saints of this and that (moved from GT)

[Catherineanne]

It's against CF rules, is what it is. Never mind the judging people's hearts.

Indeed so.

I find great comfort in the thought that every single person who goes to an EO service tomorrow is a believer, is fully committed to the Lord, and worships him in spirit and truth. I am happy that all these good people are much nearer to God than I am, as long as I come in somewhere along the line, that is fine with me.

Ditto Roman Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, and any other demonination you care to mention; each following his or her conscience and going to church to meet God.

It is beyond me why any Christian would want to think any other way.

 

[Catherineanne]

I refer you to my post a few above yours. What has bothered ME in this is those telling me that their prayers are more meritous, that they are more holy than I, superior to me, that I have less faith, less spirituality, less love of Our Lady if I don't pray the Rosary to pray to my patron saint (frankly, I don't even know who that is). Judging my heart. A LOT of that goes on here at CF (not always intentionally, I hope).

There you go; St/King Josiah.

Josiah became king of Judah when he was eight years old and did righteousness. He smashed the idols and removed their temples. He restored righteous worship of God. Read his story in: 2 Kings 22 & 23 and 2 Chronicles 34 & 35.

Orthodox Icon of St. Josiah the Tenderhearted

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Two ways of putting things.....

"This practice is mandated by GOD [in Scripture, Tradition, ___________] and has always been practiced - and one is less holy, less Christian, less good, less blessed if they don't do it! And I refuse to document anything I just said."

"This is a practice I and many others over the centuries have embraced. I feel that it has blessed me spiritually and helped me draw closer to God, but I don't regard it as required in any way and I have no less love and respect for those who do not practice or even approve of this."


The first is going to get a lot of "Prove it!" posts (because truth SHOULD matter) and perhaps even a lot of equally bold statements in reply. The second is apt to get a "cool" or maybe a question about it - but the whole converstation won't last long. Yup. That's my experience here after some 7 years and thousands of posts. How it's cast has a HUGE impact on how people respond.





.

 

[Dorothea]

Indeed so.

I find great comfort in the thought that every single person who goes to an EO service tomorrow is a believer, is fully committed to the Lord, and worships him in spirit and truth. I am happy that all these good people are much nearer to God than I am, as long as I come in somewhere along the line, that is fine with me.

Ditto Roman Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, and any other demonination you care to mention; each following his or her conscience and going to church to meet God.

It is beyond me why any Christian would want to think any other way.

I don't know. I think the same way as you. I believe all are Christians, and I take their word for it. I'm not skeptical or suspicious about it. I just believe them. Call me naive.

 

[Philothei]

.


Two ways of putting things.....

"This practice is mandated by GOD [in Scripture, Tradition, ___________] and has always been practiced - and one is less holy, less Christian, less good, less blessed if they don't do it! And I refuse to document anything I just said."

"This is a practice I and many others over the centuries have embraced. I feel that it has blessed me spiritually and helped me draw closer to God, but I don't regard it as required in any way and I have no less love and respect for those who do not practice or even approve of this."


The first is going to get a lot of "Prove it!" posts (because truth SHOULD matter) and perhaps even a lot of equally bold statements in reply. The second is apt to get a "cool" or maybe a question about it - but the whole converstation won't last long. Yup. That's my experience here after some 7 years and thousands of posts. How it's cast has a HUGE impact on how people respond.





.

Simple if you do not believe you should practice it then do not... I cannot understand why some Lutherans do believe in the intercesion and some do not... either but I do not mind if they practice both. The same goes for Lutherans who believe in the EV.... Some do some do not.

For EOs it is a dogma and a belief. Period. It has been practiced. That is all I can say and it def. does not contradict the Bible so I do not see why that should make some "upset" for the RC and EOs practicing this...

 

[Philothei]

I don't know. I think the same way as you. I believe all are Christians, and I take their word for it. I'm not skeptical or suspicious about it. I just believe them. Call me naive.

Amen Sister!!!

 

[Catherineanne]

I don't know. I think the same way as you. I believe all are Christians, and I take their word for it. I'm not skeptical or suspicious about it. I just believe them. Call me naive.

You and me both, D. And thank the Lord for that!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Two ways of putting things.....

"This practice is mandated by GOD [in Scripture, Tradition, ___________] and has always been practiced - and one is less holy, less Christian, less good, less blessed if they don't do it! And I refuse to document anything I just said."

"This is a practice I and many others over the centuries have embraced. I feel that it has blessed me spiritually and helped me draw closer to God, but I don't regard it as required in any way and I have no less love and respect for those who do not practice or even approve of this."


The first is going to get a lot of "Prove it!" posts (because truth SHOULD matter) and perhaps even a lot of equally bold statements in reply. The second is apt to get a "cool" or maybe a question about it - but the whole converstation won't last long. Yup. That's my experience here after some 7 years and thousands of posts. How it's cast has a HUGE impact on how people respond.


.

I do not see why that should make some "upset" for the RC and EOs practicing this...

I refer you to what you quoted from me....


What is confusing to me, I guess, is why Truth matters except when it's declared truth of the very highest level of importance and greatest certainty? Or why it matters in the case of every OTHER believer or denomination but not in the sole case of self or one's own denomination?


