As a practicing Catholic I tend to agree with Gator, and Through K2 I find myself intrigued and wanting to learn more about Orthodoxy. I think I would be able to adapt and appreciate the liturgy, and the veneration and individual expressions of faith and love that go on during the service. It would not take me long to feel at home.

For a Baptist or evangelical I could see this as a GIANT leap and that they could easily find themselves uncomfortable and out of place with their surroundings.

This has more to do with the outward appearances and symbolism than it does with theology. From K2's posting I am gaining an appreciation for the uniqueness of Orthodoxy, and I can see why it could appeal to both Catholics and evangelicals for different reasons.

Sorry Gator. A bit of pride in our faith squeaked out. Is there anything like a humble brag?

I was really just trying to state that arguments are not productive and we shouldn't let that distract us.

Aggiefan#1 said:

---

Sorry Gator. A bit of pride in our faith squeaked out. Is there anything like a humble brag?

I was really just trying to state that arguments are not productive and we shouldn't let that distract us.

---

Agree completely!

I just learned in class we all get a hall pass on the Nativity Fast for Thanksgiving.

When I found that out:

Nice write-up by K2. One of my aunts married into an Eastern Orthodox family (Greek in her case), and I have attended services with them on many occasions. My experience is that their services are the most-formal and -structured that I have ever attended. It seemed that everything was scripted. Not a criticism or a praise. Just am observation.

Yes, you can read every word of the service in the service book.

Then again, every Protestant service I've ever been to was completely scripted as well. The script just changed from week to week. Very little ad libbing goes on in churches.

Howdy!

Just happened across this thread on a Google search and wanted to say it's really cool to see this conversation!

Anyone in Aggieland who's interested in visiting an Orthodox liturgy, I'd love to meet you!

St. Silouan the Athonite Orthodox Church

k2 and other Orthodox,
Another thread has put this on my mind. I'm curious as to the theological positions that the Orthodox hold re: certain issues:

Atonement - I've read that Christus Victor/Ransom theories were the dominant theories of the early church. Is this a position still held by the Orthodox?

Hell - What is the "standard" Orthodox understanding of hell? I tend to lean towards annihilationism, but it's certainly nothing I'm "concrete" on. Would be interested to know how you all view this.

I have had this conversation specifically with our priest.
I am not as learned as K2 and fear not articulating our stance correctly he can probably answer it better.

I'll simply provide a couple links and maybe K2 can jump in.

ON HELL

http://saintandrewgoc.org/home/2015/4/17/paradise-and-hell-according-to-the-orthodox-church

"In the Western (Roman Catholic and Protestant) tradition about Paradise and Hell, we see view that differ from the Orthodox Christian teaching.

"Augustine's teachings about absolute predestination Hell and Paradise were based on those perceptions that he had, his legalistic views about the Fall of man and sin, combined with his neoplatonic perception of Paradise. He introduced into Christianity the idea that Hell is the subterranean regions underneath the earth, where people go to be punished. Paradise is outer space.

In those days they believed that things that were immutable were beyond the heavenly bodies, where there is no movement and no development, and that here on earth is the place of testing. So if we are good boys and girls we shall go to Paradise above the stars and the sky; and if we are bad we shall go under the earth to be punished in the subterranean regions."

Paradise in the Western (Latin or Roman Catholic) tradition was connected with the soul's happiness and the satisfaction of its desires.

"In the Orthodox Christian Tradition there is nothing like this. Why? Because man's destiny is not happiness; it is not satisfaction of his desires. The Holy Fathers do not teach that God will become man's possession or that man can use God--let alone his fellow human being--for his own happiness.

The capitalistic foundations that exist within the philosophy of medieval feudalism originate from Augustine, but mainly from the ancient Greeks. The teaching about the pursuit of happiness (eudemonism) started from the ancient Greeks, from Plato and Aristotle, with some opposition from the Stoics and the Epicureans. In the Christian tradition of the West, however, Aristotle and Plato prevailed. These elements do not exist in patristic tradition"

On Atonement

Recapitulation Theory

http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2011/11/09/the-recapitulation-theory/

Many of those in the Protestant and Catholic traditions are familiar with the Penal Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement (hereafter referred to as Substitutionary Atonement). However, I have found many to be unfamiliar with the predominant atonement view held by those in the Eastern Orthodox Church, which is commonly called The Recapitulation Theory.

