It's getting messy, but I'll try to keep it organized.

1. I think we probably generally about Holy Scripture. I just acknowledge that what preserved it was both the will of God and the Tradition of His Church. You say "it's a mystery" and move on about your business. The truth is, the canon was defended and preserved in a positive manner, not simply in a passive way -- along with the wealth of teachings that Holy Tradition contains.

2. The Roman Church was part of the Church until 1054. There was only one Church (excepting the whole Coptic monophysite fiasco, but whatever) until 1054. So, up to that point our tradition is identical. Beyond that, it isn't. After that point, I give no authority to the Roman tradition, because the guarantee of infallibility is given to the Church. Rome separated herself from the Church. Roman Catholics will disagree here, but that's OK. No, I give no value to protestant tradition. That phrase is a non-sequitur in and of itself, as protestants vehemently deny the applicability of tradition. I do believe that the doctrine of the filioque and papal supremacy are errors. That's a whole 'nother discussion.

The Council of Trent was after the Roman Church separated herself from the rest of Christendom but the canon vote was more because some protestants didn't like certain books of scripture (like James and some OT books) and were given to, uh, "creative" translations of others.

3. Obviously I believe my church is the repository of the truth. I came to the Orthodox faith after about a decade of searching, starting in baptist and really lapsing to agnosticism before "starting from scratch". The test of St Vincent of Lerins is "universality, antiquity, consent". Until 1054, this applied to the church, east and west. It has been maintained in Orthodoxy after the great schism. I really, absolutely, genuinely believe that the doctrine of the Orthodox faith is one hundred percent the True Faith as given to the Apostles by Christ.

4. The thing about scripture and truth is a fundamental conceptual misunderstanding. God is the source, creator, identifier of all created things. Truth as a concept is a means to express an idea, and represents something about God. Only He is Truth, just as only He is Holy, only He is Righteous, etc. To say that something is true to is to say it is like His Truth in some way. Thus, however true scripture may be, it is not Truth, because only God can be self-identified as Truth.

Christ and the scriptures are NOT the same. This is is a completely heretical statement. Christ is the unbegotten Word (logos) of God. He is the Wisdom, thought, and reason of the father. There was a time when the scriptures did not exist. There was never a time when Christ was not. The Scriptures are witnesses to, images of, icons of Christ. They are NOT Him, because that would make them God. I do not worship books. I worship the Creator of All Things.

Church Tradition is not superior to Holy Scripture but equal to it. Properly, Holy Scripture is the fundamental expression of Holy Tradition. When you say was a book "orthodox" that is an appeal to Holy Tradition, which defines orthodoxy. When you say was a book "universally recognized by the church" that is an appeal to Holy Tradition, which identifies which churches were teaching Christ or not. What you can only hint to and struggle to identify, I can name. This is Tradition. You are wearing the mantle of the Reformation, struggling against a great evil that is not real.

5. I was using wikipedia for a consensus view of the dates of the NT books. The estimates vary. Regardless of the dates you feel are correct (pick some and I'll agree, it doesn't really matter to me) the Pauline epistles are being written to churches that did not have the NT by definition. I note you completely ignored the comments about the Didache, St Clement of Rome, St Ignatius, St Justin, St Irenaeus?

6. Sorry. I don't really care where you want to draw the goal line here. The concept of a universal bible, with all of the canon of scripture in one book is medieval. Agree or not, it doesn't really matter. I'm wrong you're right. Let's move on.

7. While not everything the Roman church teaches is identical to the Orthodox Church. I am fairly certain though that there's zero difference between the way the Roman church views the apocryphal texts and the way I do.

JJMt said:

---

You may be right. I know nothing about EO doctrine or teachings. However, if you're right, and if the "fathers" you follow haven't drifted far from the Biblical writings, then the primary differences between EO doctrine and most modern Protestant scholars may be in forms of worship and church organization, not in essential doctrines. (I use the term "Protestant scholars" loosely because many people who call themselves Protestants never think about these things, and really couldn't care less about these things. A Protestant scholar, in this context, means someone who cares about these issues and spends at least some time seriously looking at them with an attempt to have some true intellectual honesty.)

