Statements On uniate ENCROACHMENT On Orthodox Territory

[DavidHawthorne]

While the statement that "the truths of religion do not depend on how many believe" is true, in practice it is simply an invitation to hold to eccentric positions without the bother of having to defend them. And I would never use the notion of voting to describe the process of intellectual consensus.

This seems very true- I have seen temtatioons to extreme positions from both the right (conservatism) and the left (liberalism).

The issue with unbelievers is with working the intellectual machinery. A crucial part of being convinced is being able to put yourself in someone else's argument. Where presuppositions are shared, this is easier; when they are not, one is faced with either arguing the presuppositions, or "as I were" arguments. In practice the latter-- "if I were a Christian, this is how I would think about the Trinity" -- is extremely difficult. Failure to integrate these people to the consensus isn't that much of a blow.

Code: Select all

This also seems very true- when I look back at my own experience I am amazed at the degree to which presuppostions play across the field of belief. In my own case, the conversion from Protestantism to a more ancient Christianity showed this very well. Once I had accepted the basic Catholic/Orthodox presuppositions concerning Tradition vs. Sola Scriptura it is amazing how easily I could accept many of the "doctrines that divide".

When I say "the breadth of consensus" on the Trinity, what mean isn't numbers, but rather that across the spectrum of theological positions and systems, the doctrine is accepted by nearly everyone.

True- but "accepted by nearly everyone" still translates into majority rule as in democracy (unless you're giving each "theological position" a vote in the manner of the electoral college- each state having a vote regardless of its actual population number) Voting as "President" over all theologies whichever system(s) win the vote by this electoral system still seems to me to be not consistent with the Holy Fathers whom I have read.

Trying to actually pin down Hinduism is a lot harder than it appears you believe it to be.

Too true- it is easy to forget the sheer variety of beliefs available to the Hindu: but I meant to contrast their freedom of having multiple contradictory belief systems vs. Christianity' s exclusivism. If you are a Christian you MUST believe that THIS is the one True Religion (even if you leave to God's mercy those people of good will who "didn't know better"). If you are a Hindu you MUST believe that there are many ways to God (even if it includes Christianity)

faith in Jesus and participation in the sacramental life of the church isn't enough to produce consistent agreement.

"True" (with reservations)- and this is why I feel the apologetics that fly between the ancient historical churches (Anglicanism, Catholicism, Mia/ Monophysitism and Orthodoxy) are on a completely different level than those between less sacramental forms of Protestantism and any one of these churches.

Therefore, one must conclude that the One True Religion is not something that (thus far) has been rationally expressed in human theology

Here is my first point of real disagreement with you. The True Faith can be rationally expressed and any number of fallen minds can still "miss it"

-- or it is, its essential expression is a lot smaller than the theology of most if not all churches.

I don't understand this point.

As to your point regarding presuppostions: yes, very few, if any, of us realize how our presuppostions color all the other points of our beliefs. If we realize how important this is then it is encumbent on us to then find out not only WHAT we believe but WHY do we believe what we believe.

Well, part of the issue, "what is change?" The bible thumping Protestant approach can degenerate into rejecting the doctrines of the Fathers as change. And while I think there are basic intellectual reasons for rejecting this approach (as for instance its practitioners tend to recapitulate basic historical heresies which the larger consensus rejects without having to rely on the authority of the fathers), it is grounded in the realization that there is a trend towards elaboration of theology, and that elaboration is vulnerable to leaving the source material behind. And there simply is a tradition of controversialism arising out of the sinful urge to differentiate one's church from that of the heretics. In the big picture, ecumenists tend to gloss over differences; but traditionalists tend to fantasize about differences that aren't really there. The truth can (and I believe does) lie in the middle.[/quote]

All very true and well said but the answer to which would have to be given on a case by case basis since tomes could be written on even slight deviations of answer.
I think from your posts you might be a traditional Anglican. What between your confession and Orthodoxy keeps you from "swimming the Bosphorus"? What keeps you where you are vs. coming to Orthodoxy and what draws you to this site in spite of getting occasionaly trampled by well-meaning (but knee-jerk zealous) Orthodox traditionalists?

In Christ,
Rd. David

[DavidHawthorne]

I apologize for the format in which my preceding post appeared- apparently I dont understand how the quote button works...........
In Christ,
Rd. David

[Kollyvas]

http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2005/07/ ... rsion.html

[DavidHawthorne]

P.S. to CGW-

" -- or it is, its essential expression is a lot smaller than the theology of most if not all churches.

I don't understand this point."

