Whither TAW?

[gzt]

We needn't make it a false dichotomy, since the world is in fact 4.5 billion years old (and the universe 14 billion). There are certainly ways for both to be true. Use your nous.

 

[Dorothea]

Apparently not, as some posting in this thread think certain positions which are well within the bounds of the Church are in fact outside those bounds and argue quite vigorously, or at least echo quite thoroughly amongst themselves, when brought up. I strenuously object to being bullied about things which, as you put it, are not dogma because nobody knows the details because they weren't revealed by God. Which is what's happening elsewhere and what rusmeister is referring to doing here in this thread.

Oh. I haven't been following closely all the threads, and he mentions generally some and so I guessed that's what he was talking about. I don't know. I think Rus has said he realizes some things aren't dogma with regards to those subjects we discussed.

 

[Dorothea]

Dot - the issue is that, when we start to read the Fathers writing on these topics, we start to find out that these things ARE revealed. For instance, many Saints have seen the creation of the world in a vision revealed by God. That, or they are delusional and only THINK God sent them a vision ...

Yes, I realize that there are some writings from the Saints on some of these issues that the Church hasn't dogmatized (if that's a word). I tend to follow what they say, but I do know that the Church hasn't formally made life after death - details - and the details of all about the creation, except that we were made in His Image....no other being was. That Adam and Eve were/are real human beings, and that God created all things recorded in Genesis. There's no dogma on where the dinos were, when they were destroyed, how old the earth is, and if the six days are literally six and a day means 24 hours. Yes, we have writings from some Saints who have commented on some of that or most of that, but it isn't dogma in our church, is it? For instance, I have no problem believing the earth is older than 10,000 years. I have no problem believing the dinos were inside or outside the Garden at some point. Anyway, I don't think the Saints were wrong. I think their visions are correct. I'm just saying that it is not dogma - it was not made dogma out of total consensus of the Church. Why? Because the way I understand it is that if something isn't dogma in our Church, it isn't needed for our salvation. What is needed is that we were made in His Image and likeness, what happened in the Garden and the Fall, etc.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This post is exactly what I'm referring to in my post! You are purposely trying to push Rus's buttons! You know that these numbers are theoretically, cannot be proven, and you are very aware how this will provoke him. Then you'll say he's bullying, when in reality he's presenting the other side of the argument. We cannot affirm with absolute metaphysical certitude these ages you throw out here. When you speak with such abject confidence and make this a type of certain scientific gospel, this only adds fuel to the fires....

We needn't make it a false dichotomy, since the world is in fact 4.5 billion years old (and the universe 14 billion). There are certainly ways for both to be true. Use your nous.

 

[Dorothea]

We needn't make it a false dichotomy, since the world is in fact 4.5 billion years old (and the universe 14 billion). There are certainly ways for both to be true. Use your nous.

Well, I don't think it's a fact the earth is that old and the universe is 14 billion years old. I mean, how can we be 100% of the exact age?

 

[jckstraw72]

Dot - I think your post leads us back to the question Rus has been raising - about Church authority. We have to ask ourselves what it means for something to be dogmatic? Are only the declarations of the Councils dogmatic? If so, who says so? Do the Councils say so? It's the same question we have with Sola Scriptura - do the Scriptures ever claim to be the sole source of dogma?

 

[Dorothea]

Dot - I think your post leads us back to the question Rus has been raising - about Church authority. We have to ask ourselves what it means for something to be dogmatic? Are only the declarations of the Councils dogmatic? If so, who says so? Do the Councils say so? It's the same question we have with Sola Scriptura - do the Scriptures ever claim to be the sole source of dogma?

What I've been told is if the Church has declared something dogmatic, it must be believed to be an Orthodox Christian (Christian period imo), and it is needed for our salvation.