And even in those doctrines where EO and modern Protestant scholars differ, they may be secondary, tertiary or even lower doctrines, i.e., doctrines that are not essential to the faith. As a pastor I liked once explained, there are truths that he'd be willing to give his life over, truths that he'd give a year of his life over, and some that he might be willing to give up lunch over. In other words, not all doctrinal differences are equal.

There are doctrines that I differ with many Protestants over, but many of them and I are still believers (I hope) and are each part of the body of Christ. I am not going to let a disagreement over whether they're an eye or a foot keep me from working to support them and build them up as a vital member of the body, and hopefully they'll feel the same way about me.

---

I don't have the same confidence that you do in protestant scholars. I was a pretty serious baptist. I went to church on Wednesdays and Sundays, participated in the church activities, bible studies, "quiet time", and so on. What is commonly taught in most evangelical variety is so different from what I have been exposed to in orthodoxy that I once told a friend "this is a whole different religion".

There is a gulf of difference, whether that's in how we speak of and conceive of God, how He interacts with us, how we are saved, indeed even what it means to be saved.

I can't really understand your pastor's position. That's like saying my house is truly blue, but I wouldn't die to lose that fact. The house is what it is. There is truth and falsehood in this world, there is what the apostles delivered and what they didn't. Truth is truth, "giving up" truth is submission to falsehood. Why would anyone do that?

The truth is, in Orthodoxy we do not practice religion. We seek to experience God, and through that experience, become deified by Him. Below are some excerpts of a conversation I had with a bishop before I became orthdox, when I was a "seeker".

I wrote to him about this article.

Quote:

---

I have always said that Grace is God's reaching out to mankind while religion is mankind's reach for God, and that religion is therefore inherently flawed. I always felt that this made me somewhat clever but it also made me feel guilty (and proud) as if I was somehow lumping in Christianity with all the rest. I have always been somewhat cynical and mistrusting of churches and organized religion in general, and this plays no small part in some of my reservations about Orthodoxy. I am quite delighted to see this idea discussed in such detail and expounded on in a way that makes sense to me and both confirms some aspects of my attitude while correcting others.

So, from the article: the axis of faith is purification, illumination, deification.

Based on that, if we divorce religion from its trappings (false faith based on emotional or psychological versions of Pascal's wager) we can then analyze it purely on it's ability or efficacy to accomplish those three tasks [purification, illumination, deification]. If I take that approach, that is, that my current state of impurity prevents me from moving forward spiritually, then the clear first baby step would be to purify myself. It is no good knowing about antibiotics if you have an infection - they only work if taken. So reading does me no good: I must be purified. How do I do that?

---

He responded:

Quote:

---

A perfectly Orthodox way of thinking. It will save you from sectarianism and help you to understand why traditional Christianity preserves something that is beyond religion.

All religion, including Orthodoxy as an external institution, has inherent dangers. That is why Father John very clearly distinguishes Orthodoxy, as a "way," from the modern superficial concept of religion, which also prevails among Orthodox and towards which innovators and modernists would like to take Orthodoxy.

That is what Orthodoxy is: correct belief (Orthodoxy) and correct practice (Orthopraxy), which together form and confirm the natural, true existence of the human.

We can recognize, once we see what sick religion is, that we must seek healthy religion. That is our rational decision. But that decision is a prelude to experiencing God in mystery and in what is trans-rational. And there is the ineluctable rub. Few people, even Orthodox, care to do that. Hence, popular religion and its superficies and dangers.

You might then ask, "Why have Orthodox Churches?" The answer is simply because the Mysteries that the Church contains and dispenses serve to introduce one to all of the higher aspects of religion.

Like any other confession, Orthodoxy (or much of what exists in the name of Orthodoxy) can be followed and practiced in an empty, non-effective way and can convey much of the sickness of religion.