The Recapitulation Theory dates to very early in the Church. Many believe it had its beginnings with Saint Irenaeus in the second century. We find it throughout the writings of the early Church Fathers. Saint Athanasius, the giant of the Nicaean Council, wrote a wonderful book in AD 318 which explains the overall view very well. It is titled On The Incarnation and was originally written as a letter to one of his disciples.

Substitutionary Atonement focuses on Christ's suffering and death as the price for man's sin. In many ways, the model for Substitutionary Atonement is a courtroom. Due to his sin, man needed to be made right with a perfect and just God. Therefore, Christ came to suffer and pay the price in our place, i.e., He substituted Himself for us. Now, in the courtroom of God, those who accept Christ as their Lord and Savior are judged innocent. They have a forensic righteousness imputed upon them.

The Recapitulation Theory agrees that God needed to deal with man's sin. Man was separated from God as a result of the fall and, left to his own devices, was incapable of returning to God. However, Recapitulation sees the model through which God dealt with man's sin as a hospital rather than a courtroom. Instead of viewing the atonement as Christ paying the price for sin in order to satisfy a wrathful God, Recapitulation teaches that Christ became human to heal mankind by perfectly uniting the human nature to the Divine Nature in His person. Through the Incarnation, Christ took on human nature, becoming the Second Adam, and entered into every stage of humanity, from infancy to adulthood, uniting it to God. He then suffered death to enter Hades and destroy it. After three days, He resurrected and completed His task by destroying death.

By entering each of these stages and remaining perfectly obedient to the Father, Christ recapitulated every aspect of human nature. He said "Yes" where Adam said "No" and healed what Adam's actions had damaged. This enables all of those who are willing to say yes to God to be perfectly united with the Holy Trinity through Christ's person. In addition, by destroying death, Christ reversed the consequence of the fall. Now, all can be resurrected. Those who choose to live their life in Christ can be perfectly united to the Holy Trinity, receiving the full love of God as Heavenly bliss. However, those who reject Christ and choose to live their lives chasing after their passions will receive the love of God as hell.

Because of its focus on unification between God and man in the person of Christ, Recapitulation places great importance on the teaching that Christ is both fully man and fully God. If Christ did not have both natures, He would have been incapable of uniting humanity to divinity, which was the entire purpose of the Incarnation. As Saint Gregory of Nazianzus said in the fourth century, "That which is not assumed is not healed, but that which is united to God is saved." The doctrine of the dual nature of Christ came to the forefront with the third Ecumenical Council in AD 431. During this council, the Church answered the Nestorian heresy and affirmed Christ's humanity and divinity and upheld the title of Theotokos (Mother of God) for Mary. By giving Mary this title, the Church believed we would preserve the teaching of the dual nature of Christ. If Mary is the Mother of God, then, by necessity, Christ truly is God. In addition, since Mary is both human and Christ's mother, Christ is fully man"

Very interesting. Thank you.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I don't believe in Hell, and the Orthodox church categorically rejects material hellfire as a doctrinal matter.

I think heaven and hell are the same place, exposure to God's love. And that this love is pleasure to some and pain to others. This is merely my opinion though.

---

This was how it was put to me by my priest. I do not quite understand it coming from a Protestant rearing. I personally need to seek further understanding of this stance. If you would be willing to elaborate theologically a bit more I would appreciate it.

At the Council of Ferrara-Florence, the matter of purgatorial (material) hellfire was discussed:

They remarked, that the words quoted from the book of Maccabees, and our Saviour's words, can only prove that some sins will be forgiven after death; but whether by means of punishment by fire, or by other means, nothing was known for certain. Besides, what has forgiveness of sins to do with punishment by fire and tortures? Only one of these two things can happen: either punishment or forgiveness, and not both at once.

