Impediments

[CelticRebel]

because that is not their role. in the absence of a man, a wife cannot be a father. in the absence of a women, a husband cannot be a mom. and, since I know you like Scripture, in Acts there is a reason deacons were ordained, not because the social justice side of the faith is not for the priests or below them, but that was not their calling. in the early Church, you would not have laymen together on a Sunday with no clergy who would consecrate the sacraments. they would either find a priest or they would wait.

again, think complimentary instead of opposed to.

I know some women whose husbands left them unjustly who had to assume the role of a father.

About the part I bolded: I don't see that in scripture.

 

[CelticRebel]

Just wanted to pause and say a big thank you to everyone who has replied here. You have been very kind and considerate, helpful and patient.

Looking back at how I began this thread, I would have to say that the impediments to my becoming Orthodox that I listed still remain for me. I would have to add to that the ordination of women, which I am in favor of, according to the way I read scripture and the example of the ancient Celtic Church.

Also -- and please I hope no one takes offense at this because I don't mean any -- I can't say that the Orthodox Church is the only one true church established by the apostles.

Anyway, all of these things will probably prevent my becoming Orthodox, but I still have many views that are in complete harmony with Orthodoxy, and I still hope to visit and worship in an Orthodox church.

 

[Catherineanne]

Not as a blanket prohibition, no.

But there are canons that forbid going into the houses of other temples for the express purpose of praying with them. Someone else will need to say what this canon means - for all I know the only "others" at that time were praying to pagan deities.

In general we do not pray with non-Orthodox. They are free to join our prayers, but we do not pray theirs.

I do know absolutely that Orthodox may not receive sacraments elsewhere, or they essentially join themselves to that group by assent, and excommunicate themselves from Orthodoxy (they can be restored through confession though).

Those are some general things. At the time, I was a catechumen, and in order to learn the faith it was my responsibility to discuss with my priest and follow his suggestions for my own good.

I will say this too - now I am baptized, attend regularly. My husband is not Orthodox, and won't come to my Church. But sometimes he won't go to any church at all because I'm not going with him. So my priest advised me, for the sake of my husband, to sometimes go to whatever Christian church he prefers, for the sake of his salvation.

Not only am I not forbidden, but in my case actually advised to attend sometimes.

Almost every answer for our general behavior can be "it depends" but there is always wisdom in applying it.

May I ask, is there any prohibition against attending funerals in other churches? (I would hope not, but you never know.)

 

[~Anastasia~]

May I ask, is there any prohibition against attending funerals in other churches? (I would hope not, but you never know.)

Not that I've ever heard of, and I seriously doubt it.

The closest I could think of is that an Orthodox person should prefer an Orthodox funeral for themselves.

 

[ArmyMatt]

About the part I bolded: I don't see that in scripture.

I know it was not in Scripture. the point being you only had those ordained for the role do the Sacraments.

 

[Dialogist]

Here are what I believe are some impediments to my becoming Orthodox

Have you sat down with an Orthodox priest to discuss your doubts?

 

[CelticRebel]

Have you sat down with an Orthodox priest to discuss your doubts?

No, not yet.

 

[Dialogist]

No, not yet.

I would humbly suggest that that might be first thing to do. I think the only way to really learn about Orthodoxy is to immerse yourself in the life of the Church. Attend as many services as you can. The whole theology of the Orthodox Church is contained in the service books. Find a priest that you can talk with in person. Orthodox priests are more than functionaries. They view themselves as being personally responsible for everyone whom God brings their way. One's relationship with one's priest is essential for an Orthodox Christian.

Orthodox theology and writing is very rich and one is tempted to explore Orthodoxy from a purely intellectual vantage point. Believe me - I can speak from experience. It is a mistake.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would humbly suggest that that might be first thing to do. I think the only way to really learn about Orthodoxy is to immerse yourself in the life of the Church. Attend as many services as you can. The whole theology of the Orthodox Church is contained in the service books. Find a priest that you can talk with in person. Orthodox priests are more than functionaries. They view themselves as being personally responsible for everyone whom God brings their way. One's relationship with one's priest is essential for an Orthodox Christian.

Orthodox theology and writing is very rich and one is tempted to explore Orthodoxy from a purely intellectual vantage point. Believe me - I can speak from experience. It is a mistake.

I know CelticRebel has distance issues but I think he's planning to visit. But I did want to say both that this is great advice and

WELCOME TO CF AND TO TAW!

Great to have you here.

 

[Dialogist]

Here are what I believe are some impediments to my becoming Orthodox. Some are more crucial than others for me.

First, let me say that I agree strongly with the Orthodox on atonement, the doctrine of God, sin and original sin, salvation.

Maybe I'll just list the areas of disagreement and comment on them later:

1. Baptismal regeneration
2. Infant baptism
3. Some teachings about Mary
4. The teaching that apostolic succession is of the essence of the church, not just for the benefit of it.
5. Calling priests "Father".
6. Tradition and scripture equal
7. Bishops must be celibate/widowed priests cannot remarry.
8. Bowing down to, kissing icons

That's all I can think of right now.

I did have another question: Do Orthodox churches have musical instruments in worship?

I greatly appreciate the patience and kindness I've been shown. That's been the case more here than many places I've been.

Dear Brother -

These are really interesting areas of discussion. I would be interesting in better understanding Orthodox doctrine myself in all of these areas. I see pages and pages of discussion, but if you wouldn't mind discussing each point again with me (for my benefit), I would be grateful.

Starting with #1 - What do you believe is the Orthodox doctrine on 'baptismal regeneration' and what do you disagree with?

Sincere thanks.