When Moses encountered God, what did he do? He took off his shoes and submitted to Holiness. And what did he see? The burning bush: purity unconsumed by the world (a symbol of the Mother of God, whom we should, as one Church Father says, emulate by also giving birth to God - albeit in an un-bodily way, whereas she She gave birth to Him for all of us in a bodily way).

And how do we purify ourselves? By the continual observance of Orthodoxy and its spiritual regimen: living in but not of the world, submitting our wills to God's, fasting, praying, accepting all as coming from God (including health and sickness, good and bad), and seeking to be among the blessed who are described on the Beatitudes (the Sermon on the Mount). We must also trust God and not ourselves and sacrifice for our Faith as the one most precious thing in our lives. Anything less leaves one sick with religion.

We do not, of course, do this only by our own efforts, but in synergy with God, Whom we discover within us, and within the Church, which, when it is doing as it should and adheres to Holy Tradition, administers the deifying Mysteries of the Church, which illumine us (beginning with Baptism).

The medical model should not be applied as anything more than a model. God also acts through Grace everywhere. Just as one is not, by becoming Orthodox, automatically cured of imperfection and impurity, so we are not in a position, as mere humans, to deny God's Providence. All that we can say is that we know where purification is - in Christ and in Orthodoxy - and that it is our duty to maintain that truth undefiled (hence our clear opposition to ecumenism) and to call others to the experience of Orthodoxy in its genuine form.

---

It's a good article, I recommend it.

JJMt said:

---

Quote:

---

I was a pretty serious baptist. I went to church on Wednesdays and Sundays, participated in the church activities, bible studies, "quiet time", and so on.

---

That's not at the heart of beliefs of Protestantism, anymore than it is Eastern Orthodoxy. It can be true of some Protestants, but it is a very shallow form of the faith. It's too bad that you gave up on traditional Protestantism so quickly.

And, like your correspondent said, EO is not a panacea. There are many shallow people who follow EO, just like there are many shallow Protestants.

Finally, to go back to your analogy of the blue house. It reminds me of the recent debate over the dress on the internet: was it blue or was it gold? I emphatically thought it was one color. I never asked her, but perhaps my sister thought it was a different color. Would I cut off my relationship with my sister over the "truth" of the color of the dress? My sister and I differ frequently over many different things, but I am not going to cut off my relationship with her for hardly anything. Even if our disagreement was over a major issue, cutting off any relationship with her eliminates any chance I might have to help her see the "truth", which means that I am putting "truth" well above love.

And even the church fathers didn't agree on everything. They didn't agree completely on the Canon, the topic we've been discussing. So do we completely dismiss a particular church father if he wasn't right on everything?

---

You're misconstruing my point. I wasn't a community baptist, I wanted God. I just had no means to find Him, because being a baptist isn't about that. It's about being saved, and then thanking God for that salvation. And then, having a "personal relationship" with Him. This is a relationship that exists two ways - He saves you, you praise Him, then you go to heaven. This is not what Orthodoxy teaches. It's a small sliver of Orthodox salvation.

The blue/gold dress is a false premise. That dress is one color or another. We aren't talking about opinions, but facts. The apostles handed something down. You should also remember that not all opinions about God (theologoumena) are heretical. Some are just opinions, maybe pious, maybe not.

Fostering someone's incorrect or downright heretical opinion is not love. It is the absence of love, because their belief is harming them. St Gregory said this at the end of his third theological oration.

Quote:

---

This, then, is our reply to those who would puzzle us; not given willingly indeed (for light talk and contradictions of words are not agreeable to the faithful, and one Adversary is enough for us), but of necessity, for the sake of our assailants (for medicines exist because of diseases), that they may be led to see that they are not all-wise nor invincible in those superfluous arguments which make void the Gospel... But may He who proclaims unions and looses those that are bound, and who puts into our minds to solve the knots of their unnatural dogmas, if it may be, change these men and make them faithful instead of rhetoricians, Christians instead of that which they now are called. This indeed we entreat and beg for Christ's sake. Be reconciled to God, and quench not the Spirit; or rather, may Christ be reconciled to you, and may the Spirit enlighten you, though so late.