In explanation of the Apostle's words, they quoted the commentary of S. John Chrysostom, who, using the word fire, gives it the meaning of an eternal, and not temporary, purgatorial fire; explains the words wood, hay, stubble, in the sense of bad deeds, as food for the eternal fire; the word day, as meaning the day of the last judgment; and the words saved yet so as by fire, as meaning the preservation and continuance of the sinner's existence while suffering punishment. Keeping to this explanation, they reject the other explanation given by S. Augustine, founded on the words shall be saved, which he understood in the sense of bliss, and consequently gave quite another meaning to all this quotation. "It is very right to suppose," wrote the Orthodox teachers, "that the Greeks should understand Greek words better than foreigners. Consequently, if we cannot prove that any one of those saints, who spoke the Greek language, explains the Apostle's words, written in Greek, in a sense different to that given by the blessed John, then surely we must agree with the majority of these Church celebrities." The expressions sothenai, sozesthai, and soteria, used by heathen writers, mean in our language continuance, existence (diamenein, einai.) The very idea of the Apostle's words shows this. As fire naturally destroys, whereas those who are doomed to eternal fire are not destroyed, the Apostle says that they continue in fire, preserving and continuing their existence, though at the same time they are being burned by fire. To prove the truth of such an explanation of these words by the Apostle, (ver. 11, 15,) they make the following remarks: The Apostle divides all that is built upon the proposed foundation into two parts, never even hinting of any third, middle part. By gold, silver, stones, he means virtues; by hay, wood, stubble, that which is contrary to virtue, i. e., bad works. "Your doctrine," they continued to tell the Latins, "would perhaps have had some foundation if he (the Apostle) had divided bad works into two kinds, and bad said that one kind is purified by God, and the other worthy of eternal punishment. But he made no such division; simply naming the works entitling man to eternal bliss, i.e., virtues, and those meriting eternal punishment, i.e., sins. After which he says, 'Every man's work shall be made manifest,' and shows when this will happen, pointing to that last day, when God will render unto all according to their merits: 'For the day,' he says, 'shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire.' Evidently, this is the day of the second coming of Christ, the coming age, the day so called in a particular sense, or as opposed to the present life, which is but night. This is the day when He will come in glory, and a fiery stream shall precede Him. (Dan. vii. 10; Ps. 1. 3; xcvii. 3; 2 S. Pet. iii. 12, 15.) All this shows us that S. Paul speaks here of the last day, and of the eternal fire prepared for sinners. 'This fire,' says he, 'shall try every man's work of what sort it is,' enlightening some works, and burning others with the workers. But when the evil deed will be destroyed by fire, the evil doers will not be destroyed also, but will continue their existence in the fire, and suffer eternally. Whereas then the Apostle does not divide sins here into mortal and venial, but deeds in general into good and bad; whereas the time of this event is referred by him to the final day, as by the Apostle Peter also; whereas, again, he attributes to the fire the power of destroying all evil actions, but not the doers; it becomes evident that the Apostle Paul does not speak of purgatorial fire, which, even in your opinion, extends not over all evil actions, but over some of the minor sins. But these words also, 'If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss,' (zemiothesetai, i.e., shall lose,) shows that the Apostle speaks of the eternal tortures; they are deprived of the Divine light: whereas this cannot be spoken of those purified, as you say; for they not only do not lose anything, but even acquire a great deal, by being freed from evil, and clothed in purity and candour.

St Mark of Ephesus First Homily on the subject:
http://nftu.net/first-homily-of-st-mark-of-ephesus-on-prayer-for-the-dead-and-against-the-roman-catholic-purgatory/

Also as far as for Christ's death, the difference is that Christ was not punished for our sins to appease some Divine Justice or something. An angry Father didn't "take it out" on Christ instead of us.

Christ willingly died for us to expiate our sins. He didn't get punished in our stead, but became sin for us, took our sins, and consumed them in His unsurpassed Goodness. There is no wrath that can fall of Christ, because God's wrath can only fall on unrighteousness, and Christ is God, Christ is Goodness and Holiness.