Having considered it, I think you mean to say that whatever the consensus of Christians teach is the core truth of Christianity and anything beyond this is speculation a la C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity"
I understand this point and once held to it. At its core it is true (for example when comparing what the Latins believe concerning Purgatory vs. what St. Mark of Ephesus taught concerning the soul after death at the council of Florence). But if the principle is followed rigorously then we are left with a much reduced faith that seeks to find the lowest common denominator between communions and a faith much smaller than the Holy Fathers, the Spirit-led successors of the Apostles intended us to recieve. Ultimately, under the guise of humility it leads to a covert arrogance. Say I, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, wanted to believe that the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians were really of the same faith and all the polemics regarding the Christology of the council were just misunderstandings. Then would I not be "overvaluing my importance as a witness of the truth" by saying that the hundreds of God-fearing Fathers at the council were all mistaken and playing some kind of political game against Alexandria and were really making a big deal about nothing? MY opinion then becomes a truer cipher of Holy Tradition than the opinion of those who handed it to me. The modern form of ecumenism hides itself under a false humility that says everyone else got it wrong: the Fathers at Chalcedon, those who opposed it, every founder of every sect and every defender of the church opposing those sectarian founders. But finally I, and those who agree with me, have got it right. WE know what the core teachings of Christianity are, all those who came before simply made much to do about nothing.
I can understand the intellectual consistency of a miaphysite rejecting Chalcedon because he adheres strictly to the verbal Christological formulaes of St. Cyril of Alexandria and is irked at the lack of charity he percieves the Patriarch of Alexandria suffered than I can understand the blinders a modern ecumenist has to put on. If we approach our differences with a "if I ignore the causes, our differences will go away" This is simply dumbing down the Faith and has more in common with Rodney King "Can't we all just get along" than a hunger to know the historic truths of the Faith.

In Christ,
Rd. David

[Aristokles]

THAT is an excellent question. It seems we have a resident Anglican as a self-appointed referee here. Perhaps the good professor could better spend his time righting what is wrong with his own schism-of-a-schism sect.

In the realm of rational argument, of ordinary truth, everyone is a self-appointed referee.

Agreed as an intellectual exercise only. But then you and I have crossed words elsewhere on applying this 'ordinary truth' to churches other than our own. I do not particiapte in Episcopal fora and have made only 5 posts in non-Orthodox fora over the last two years - in each case to answer a question about Orthodoxy, never to argue with those other churches.

This particular thread has gone beyond where I would normally feel confortable arguing here. Nonetheless I feel it is to the advantage of Christians in general to bring down the ecumenical level of nonsense a bit. I've spent my time arguing against the errors I find in my church, too.

Me, too. This is not my preferred venue in my now greatly lessened internet life. However, your 'dish it out, can't take it' comment rankled and I felt you may have 'chips to play, but not at this casino'

And it's bitterly ironic that I'm accused of being a member of a schizmatic sect when the traditionalist churches which seem to be most popular here could all be characterized as schismatic sects by the ill-willed.

I understand your sentiment; however even here, where I am by most here considered a heretic, I still try not to criticize another Orthodox poster's faith ( or anyone else's for that matter) despite what our respective bishops may think of each other. I do not believe you yet grasp the anger that ecumenical double-talk engenders among us (re: original post in this thread). Moreover, I cannot give your argument the respect others feel it might warrant. Now, if you wished to lecture me on Symbolic Logic or perhaps the Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, I would eagerly listen - you have my utmost respect in that field, but not in Orthodoxy.

[CGW]

I understand your sentiment; however even here, where I am by most here considered a heretic, I still try not to criticize another Orthodox poster's faith ( or anyone else's for that matter) despite what our respective bishops may think of each other. I do not believe you yet grasp the anger that ecumenical double-talk engenders among us (re: original post in this thread). Moreover, I cannot give your argument the respect others feel it might warrant. Now, if you wished to lecture me on Symbolic Logic or perhaps the Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, I would eagerly listen - you have my utmost respect in that field, but not in Orthodoxy.

Well, "grasp" here is a two-edged sword. After all, the argument is at first not about Orthodoxy, but about what it is "proper" for the heterodox to do. If they are not "ecumenists", then it is proper for them to poach. And I say "it is proper" because they must conclude they must do it. If they are ecumenists, well, then one can make arguments from their point of view for several different approaches. In the larger view, the whole notion of Orthodox territory is ultimately ecumenist because it implies some sort of political arrangement between the churches.

The message I'm getting from the anger is that it is reasonable to expect the heterodox to behave as this or that Orthodox would have them behave, based upon an Orthodox presupposition of the world. My essential message at the beginning was-- and I think as a DP I'm entitled to represent the heretics -- that it isn't reasonable, because we don't share the particular presuppositions.

With that, we come back to the issue that without any common reason, discourse with others is essentially impossible. And that's pretty much the end of what I can say.