 

[xenia]

I have been part of TAW for a very long time, and was a moderator for a while. I agree with Rus that this place has changed. Sure, there have always been people who had the EO cross symbol in the corner who challenged the authority of the church but they were always in the minority and the rest of the forum was pretty united in accepting church authority. It seems like the percentage has changed.

 

[jckstraw72]

What I've been told is if the Church has declared something dogmatic, it must be believed to be an Orthodox Christian (Christian period imo), and it is needed for our salvation.

i understood, Dot. that's something we hear often, but I think we don't go deeper than this often enough. we should ask - what does it mean for the Church to declare something? if 1000's (or millions) of monastics around the world are praying the daily services every day, does this count as a declaration of the content of the services? do we pray something we don't believe?

 

[Dorothea]

Well, here's what my archdiocese says on Dogmatic Tradition:

One distinguishes various traditions that express the One Tradition of the Church: the scriptural, patristic, doctrinal, canonical, artistic, architectural, and liturgical traditions are specific expressions of the Spirit of the Tradition of the Church. What matters most, in terms of the faith, is the so-called dogmatical, or doctrinal tradition of the Church. However, since all these aspects and these manifestations of the one Tradition of the Church are interwoven, one should consider all the forms that express the spirit of the One Tradition in establishing the context and the very meaning of the Christian faith and doctrine.

All the dogmas of the Church are "Biblical," i.e. based on the Bible. The dogmas of the Church are nothing else but an authoritative presentation of the revealed doctrine, both for didactic and also apologetical purposes. Heresy was one of the reasons why the Church established and enunciated its doctrine in a very clear and unequivocal way. However, the dogmas decreed by the Councils that opposed heresy are not the only ones promulgated and taught by the Church. The doctrinal system of the Church contains both these dogmas and all the other doctrines that the Church always proclaimed as being part of the message of salvation that she addresses to the world.

The Triune God, the doctrine of creation of angels and man, man's fall, the divine plan of salvation, Christ's person and work, the Church, the Virgin Mary, the Saints, the Sacraments, and Orthodox eschatology (the "last things") are some of the points of doctrine that will be presented here, in a very synoptic manner.

___________________

It goes on to explain them all. Here's a small bit from the link also:

Among the visible things that God created is the crown of His creation, man. In Genesis we read the story of God's creation. We cannot interpret this story to the letter; however, its message is loud and clear: God is the creator of everything that exists; there is order in God's creation, and a development (even "evolution") from lower forms to higher forms of life; God created everything good; man, created in God's image and likeness, has a very special place in God's creation, called to be God's proxy toward His creation.

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8038

sorry. Probably going off topic here, I just realized.

 

[Knee V]

It is certainly true that sola councila (if that's a word) is just as erroneous as sola scriptura.

 

[Dorothea]

i understood, Dot. that's something we hear often, but I think we don't go deeper than this often enough. we should ask - what does it mean for the Church to declare something? if 1000's (or millions) of monastics around the world are praying the daily services every day, does this count as a declaration of the content of the services? do we pray something we don't believe?

I wouldn't think we'd be praying something we didn't believe. I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the monastics and the services? The liturgy is part of Holy Tradition - that's considered part of the Dogmatic Tradition of the Church, according to my archdiocese. Am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

 

[jckstraw72]

I wouldn't think we'd be praying something we didn't believe. I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the monastics and the services? The liturgy is part of Holy Tradition - that's considered part of the Dogmatic Tradition of the Church, according to my archdiocese. Am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

no, i think your Archdiocese gave a pretty good answer - they didn't limit Dogma to the Councils only. but for instance, the services speak of the toll houses and demons coming to take our souls when we die -- how then can these things be considered non-dogmatic, when they are boldly proclaimed by millions every day?

 

[Knee V]

no, i think your Archdiocese gave a pretty good answer - they didn't limit Dogma to the Councils only. but for instance, the services speak of the toll houses and demons coming to take our souls when we die -- how then can these things be considered non-dogmatic, when they are boldly proclaimed by millions every day?