Fr Thomas Hopko says:

Quote:

---

In fact according to the apostle Paul and all of the Holy Fathers and Mothers of Orthodox Christian history, some of the Fathers are pretty bold in what they say about this, he says: "If you think of God's justice as some kind of a human law, you're way off the track." That's not how God acts and the Law of God in Holy Scripture is not some sort of a law of the Roman Empires or something like that. It's a law that has to do with the reality of things. It's an ontological not a forensic category so to speak in fancy language. It's not juridical. It's metaphysical. And then St. Basil will even say: "If you think of God in terms of justice," like that he gives to us justice, then Basil would say, like virtually all of the Holy Fathers would say "then according to strict justice we should all go to Hell." According to strict justice, we have no life in us. If we would be saved and come alive by keeping of the law, no one of us would be saved. So if you go strictly speaking by law, so to speak, by the law even in its human form, retributive justice, no one could pay it.

Now of course, St. Anselm of Canterbury in the West, he tried to get out of that one by saying: "No, no. We've got to have retributive justice. We've got to be punished sufficiently, and since we have offended God and sinned against God then none of us can pay. So God so loves the world," and don't forget in Anselm it is love, it is still love, "so much that He sends His Son to get punished." That's the paradox in Anselm: He loves the world so much that He sends His Son to get punished. Since the Son is divine, since the Son is God from God, Light from Light, when he pays the punishment then it's a sufficient punishment. Because the punishment has to equal the crime, the crime is against God, so you have to have a punishment that's equal to a crime that's committed against God. But only God can pay that kind of a punishment, because a human being can't pay it. He interprets all the lines in the Bible about: "Can man ransom himself from Sheol? Can man deliver himself? Can man save himself?" The answer is NO. He can only be saved by God. So God so loves the world that He sends His only begotten Son to punish Him in our place, and then God can legally let us off. Because the law in that sense has been fulfilled because the punishment has been paid.

Now our Holy Fathers, I would say virtually all of themGregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, Leo the Great in Rome, evensays that this is not what the payment of the price means. Leo the Great would say that He pays the price to our condition, and our condition is cursed, sinful, and dead. So he's got to ransom us from that condition. How can he ransom us? Only by being perfectly righteous. Gregory the Theologian says: "Did he have to really pay some kind of penalty to God?" and Gregory says: "Fie upon the outrage!" in the old translation. He says: "You know God was testing Abraham, and he would not let him sacrifice his own son."

Even the Psalms will say, God is not even satisfied with the blood of goats, bulls and all that stuff. And those bulls and goats and calves, they were not being punished. They were somehow an offering to God of our life so that we would know that He had mercy on us and we would show that we're thankful. They were sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, even in the old covenant. And of course in the new covenant, the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross is a sacrifice of praise, the sacrifice of thanksgiving. It's the offering of his blood, which means his life, to God Himself in total perfection, and that's what removes the wrath of God from us.

So getting back to Basil, Basil would say if you think about justice and make justice an antonym of mercy and say: "Is God just or is He merciful?" and then getting into that conundrum, that particular dilemma, people say well if God is just, He can't be merciful because by justice He should send us all to Hell. And if he has mercy, then that mercy is going against the justice. Basil would say now wait a minute. God's justice is totally merciful, and His mercy is totally just. Why is that? Because following St. Paul, God shows mercy on everyone. No one is exempt from His mercy. God's justice would be mercy on some and not on others. Then you could accuse God. You could say: "Hey, that's not fair. That's not just." But the whole point of St. Paul is that God will show mercy on whom He will show mercy, and He will show justice on whom He will show justice. And the Gospel is, this is the very heart of the Gospel, that He shows mercy on everybody without exception Jews, Gentiles, everybody. No one is exempt from the mercy of God, and therefore no one has a case against God.

---

From Letter 28 of Pope St Leo The Great

Quote:

---

Without detriment therefore to the properties of either nature and substance which then came together in one person , majesty took on humility, strength weakness, eternity mortality: and for the paying off of the debt belonging to our condition inviolable nature was united with possible nature, so that, as suited the needs of our case , one and the same Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, could both die with the one and not die with the other. Thus in the whole and perfect nature of true man was true God born, complete in what was His own, complete in what was ours. And by ours we mean what the Creator formed in us from the beginning and what He undertook to repair. For what the Deceiver brought in and man deceived committed, had no trace in the Saviour. Nor, because He partook of man's weaknesses, did He therefore share our faults. He took the form of a slave without stain of sin, increasing the human and not diminishing the divine: because that emptying of Himself whereby the Invisible made Himself visible and, Creator and Lord of all things though He be, wished to be a mortal, was the bending down of pity, not the failing of power. Accordingly He who while remaining in the form of God made man, was also made man in the form of a slave. For both natures retain their own proper character without loss: and as the form of God did not do away with the form of a slave, so the form of a slave did not impair the form of God.