---

That is true love expressed in a Christian fashion.

The Fathers didn't agree on everything, that's true (though I'm not sure who didn't agree on canon?). But we don't look to any as infallible, but all together they are. This is the consensus of the Fathers, which really is just another way of saying a Church-approved expression of Tradition. And the fact is, where they disagree is matters of opinion. We would be silly to focus on the small areas of disagreement among them, and ignore the wide areas of consensus. Unfortunately, what separates most modern protestantism from Orthodoxy is not found in those areas, but in the broad areas of consensus.

You have yet to tell us what church you attend. I am assuming you're neglecting to mention it on purpose.

Quote:

---

You're misconstruing my point. I wasn't a community baptist, I wanted God. I just had no means to find Him, because being a baptist isn't about that. It's about being saved, and then thanking God for that salvation. And then, having a "personal relationship" with Him. This is a relationship that exists two ways - He saves you, you praise Him, then you go to heaven. This is not what Orthodoxy teaches. It's a small sliver of Orthodox salvation.

---

So what's the rest of it, then?

Well, I'm going to paraphrase Fr John Romanides on this. It's not about going to heaven or having a good life now by avoiding evil. It's not about teaching about immortality or souls, or the triumph of justice or judgment.

Orthodoxy is about union with God, right here, right now, today. Orthodoxy is about this life, not the next. It's about allowing us to be freed from fear (of death, or eternal punishment after death, or bad things in this life) and also from want (for things in this life, like happiness or money). It's about overcoming our fallen state so that we can participate in the divine nature now, so we can both desire and partake of the food that the apostles knew nothing about...so that when we die, when we are in front of God, we will see the refining fire of His glory as Light and Love.

Do we praise God? Yes, yes, absolutely. Do we hope for the resurrection, to be in paradise? Of course. But these are not either of them ends...or even means to an end.

Christ is both the end and the means, He is the Way and He is the goal. Not a relationship with Him, but to be completely, totally, indescribably and unchangeably made like Him, by Him. To the point that we are not even left as we were, but we have ascended totally to the archetype of our Creator, so what we were can't even really be said to be alive any more. Gods by grace what God is by nature.

That reads as if you're describing Christianity via monasticism/asceticism.

Sorry so long getting back to you. We've talked about Pascha already, and we've talked about Sabbath and feast observances. There is also the issue of married v. celibate priests, omnivore v. kosher v. strict vegetarian, cosmopolitan v. sequestered, worldly v. ascetic. Like I said, lots of variation in practice.

There was also variations in belief. Some were heretical from the get, and some were later deemed that way. Marcion is a good example of the first, Nestor a good example of the second. The Filoque would be a later example of the secod.

Just saying the Faith as handed down from the Apostles was not a strict formula with complete consensus. I think that idea developed gradually over time, and it is a main reason for the fracturing of Christianity. I think trying to make the Faith into something like that is trying to put God in a very small box. Then we He works outside that box anyway you just miss out.

Monasticism? No. Although monastics do play a key role in the faith in a similar way to what the clergy do. The clergy dedicate their lives ministering directly to the flock as a vocation, monks dedicate their life to prayer for the world. These two paths cross or join as bishops, who are in the tradition of the church both priests and monks.

Asceticism on the other hand is an inseparable feature of the Apostolic faith.

Christ says take up your cross, yes...but the part most people leave out is that we are to deny ourselves and then take up the cross. He says when you fast, not if. He says whoever loves his life will lose it but whoever detests his life in this world (by comparison) will find life with Him. He speaks forgetting about everything in order to seek the kingdom of God. He fasted to teach us to fast. He prayed to teach us to pray.