Indeed. While, in my opinion, the specific language of "toll houses" seems unhelpful most of the time, the reality behind the language is a very real experience of the Church.

 

[gzt]

This post is exactly what I'm referring to in my post! You are purposely trying to push Rus's buttons! You know that these numbers are theoretically, cannot be proven, and you are very aware how this will provoke him. Then you'll say he's bullying, when in reality he's presenting the other side of the argument. We cannot affirm with absolute metaphysical certitude these ages you throw out here. When you speak with such abject confidence and make this a type of certain scientific gospel, this only adds fuel to the fires....

And rus's post is the sort of trollish post that pushes the other buttons - which is why I so object to it.

 

[jckstraw72]

It is certainly true that sola councila (if that's a word) is just as erroneous as sola scriptura.

i like to call it Sola Synodia

 

[jckstraw72]

Indeed. While, in my opinion, the specific language of "toll houses" seems unhelpful most of the time, the reality behind the language is a very real experience of the Church.

sure, this is reasonable. the specific imagery used came from the cultural context of the Fathers - Met. Hierotheos gives a good explanation in his book, and we can ask if there is a better way to convey the message to our times. But as you say, the experience is undeniable when you become familiar with the sources that bear witness to Tradition.

 

[Dorothea]

no, i think your Archdiocese gave a pretty good answer - they didn't limit Dogma to the Councils only. but for instance, the services speak of the toll houses and demons coming to take our souls when we die -- how then can these things be considered non-dogmatic, when they are boldly proclaimed by millions every day?

Hmmm. I don't know. I asked my husband since he happened to be here. What hymn or service are you talking about? I know that the Greek Orthodox Church doesn't believe in the toll houses because I was at a lecture on Clean Monday when somebody asked that, and the priest said they don't really believe in that. It's not in our tradition (the Greek one). My husband said the Ladder of Divine Ascent is the only thing he can think of that may be correlated to the toll house idea. ??? Anyhow, do you know any hymns or services exactly?

 

[jckstraw72]

Hmmm. I don't know. I asked my husband since he happened to be here. What hymn or service are you talking about? I know that the Greek Orthodox Church doesn't believe in the toll houses because I was at a lecture on Clean Monday when somebody asked that, and the priest said they don't really believe in that. It's not in our tradition (the Greek one). My husband said the Ladder of Divine Ascent is the only thing he can think of that may be correlated to the toll house idea. ??? Anyhow, do you know any hymns or services exactly?

sadly, this priest was incorrect. there are many Greek sources where you can find the toll houses -- Elder Ephraim, Elder Joseph, Elder Paisios, St. Porphyrios, Met. Hierotheos Vlachos, Archimandrite Vasilios Bakoyiannis, Constantine Cavarnos, Nikolaos P. Vassiliadis, not to mention the many Fathers who wrote about them who were a bunch of Greeks ...

as for hymns, if you were to look through every text of the Church -- the Octoechos, the Menaion, the Triodion, the Pentecostarion, etc you will start to find references to this reality popping up frequently enough. These pages contain just a few of the many references: Evidence for the Tradition of the Toll Houses found in the Universally Received Tradition of the Church
St. Michael Academy Orthodox Bible College
Answer to a Critic: Appendix III from The Soul After Death

 

[Tallguy88]

Hmmm. I don't know. I asked my husband since he happened to be here. What hymn or service are you talking about? I know that the Greek Orthodox Church doesn't believe in the toll houses because I was at a lecture on Clean Monday when somebody asked that, and the priest said they don't really believe in that. It's not in our tradition (the Greek one). My husband said the Ladder of Divine Ascent is the only thing he can think of that may be correlated to the toll house idea. ??? Anyhow, do you know any hymns or services exactly?

The priest at the local Orthodox church told me toll houses were just something believed by the fringe. It's one of my stumbling blocks to further inquiry into Orthodoxy