---

As you see, all heresies are Christological in nature...

St Gregory the Theologian, Oration 45 part 22:

Quote:

---

Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into. To Whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was It shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High priest and Sacrifice. We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause? If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether. But if to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed; and next, On what principle did the Blood of His Only begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being offered by his Father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim? Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things? So much we have said of Christ; the greater part of what we might say shall be reverenced with silence. But that brazen serpent Numbers 21:9 was hung up as a remedy for the biting serpents, not as a type of Him that suffered for us, but as a contrast; and it saved those that looked upon it, not because they believed it to live, but because it was killed, and killed with it the powers that were subject to it, being destroyed as it deserved. And what is the fitting epitaph for it from us? O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory? You are overthrown by the Cross; you are slain by Him who is the Giver of life; you are without breath, dead, without motion, even though you keep the form of a serpent lifted up on high on a pole.

---

St Isaac the Syrian Homily 51:
http://jbburnett.com/resources/Isaac-the-Syrian-Homily-51.pdf

Quote:

---

Mercy and justice in one soul is like a man who worships God and the idols in one house. Mercy is opposed to justice. Justice is the equality of the even scale, for it gives to each as he deserves; and when it makes recompense,it does not incline to one side or show respect of persons. Mercy, on the other hand, is a sorrow and pity stirred up by goodness, and it compassionately inclines a man in the direction of all; it does not requite a man who is deserving of evil, and to him who is deserving of good it gives a double portion. If, therefore, it is evident that mercy belongs to the portion of righteousness, then justice belongs to the portion of wickedness. As grass and fire cannot coexist in one place, so justice and mercy cannot abide in one soul. As a grain of sand cannot counterbalance a great quantity of gold, so in comparison God's use of justice cannot counterbalance His mercy.

As a handful of sand thrown into the great sea, so are the sins of all flesh in comparison with the mind of God. And just as a strongly flowing spring is not obstructed by a handful of dust, so the mercy of the Creator is not stemmed by the vices of His creatures.

...
Justice does not belong to the Christian way of life and there is no mention of it in Christ's teaching.
...
If you cannot be still within your heart, then at least make still your tongue. If you cannot give right ordering to your thoughts, at least give right ordering to your senses. If you cannot be solitary in your mind, at least be solitary in body. If you cannot labour with your body, at least be afflicted in mind. If you cannot keep your vigil standing, keep vigil sitting on your pallet, or lying down. If you cannot fast for two days at a time, at least fast till evening. And if you cannot fast until evening, then at least keep yourself from satiety. If you are not holy in your heart, at least be holy in body. If you do not mourn in your heart, at least cover your face with mourning. If you cannot be merciful, at least speak as though you are a sinner. If you are not a peacemaker, at least do not be a troublemaker. If you cannot be assiduous, at least in your thought be like a sluggard. If you are not victorious, do not exalt yourself over the vanquished. If you cannot close the mouth of a man who disparages his companion, at least refrain from joining him in this.

---

And Homily 60

Quote:

---

Do not hate the sinner. For we are all laden with guilt. If for the sake of God you are moved to oppose him, weep over him. Why do you hate him? Hate his sins and pray for him, that you may imitate Christ Who was not wroth with sinners, but interceded for them. Do you not see how He wept over Jerusalem? We are mocked by the devil in many instances, so why should we hate the man who is mocked by him who mocks us also? Why, O man, do you hate the sinner? Could it be because he is not so righteous as you? But where is your righteousness when you have no love? Why do you not shed tears over him? But you persecute him. In ignorance some are moved with anger, presuming themselves to be discerners of the works of sinners.