St Paul speaks of fasting from sexual relations to devote ourselves to prayer. He tells St Timothy to suffer hardship with him, as a soldier of Christ, because a soldier doesn't devote himself to everyday life (the world) in order to please his general (Christ). He says we should offer ourselves as living sacrifices, that we should make no provision for the needs of the flesh. He says we are to crucify our passions and desires. Fasting is part of the armor of light.

St Peter says we are foreigners and exiles in this world, and for that reason to abstain from worldly desires. He says we should live the rest of our lives in the flesh for the desires (passions) of men, but for the will of God.

Prayer, fasting, and devoting ourselves to the life of the Church. This is Orthodoxy in a nutshell.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Sorry so long getting back to you. We've talked about Pascha already, and we've talked about Sabbath and feast observances. There is also the issue of married v. celibate priests, omnivore v. kosher v. strict vegetarian, cosmopolitan v. sequestered, worldly v. ascetic. Like I said, lots of variation in practice.

There was also variations in belief. Some were heretical from the get, and some were later deemed that way. Marcion is a good example of the first, Nestor a good example of the second. The Filoque would be a later example of the secod.

Just saying the Faith as handed down from the Apostles was not a strict formula with complete consensus. I think that idea developed gradually over time, and it is a main reason for the fracturing of Christianity. I think trying to make the Faith into something like that is trying to put God in a very small box. Then we He works outside that box anyway you just miss out.

---

I think you're mistaking expression for doctrine. St Vincent of Lerins talks about the faith can never change from the form from which it was delivered, but it can grow and mature. A child is not the same as an adult in some ways, but they are the same in others. But, it does not grow additional arms, or become a bird. All of the things you discussed in your first paragraph are not doctrinal issues unless someone makes them be. For example, when to keep Pascha is not, until Nicaea. Similarly, there is no doctrine about cosmopolitan or sequestered, or living as monastics vs living a lay life. The Church has always maintained that there is one faith for the laity and clergly alike; one faith for monastics and laity alike. These variations are not really relevant to the discussion, because we're talking about matters of doctrine. And, truthfully, all of the variations are part of the rich cultural fabric of the Church. We're people, not robots.

Variations in belief are not evidence for a variation in Apostolic teaching. Just because Marcion and Valentinus taught things doesn't mean they were teaching the apostolic faith. Similarly, just because Arius was ordained a priest by the Church doesn't mean what he taught was in line with the faith. And, unfortunate, just because the west innovated with the filioque doesn't mean that it is a correct teaching. Sadly we can't even take the intentions in mind, because I don't think there is nefarious intent in the filioque or even in Arius, excepting the issue of pride to correct when called.

You can think that, but you haven't provided much evidence. The consensus is much, much stronger. I think it's interesting that it is always those outside of the Orthodox Church who want to lecture the Church about her tradition, when they themselves can't trace their own traditions back any length of time.

You're forgetting the part where they make a difference between desires and sinful desires.

I also believe that you are removing the context from some of the epistles as well.

JJMt said:

---

Quote:

---

I think trying to make the Faith into something like that is trying to put God in a very small box. Then we He works outside that box anyway you just miss out.

---

Completely agree with that. We need humility in trying to understand God, starting with the assumption that we never will fully understand him in this lifetime. The study of doctrine is a good thing, but like many good things an excess of it can be bad. It can create divisions where God never intended divisions to exist. Where differences exist, both points of view may be correct. The reason we can't reconcile them is due to our limited abilities and comprehension, not because of any limit to God.

I'm not advocating an abandonment of reason or doctrine, but rather simply a humble acknowledgement of our own limitations in understanding.

---

for evidence: see the slicing and dicing of faith post-Protestant Reformation.

Quote:

---

for evidence: see the slicing and dicing of faith post-Protestant Reformation.

---

Provide the evidence.

I'm not forgetting anything or removing context. Here is the list of verses I paraphrased.

