches". So of course you think everything you have written is true. There is no sense therefore in continuing a conversation. I am not here to convert you to Orthodoxy.

[DavidHawthorne]

Christ is Among Us!
I was born into a Southern Baptist home and raised to be a churchgoing Christian. Eventually, I made the serious practice of Christianity to be my own decision and went to the Charismatic/ Pentecostal version of Protestant Christianity. In these years I learned a lot about studying the Bible and the value of warm Christian fellowship as well as the importance of living our lives as a witness in order to win others to Christ. And, although I was formally a heretic, I am thankful not that I was a heretic but that I learned these lessons. And I realize that there is a good chance I would not have learned these things had I been born a cradle Orthodox. Not because the Church does not teach these things or that it is not part of the fiber of her message but because they are generally not well modeled in our time or place.
Sensing that there was something more to the Faith, I began to study the history of the Church and Christian doctrine and ended up becoming Roman Catholic because I came to see that their arguments for who they were and why they believed what they believed so totally blew away the Reformers' deforms of the ancient faith (as distinct from their legitimate reforms) that I had no other choice. So I learned the value of Tradition and the principle of continuity in the way the Church is run, the way she worships and what she believes which is exactly what makes her a divine revelation and not a mere human philosophy. Because of this I am thankful for what I learned as a Roman Catholic even though I was still a heretic in the eyes of the True Church. Perhaps I learned also from them the universality of the Faith for all men in a way that is all-encompassing and above nationality whereas had I been a cradle Orthodox perhaps I would have missed this lesson and been merely Greek or Russian in my outlook.
Finally, I came to Holy Orthodoxy and everything fell into place. As completely as the Roman Catholics could blow away the Protestant apologists by their arguments, so can the Orthodox blow away the Latins. Truly, we Orthodox have the fullness of the Gospel even though many sincere and pious practicing heterodox cannot see it. I do not believe that their minds are closed because they are not inteligent; neither do I believe that their hearts are closed because they are unfeeling.
If their hearts and minds are closed to recieving the fullness of the Truth and if our own peoples' hearts and minds open to them when they encroach on our territory it is because we are not sufficiently living out our faith in love. We often allow the heterodox to outstrip us in virtue and so if we do not warm their hearts with our love we will never open their minds with our truth.
We cannot stop the heterodox from trying to steal our sheep. I agree that they do not have the right to do so but they do have the freedom (whereas Orthodox have both the right and the freedom). The only way to stop Uniatism, etc. is to live as blazing examples of the fruit of the Spirit who can also share the Faith when asked to or the opportunity arises. In this way, the heterodox missions would fall flat on their faces far more often than they do. And, then also, we might find ourselves- instead of complaining of successful poachers- actually converting the converters.
In Christ,
Rd. David

[Kollyvas]

Christ is in our midst!

In an ideal world where Russia WAS NOT spiritually raped and the church compromised with millions of martyrdoms and the religious infrastructure would not have been uprooted, yeah there would be no problems with "poachers vs poachers," but that is not the place we're at. Therefore, the fact that ecumenism has made these inroads and allowed this type of encroachment puts us not only at a disadvantage but leaves us to be prey to the sectarians. And, yes, we should take steps to limit that, for the spiritual well-being of Orthodox peoples and that of nations should always come first--apostasy from Orthodoxy is almost certainly perdition. I find it utterly disdainful for people to be "converted" to one of the sects on account of a regular parcel which contains nothing more than a tube of toothpaste, toileteries, a few MREs, and a Bible. It is a CRIME THAT CERTAIN GROUPS TOUT SUCH "conversions" AND THAT THEY EXIST OR THAT EVEN SOME ORTHODOX COULD SEE THEM AS LEGITIMATE.

ORTHODOXIA I THANATOS!
R M Malleev-Pokrovsky

[CGW]

Finally, I came to Holy Orthodoxy and everything fell into place. As completely as the Roman Catholics could blow away the Protestant apologists by their arguments, so can the Orthodox blow away the Latins.

But they didn't. They only blew you away.

Whatever one thinks about any given system of religion, the irreducible fact is that dogmatic differences persist. Therefore, the modern conversion of any given person to any given church isn't universally convincing. This line is trying to expand from the original line about how one shouldn't be surprised that those whom your church condemns do not respect your church's territorial claims. It is trying to turn into the general "Orthodox Triumphs Over All Falsehood So Anything I Say Refutes a Heretic" thread. In my opinion this is the road to hubris, but all that aside, there is no point in saying it to me because the mere fact of me disbelieving it falsifies it-- for me.

[DavidHawthorne]

Christ is in our midst!

Hi, CGW-
I read your response to something I wrote and was curious (don't worry, I'm not setting you up)........
Do you believe that if among all the churches calling themselves Christian one is more correct than the others, it is possible to know that objectively? Or, if there is such a church, the Holy Spirit has not provided any means to know it?
Or, if we just have to accept the status quo of division since there is no way to know whether there is a most correct church?
And if there is no True Church (or, at least, most correct one) because it all reduces to we should go to wherever we feel led then how can we say there is even a true religion? How can there be a true religion if most people of good will haven't agreed on one?
If there is no way to know really whether a "denomination" is right then how can we then utter the "hubris" that any one religion is right?
If "that church is right for you but not for me" then why not "that religion is right for you but not for me?"
Again, I don't care to beat you with a stick but I was curious how you as a Protestant might answer that question.....

In Christ,
Rd. David

[Kollyvas]

http://bostonreview.net/BR30.2/raboteau.html

[CGW]

Do you believe that if among all the churches calling themselves Christian one is more correct than the others, it is possible to know that objectively? Or, if there is such a church, the Holy Spirit has not provided any means to know it?

"Objective" would normally mean "without regard to the observer"; that is, one would know it because it would be possible to generally agree upon it.. Now, I think that "objectively" we "know" trinitarian doctrine (plus or minus a filioque) because of the breadth of the consensus about it.

Or, if we just have to accept the status quo of division since there is no way to know whether there is a most correct church?

You don't have any choice but accept it, in the sense that you can't make it go away. You don't have to agree that it is a good thing, but that's utterly different.

And if there is no True Church (or, at least, most correct one) because it all reduces to we should go to wherever we feel led then how can we say there is even a true religion?

You say it by moving your lips and making the sounds. Seriously. And as going wherever one feels led-- how do you propose to make it happen otherwise? The issue is in the quality of the leading.

How can there be a true religion if most people of good will haven't agreed on one?

Because, logically, the truth of religion isn't affected by agreement on it, any more than the motion of the earth differed before Newtonian mechanics were devised.

If there is no way to know really whether a "denomination" is right then how can we then utter the "hubris" that any one religion is right?[

The hubris lies in overvaluing our own personal value and authority as witnesses to the truth that we see.