Be a herald of God's goodness, for God rules over you, unworthy though you are; for although your debt to Him is so great, yet He is not seen exacting payment from you, and from the small works you do, He bestows great rewards upon you. Do not call God just, for His justice is not manifest in the things concerning you. And if David calls Him just and upright (cf. Ps. 24:8, 144:17), His Son revealed to us that He is good and kind. 'He is good,' He says, 'to the evil and to the impious' (cf. Luke 6:35). How can you call God just when you come across the Scriptural passage on the wage given to the workers? 'Friend, I do thee no wrong: I will give unto this last even as unto thee. Is thine eye evil because I am good?' (Matt. 20:12-15). How can a man call God just when he comes across the passage on the prodigal son who wasted his wealth with riotous living, how for the compunction alone which he showed, the father ran and fell upon his neck and gave him authority over all his wealth? (Luke 15:11 ff.). None other but His very Son said these things concerning Him, lest we doubt it; and thus He bare witness concerning Him. Where, then, is God's justice, for whilst we are sinners Christ died for us! (cf. Rom. 5:8). But if here He is merciful, we may believe that He will not change.

Far be it that we should ever think such an iniquity that God could become unmerciful! For the property of Divinity does not change as do mortals. God does not acquire something which He does not have, nor lose what He has, nor supplement what He does have, as do created beings. But what God has from the beginning, He will have and has until the end, as the blest Cyril wrote in his commentary on Genesis. Fear God, he says, out of love for Him, and not for the austere name that He has been given. Love Him as you ought to love Him; not for what He will give you in the future, but for what we have received, and for this world alone which He has created for us. Who is the man that can repay Him? Where is His repayment to be found in our works? Who persuaded Him in the beginning to bring us into being Who intercedes for us before Him, when we shall possess no memory, as though we never existed? Who will awake this our body for that life? Again, whence descends the notion of knowledge into dust? O the wondrous mercy of God! O the astonishment at the bounty of our God and Creator! O might for which all is possible! O the immeasurable goodness that brings our nature again, sinners though we be, to His regeneration and rest! Who is sufficient to glorify Him? He raises up the transgressor and blasphemer, he renews dust unendowed with reason, making it rational and comprehending and the scattered and insensible dust and the scattered senses He makes a rational nature worthy of thought. The sinner is unable to comprehend the grace of His resurrection. Where is gehenna, that can afflict us? Where is perdition, that terrifies us in many ways and quenches the joy of His love? And what is gehenna as compared with the grace of His resurrection, when He will raise us from Hades and cause our corruptible nature to be clad in incorruption, and raise up in glory him that has fallen into Hades?

Come, men of discernment, and be filled with wonder! Whose mind is sufficiently wise and marvelous to wonder worthily at the bounty of our Creator? His recompense of sinners is, that instead of a just recompense, He rewards them with resurrection, and instead of those bodies with which they trampled upon His law, He enrobes them with perfect glory and incorruption. That grace whereby we are resurrected after we have sinned is greater than the grace which brought us into being when we were not. Glory be to Thine immeasurable grace, O Lord! Behold, Lord, the waves of Thy grace close my mouth with silence, and there is not a thought left in me before the face of Thy thanksgiving. What mouths can confess Thy praise, O good King, Thou Who lovest our life? Glory be to Thee for the two worlds which Thou hast created for our growth and delight, leading us by all things which Thou didst fashion to the knowledge of Thy glory, from now and unto the ages. Amen.

---

The point here is that God is Just the way He is Just. Not subject to our human understanding of justice.

Thats enough for one night.

Retired, should you ever be Chrismated as an Orthodox Christian, I think you might consider St Isaac as your saint.

Just read on St. Isaac.
That would be a lovely choice for RA.

(Also a fun thought for a game for who we would choose for each other's saint)

Man, thanks for all the info. Truly fascinating to read and makes me realize just how much I had missed growing up in the churches I did that seemed to ignore the first 1500 years of the church.

I have been talking w/ my wife a lot lately about Orthodox and how interested I am in it. I think I mentioned it earlier in this thread, but probably our 2 biggest "obstacles" are the fact that we are currently part of a church body that is on fire for the Lord and, after a couple lunches w/ our preaching minister, are very excited about the Christ-centered direction of the church. And the other issue is our son who is autistic and how he would "mesh" in the Orthodox church. You've certainly given me so much to consider though.