Matthew 16:24
Matthew 6:16
John 12:25
1 Corinthians 7:5
2 Timothy 2:3-4
Romans 13:14
Galatians 5:24
1 Peter 2:11
1 Peter 4:3

You have to come to stark conclusion when you read this. Either the flesh is bad, or there is something wrong with our flesh that it has bad desires. The latter is the correct teaching.

Like it or not, the world is a fallen place. We Christians have no place here, the way it is. Everything the world wants is wrong, because the world chases after created, empty things that will ultimately go away. The flesh is not bad, but we do have fallen desires. All desires that are not for God are to be denied in the pursuit of God. This is the key point. We have to deny our (fallen) selves, with it's passions and wants for created things, before we can cultivate a desire for the Uncreated.

This is not to say that eating, drinking, etc. are sinful in and of themselves. Or even that our passions (epithumia, used by St Peter in that last verse) are wrong. Christ Himself "passionately desired" to take the passover (Luke 22:15) and said that the prophets and righteous men desired to see Him (Matthew 13:17). Our fallen passions are like dirty mirrors or telescopes pointed in the wrong way. They have to be corrected, before we can have those same passions for Godly things. This is exactly what St Paul is writing about in Galatians 5.

I said:

Quote:

---

You're forgetting the part where they make a difference between desires and sinful desires.

---

Later, you said:

Quote:

---

This is not to say that eating, drinking, etc. are sinful in and of themselves. Or even that our passions (epithumia, used by St Peter in that last verse) are wrong. Christ Himself "passionately desired" to take the passover (Luke 22:15) and said that the prophets and righteous men desired to see Him (Matthew 13:17). Our fallen passions are like dirty mirrors or telescopes pointed in the wrong way. They have to be corrected, before we can have those same passions for Godly things. This is exactly what St Paul is writing about in Galatians 5.

---

So, we stand in agreement?

And yes, you did remove context from some of those verses. For what it is worth, unless it is a proverb, I have grown to dislike quoting verses because a single sentence, removed from context, is very easy to twist or misread.

Find me a place where the Scriptures speak of the desires of the flesh as good things.

The truth is, until we are purified, all of our desires are corrupted by our fallen nature.

Quote:

---

Find me a place where the Scriptures speak of the desires of the flesh as good things.

---

Is sexual desire bad? Why would Song of Solomon make into the Bible if it was? Or maybe it need to be directed in the proper direction?

Is ambition in work a bad thing? Why would the book of Proverbs have advice on how to on skilful work, diligence, and effort? Apparently, you've advanced to a point where you can consistently post on Texags throughout the day. Was the ambition that got you to this point bad?

I could go on. You say you're not Ascetic, but your outlook definitely shows otherwise. Scripture shows time and time again that putting anything above God is idolatry and a sin. But many of those things by themselves, in proper context, are not bad.

Quote:

---

The truth is, until we are purified, all of our desires are corrupted by our fallen nature.

---

You said yourself that the faith grows and matures. And that something isn't a doctrinal issue until it becomes one. What if those "variations" are suddenly made doctrinal issues?

Suppose, for whatever reason and only as an example, that the Orthodox church decides that vegetarian diets are no longer orthoprax. I could go back and reference Genesis, Daniel, and name many early Christians who advocated for vegetarianism. But you would contend that the totality of the faith was only permissive before, but is now against vegetarianism based on other church fathers and other Scripture.

So excuse me if I get a little confused by line between "variation" and "heterodox/prax"

Song of Solomon was historically interpreted as a mystical allegory of God's relationship with Israel. After, as a relationship between Christ and the Church.

St Gregory the Dialogist wrote "We must transcend this language that is typical of the passions so as to realize that virtuous state in which we are unable to be influenced by the passions. As the sacred writings employ words and meanings, so a picture employs colors and subject matter; it is excessively foolish to cling to the colors of the picture in such a way that the subject painted is ignored. Now if we embrace the words that are expressed in exterior terms and ignore their deeper meanings, it is like ignoring the subject depicted while focusing upon the colors alone..."