 

[Dialogist]

Tradition and scripture equal

I am not sure whether this will be helpful, but might I humbly suggest you look at the essay "Holy Scripture and the Church", by (St.) Hilarion Troitsky?

(As an aside, Hilarion Troitsky was acknowledged to be a great budding Orthodox theologian when he was alive. While he was still fairly young, though, he was seized by the Bolsheviks and sent to the Solovetsk Islands, above the Arctic Circle. Prior to the Russian Revolution, the islands housed a huge Orthodox monastery, which the Bolsheviks turned into a special concentration camp for Orthodox clergy and monastics. There is a great dramatization of St. Hilarion's trials there in this podcast.)

 

[CelticRebel]

Dear Brother -

These are really interesting areas of discussion. I would be interesting in better understanding Orthodox doctrine myself in all of these areas. I see pages and pages of discussion, but if you wouldn't mind discussing each point again with me (for my benefit), I would be grateful.

Starting with #1 - What do you believe is the Orthodox doctrine on 'baptismal regeneration' and what do you disagree with?

Sincere thanks.

That a person is spiritually reborn through water baptism. I don't think water regenerates.

 

[CelticRebel]

I am not sure whether this will be helpful, but might I humbly suggest you look at the essay "Holy Scripture and the Church", by (St.) Hilarion Troitsky?

(As an aside, Hilarion Troitsky was acknowledged to be a great budding Orthodox theologian when he was alive. While he was still fairly young, though, he was seized by the Bolsheviks and sent to the Solovetsk Islands, above the Arctic Circle. Prior to the Russian Revolution, the islands housed a huge Orthodox monastery, which the Bolsheviks turned into a special concentration camp for Orthodox clergy and monastics. There is a great dramatization of St. Hilarion's trials there in this podcast.)

I will look and listen.

 

[Dialogist]

That a person is spiritually reborn through water baptism. I don't think water regenerates.

If I am correct, the argument is:

1. The Orthodox Church holds a certain doctrine concerning baptismal regeneration.
2. The Orthodox doctrine of baptismal regeneration is that a person is spiritually reborn through baptism.
3. [Implicit: Orthodox Church doctrine further requires that baptism be carried out with water]
4. Water is not capable of [spiritually] regenerating anyone

Therefore, through 2-4, the Orthodox Church doctrine on baptismal regeneration is heretical. Further, since the Orthodox Church holds a heretical doctrine (1), it is a heretical sect.

If I am misstating anything, please let me know. Otherwise, I will think and study on this.

Thank you!

 

[ArmyMatt]

That a person is spiritually reborn through water baptism. I don't think water regenerates.

correct, the Spirit working through the water is what regenerates. we are told by what method the Spirit operates in Baptism. it's what the Spirit does through the water that causes the regeneration, not the water in of itself.

 

[CelticRebel]

If I am correct, the argument is:

1. The Orthodox Church holds a certain doctrine concerning baptismal regeneration.
2. The Orthodox doctrine of baptismal regeneration is that a person is spiritually reborn through baptism.
3. [Implicit: Orthodox Church doctrine further requires that baptism be carried out with water]
4. Water is not capable of [spiritually] regenerating anyone

Therefore, through 2-4, the Orthodox Church doctrine on baptismal regeneration is heretical. Further, since the Orthodox Church holds a heretical doctrine (1), it is a heretical sect.

If I am misstating anything, please let me know. Otherwise, I will think and study on this.

Thank you!

I do not use the word "heretical" or "heresy", nor the word "sect". Both are misleading, pejorative, and often not correct, either. Further, I would not conclude that because a Body is wrong on one or more issues that such Body was not a true church.

 

[CelticRebel]

correct, the Spirit working through the water is what regenerates. we are told by what method the Spirit operates in Baptism. it's what the Spirit does through the water that causes the regeneration, not the water in of itself.

I'm afraid I don't hold to that definition, either.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm afraid I don't hold to that definition, either.

that doesn't matter. it does not matter what any of us thinks or like (myself included). the problem is that there is zero evidence of baptism happening without water. the idea that the Spirit and water are separated in baptism somehow is just false.

 

[CelticRebel]

that doesn't matter. it does not matter what any of us thinks or like (myself included). the problem is that there is zero evidence of baptism happening without water. the idea that the Spirit and water are separated in baptism somehow is just false.

I'm not saying that baptism in the NT happened without water, or that water baptism can be discarded since the true baptism is the Holy Spirit baptism, as the Quakers and Salvation Army hold. I just don't believe that water baptism confers spiritual rebirth, regeneration, or Holy Spirit baptism into the Church/Body of Christ. I don't believe the NT teaches that.

 

[Dialogist]

I do not use the word "heretical" or "heresy", nor the word "sect". Both are misleading, pejorative, and often not correct, either. Further, I would not conclude that because a Body is wrong on one or more issues that such Body was not a true church.

OK, those are two interesting points. I agree that the terms are pejorative. I had not really thought of the term "sect" as pejorative, but your point prompted me to learn that in Greek the same word [airesis] not only conveys the meaning of our English word "heresy" (e.g., following the KJV, Acts 24:14; 1 Cor. 11:19; Ga. 5:20, 2 Pe. 2:1), but also the word "sect", sometimes in a pejorative sense (e.g. Acts 24:5) and sometimes not (e.g. Acts 26:5).

What would you say is the difference between false doctrine and heresy?

Would you agree that the true Church could not embrace heresy?

I think these are important questions. If one believes that the Church maintains that certain false things are, in fact, true, then how can it, as the pillar and foundation of truth, with Christ - who is Himself the Truth - at its head, really be considered the Church?