Read up a little on St. Isaac and loved him! Thanks for sharing that. BTW, my wife had an idea that I wanted to check w/ you and any other Houston-area Orthodox here. Are there any Orthodox Bible study groups around the area that would welcome an intrigued non-Orthodox, at least to sit in on to listen and learn?

We don't do bible study in the Protestant vein. Most of the scripture we learn is done so in church, in the divine services.

The concept of reading the scriptures and then talking about them together is very odd to an orthodox person. He laity should read the scriptures, and St John encourages for example families to read in preparation for the homily, but the intellectual discussion and understanding isn't emphasized. Our understanding of God comes from God, through grace.. and this grace is everywhere, but guaranteed in the Holy Mysteries. The mystical life or the sacramental life is the way we come to God.

Your son would do just fine, believe me. We have two kiddos in our church with special needs, and one of our former priests daughter was as well.

Another question, and I am sorry for all the questions, but what's the reasoning behind picking a saint?

Recapitulation isn't just an Orthodox teaching, it is taught by the Catholic Church. There may be some very nuanced differences I'm not aware of, but the post above covers it fairly well.

Traditionally the book of names is closed, and when we are baptized we receive a new name with our new life. Similarly, since monks die to the world they are often tonsured with a new name.

So we pick a name from the saints, and we ask this saint for their prayers. It's not always for any particular reason, but many people feel a strong kinship for their saint, just like you might for a particular author, or pastor/mentor, or artist. We know the saints are alive and not dead, and so they are of course capable of praying for us.

Thanks!

Reading up on something else I came across this short bit on salvation from St Leo the Great (Sermon 22):

The Lord took from His mother our nature, not our fault. The slave's form is created without the slave's estate, because the New Man is so commingled with the old, as both to assume the reality of our race and to remove its ancient flaw.

When, therefore, the merciful and almighty Saviour so arranged the commencement of His human course as to hide the power of His Godhead which was inseparable from His manhood under the veil of our weakness, the crafty foe was taken off his guard and he thought that the nativity of the Child, Who was born for the salvation of mankind, was as much subject to himself as all others are at their birth. For he saw Him crying and weeping, he saw Him wrapped in swaddling clothes, subjected to circumcision, offering the sacrifice which the law required. And then he perceived in Him the usual growth of boyhood, and could have had no doubt of His reaching man's estate by natural steps. Meanwhile, he inflicted insults, multiplied injuries, made use of curses, affronts, blasphemies, abuse, in a word, poured upon Him all the force of his fury and exhausted all the varieties of trial: and knowing how he had poisoned man's nature, had no conception that He had no share in the first transgression Whose mortality he had ascertained by so many proofs.

The unscrupulous thief and greedy robber persisted in assaulting Him Who had nothing of His own, and in carrying out the general sentence on original sin, went beyond the bond on which he rested, and required the punishment of iniquity from Him in Whom he found no fault. And thus the malevolent terms of the deadly compact are annulled, and through the injustice of an overcharge the whole debt is cancelled. The strong one is bound by his own chains, and every device of the evil one recoils on his own head. When the prince of the world is bound, all that he held in captivity is released. Our nature cleansed from its old contagion regains its honourable estate, death is destroyed by death, nativity is restored by nativity: since at one and the same time redemption does away with slavery, regeneration changes our origin, and faith justifies the sinner.

Whoever then you are that devoutly and faithfully boastest of the Christian name, estimate this atonement at its right worth. For to you who wast a castaway, banished from the realms of paradise, dying of your weary exile, reduced to dust and ashes, without further hope of living, by the Incarnation of the Word was given the power to return from afar to your Maker, to recognize your parentage, to become free after slavery, to be promoted from being an outcast to sonship: so that, you who were born of corruptible flesh, may be reborn by the Spirit of God, and obtain through grace what you had not by nature, and, if you acknowledge yourself the son of God by the spirit of adoption, dare to call God Father. Freed from the accusings of a bad conscience, aspire to the kingdom of heaven, do God's will supported by the Divine help, imitate the angels upon earth, feed on the strength of immortal sustenance, fight fearlessly on the side of piety against hostile temptations, and if you keep your allegiance in the heavenly warfare, doubt not that you will be crowned for your victory in the triumphant camp of the Eternal King, when the resurrection that is prepared for the faithful has raised you to participate in the heavenly Kingdom.