The proper direction for desire is to desire God, full stop, no qualifiers needed. Marriage is a singular and unique form of that very same desire, and properly the desire for one's spouse is expressed through and from a desire for God.

Ambition should be for the things of God's kingdom. Does this preclude us being good at our jobs? No, but "Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father." If our ambition is for earthly things, then it is wrong. (PS, while this isn't necessarily about me, my office is closed today and I'm at the shop taking care of some loose ends.)

I never said I wasn't "ascetic" or a practitioner of self-denial. Of course I am. I fast along with the rest of my Church, I pray, I try to deny myself to follow God. By this measure, all of the apostles were. We have an explicit commandment from Christ to deny ourselves and take up our cross to follow Him. In that order. Anyone who tells you that you can go on about your day satisfying the cravings of your eyes, your hands, your stomach, or your groin and proceed in the life of a Christian is lying to you.

You're getting hung up on a spectrum of evil---neutral---good. This is nonsensical when talking about the divine, because there is no opposite to God in that sense, with a neutral in the middle. It's not -1 to 1, its 0 or 1. Completely binary. In this regard, we either long for created things, or we long for Uncreated things. We either desire perishable things, or we desire unperishable things. There is no "neutral". Now, before you get ticky-tack and ask me if jumping up and down on one foot is bad, or whatever, I'm not talking about specific acts but their motivations. Our motivations for what we do, our passions, our longings are either for Christ or they are to satisfy the cravings of our fallen passions.

Orthodoxy is basically a hospital, a therapy, to cleans and properly redirect those fallen passions.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

You said yourself that the faith grows and matures. And that something isn't a doctrinal issue until it becomes one. What if those "variations" are suddenly made doctrinal issues?

Suppose, for whatever reason and only as an example, that the Orthodox church decides that vegetarian diets are no longer orthoprax. I could go back and reference Genesis, Daniel, and name many early Christians who advocated for vegetarianism. But you would contend that the totality of the faith was only permissive before, but is now against vegetarianism based on other church fathers and other Scripture.

So excuse me if I get a little confused by line between "variation" and "heterodox/prax"

---

What if tomorrow a council said that all real Christians wear purple underpants? Hypotheticals are just that, hypothetical. If your hypothetical were to happen, the Church (laity, monastics, priests, bishops) would laugh, because in no way is that the apostolic teaching. There's no discord there.

I would say that you are free to question orthopraxis from within the church. I have a hard time taking a person seriously who questions it from without, with no exposure to it, no attempt to submit to the life of the church.

You even are willing to read the fathers and see, and then feel no obligation to square your belief to what has been held from antiquity as universal. I can't understand that, given the numerous instructions in the scripture to submit to our Christian guides. St Peter's instructions to both bishops and laity are just as binding today as when he wrote them.

Quote:

---

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for "God is opposed to the proud but gives grace to the humble."

Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time, casting all your anxiety on Him, because He cares for you.

---

Considering how dogmatic you appear, Orthodoxy reads to be a religion created by monks for monks, living cloistered and sequestered because their physical needs are met by others. The fact that you have dogma regarding the minutia speaks to people who have way too much time on their hands.

I'd rather practice the faith of the craftsmen, warrior, farmer who knows that their livelihood derives from the Lord.

My friend, you have no idea what you're talking about, Orthodoxy or monastics.

I'll leave it to say -- every monastery I've ever been to or heard of is completely self sufficient, and you have no idea about "dogma regarding minutia".

JJMt said:

---

Quote:

---

for evidence: see the slicing and dicing of faith post-Protestant Reformation.

---

and the slicing and dicing of faith within the RCC. Centralization of power, wealth and corruption doesn't prevent differences of opinion.

---

that's an extremely weak equivocation. the RCC is still the RCC. plenty of issues within the organization. but, the faith is the faith.

that is not true in any way for the vast majority of Protestant denominations. you yourself showed that in a response to k2 about his Baptist upbringing.