Reading that intro to Orthodox book, and was surprised to see that Orthodox (at least according to the author) views the RCC and Protestants to simply be 2 sides of the same coin, in that they have both been influenced by the same cultural events, such as the Middle Ages, Renaissance, Enlightenment, etc.

Just a couple chapters in, but the highlighter is getting used quite a bit.

Yes... In some ways, we are very close to Rome. In other ways, we are very far.

From a very binary sense, confessional protestants have the same creed with Rome. We do not. St Photios was prescient: the error of the Filioque gave "birth to countless heresies." He also says that (at the time) if Rome recanted on the filioque all the other doctrinal differences could be worked out, that the symbol of faith was the only bar to communion.

Theophylact wrote that if the Latins would drop the Filioque, their other errors could be overlooked: "If...after the dogma has been set right and the novelty replaced by older [teachings], they still hold their opinions regarding azymes and [Sabbath] fasting..., then you must become Paul in this matter, appearing to those under the law as one under the law." Theophylact also warned against highlighting the differences - those that do "are zealous without full knowledge and...mutilate the body of Christ on account of their own self-love."

Since then...eh... I don't know. There's been drift. And that made it a doctrinal statement that the Pope can be invested with infallibility and to deny this is an anathema. So it's pretty tough. But we've been apart for almost 1000 years now.

So on SOME things we are very close with the Romans. On others, they are closer to Protestants.

This old thread (that titan left, sadly) got into it.
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2744254/1

I highly recommend downloading the "Ancient Faith Radio" app onto your phone and checking out the Podcast "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy" by Father Damick. I think you can also google that and find his website with the individual podcasts.

This is the podcast that was effectively put into book form.

He has I think 4 lectures on Rome and 4 on the "high church" Protestants (Lutherans, Reformed, etc.).

It's a great lesson into how Orthodoxy compares to others. He seems very fair in his assessments and is quick to point out where they are close or far apart.

Very interesting. Love that description of those who highlight the differences.

Another question for y'all: reading about some of the conflict, specifically re: "hierarchy" among the different sees. Stuff like Rome refusing until 1200 to recognize Constantinople as the 2nd highest, or the conflict between Constantinople and Alexandria over who would be highest in the east, to the point that Alexandria got two Bishops of Constantinople removed (or exiled, can't remember the exact word used). I'm reading this, and while there were sone theological disagreements, especially w/ regard to "Theotokos", it seems like much of the conflict was a matter of status as the second see. It comes across as though that aspect of it was a pride problem. Am I missing something?

Also, thanks for recommending this book. I'm really enjoying it, so hope you don't mind me picking all of y'alls brains as I read. The whole "Mother of God" title makes sense to me now.

Thanks. I'll add it to my podcasts. Sounds like something that I'd enjoy.

RetiredAg said:

---

Very interesting. Love that description of those who highlight the differences.

Another question for y'all: reading about some of the conflict, specifically re: "hierarchy" among the different sees. Stuff like Rome refusing until 1200 to recognize Constantinople as the 2nd highest, or the conflict between Constantinople and Alexandria over who would be highest in the east, to the point that Alexandria got two Bishops of Constantinople removed (or exiled, can't remember the exact word used). I'm reading this, and while there were sone theological disagreements, especially w/ regard to "Theotokos", it seems like much of the conflict was a matter of status as the second see. It comes across as though that aspect of it was a pride problem. Am I missing something?

Also, thanks for recommending this book. I'm really enjoying it, so hope you don't mind me picking all of y'alls brains as I read. The whole "Mother of God" title makes sense to me now.

---

I wouldn't focus on "conflict". Worldly struggles can be pretty much traced out by the canons of the various councils.

The whole of the east nearly was trapped in heresy at several points. St Athanasius took them all one - "Athanasias vs the world" or "Athanasias conta mundi" happened. Then the same with St Maximos.

Theotokos as a title is about Christ, not about Mary - and I don't diminish our Lady by saying that.

This goes well into the east vs west views. It's very good.

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_wrath_of_god_-_part_2