I think there is a substantial difference between "It is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty of Truth that President Obama and Mrs. Clinton have a love child!" And, "It has been a blessing to me to begin every morning with a devotional." The first has to do with facts, dogmas (in this case, about persons - not as esteemed as Mary), the second an experience about a spiritual practice. Do you see the difference? Again, read what you quoted from me - I think you might gather a bit of what I'm trying to say.





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I don't know. I think the same way as you. I believe all are Christians, and I take their word for it. I'm not skeptical or suspicious about it. I just believe them. Call me naive.

I understand. So, you have equal and full embrace of the EOC as you do of the LDS, of St. Ignatius and Joseph Smith. I'm not sure I agree with you, but I give you points for consistency.





.

 

[Catherineanne]

.


Two ways of putting things.....

"This practice is mandated by GOD [in Scripture, Tradition, ___________] and has always been practiced - and one is less holy, less Christian, less good, less blessed if they don't do it! And I refuse to document anything I just said."

I am afraid this is a misrepresentation.

I am more than happy to accept the communion of saints as being described in Scripture, and as an important part of my tradition, liturgy and prayer life. No problem with that at all.

I find great blessing from the communion of saints, certainly.

Do I regard those who do not know this blessing as less holy, less Christian, less good, than I am? No. As I understand it, the safest attitude for any Christian to take is that others are more holy, more Christian, more devout and nearer to God than they are themselves. If I receive blessing from the communion of saints, and others do not, then that answers for itself, but it is not a value judgment. The same would be true in distinguishing from those who accept the Eucharist as the Real Presence and those who regard it as a memorial. The former will receive a greater blessing, by virtue of their beliefs, but this does not make them superior in faith or anything else. Just more fortunate.

I think you are assuming an attitude which does not necessarily pertian, therefore. Perhaps there is a bit of projection going on?

"This is a practice I and many others over the centuries have embraced. I feel that it has blessed me spiritually and helped me draw closer to God, but I don't regard it as required in any way and I have no less love and respect for those who do not practice or even approve of this."

Not really this either.

For me this is required; it is an important part of my Christian life, and I could not easily do without it. If other people can manage without then that is up to them; they are missing a lot but if they are happy, then it really isn't my concern.

 

[Catherineanne]

I understand. So, you have equal and full embrace of the EOC as you do of the LDS, of St. Ignatius and Joseph Smith. I'm not sure I agree with you, but I give you points for consistency.

Are you being deliberately mischievous, CJ?

The comment was very clearly about believers in Christian churches being Christians, not about the theology of the Latter Day Saints being equivalent to that of Orthodoxy.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I am afraid this is a misrepresentation.

Sister, I nowhere remotely indicated that such was a representation of YOUR views or posts. It is totally generic.

Not really this either.

I nowhere remotely indicated that such was a representation of YOUR views or posts. It is totally generic


MY point is the difference between these two very different approaches.
I suppose ALL of us can see, in honesty, if the "shoe fits" but that has not my intent or purpose - I simply conveyed two very different approaches. And yes - I think posts often fall ROUGHLY into those two camps.

IMO, truth should matter among us. Of course, respect for the spirituality of one another is good, too.




.

 

[Catherineanne]

And, "It has been a blessing to me to begin every morning with a devotional."

I think it is a bit disingenous of you to expect churches to present beliefs in the form of; if this is a blessing to you, then do it, but if you don't want to, then don't.

The Roman Catholic Church has truth; it believes that truth to be full, and it is therefore authorised to present that truth to its members. The EO also believes itself to have truth, not just opinion, or belief. Again, you seem to resent other churches for not being as uncertain of their teachings as you are.

Do you really think this is reasonable?

 

[Catherineanne]

Sister, I nowhere remotely indicated that such was a representation of YOUR views or posts. It is totally generic.

Fine. It is a generic misrepresentation.

I nowhere remotely indicated that such was a representation of YOUR views or posts. It is totally generic

Inasmuch as you have said this of the least one of my brothers and sisters, you have said it of me.

And it is still a misrepresentation.

MY point is the difference between these two very different approaches.
I suppose ALL of us can see, in honesty, if the "shoe fits" but that has not my intent or purpose - I simply conveyed two very different approaches. And yes - I think posts often fall ROUGHLY into those two camps.

Posts might; yours are not exactly the most polite and accepting in the world.

Believers not so much.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Are you being deliberately mischievous, CJ?

Obviously not, I was affirming your consistency, as I said.

But I DO respectfully disagree with you. In MY opinion, dogmas matter. Of course, I can (and do) fully respect and in every possible way embrace as my FULL, UNseparated, entirely EQUAL and EQUALLY blessed brother and sister that embrace as dogmas one's I don't or even reject.


I was simply responding to what you said:

I believe all are Christians, and I take their word for it. I'm not skeptical or suspicious about it. I just believe them. Call me naive

You believe all Christians. You take their word for it. You are not skeptical or suspicious about it.


We're SURE getting WAY off topic..... Perhaps everyone (well maybe just me) getting a little "touchy". The issue, as I see it, is this: Where is the evidence that upon death, as believers are ascending to heaven, their souls undergo a radical evolutionary advance so that their sense of hearing now means that they can detect the prayers of all 2 billion or so believers on earth (separately) - even those unspoken - and that those specific, particular petitions are forwarded as such to the Father who will respond to them in a way more to the liking of the believer becuase he/she so prayed to that saint, especially if that saint is the assign patron saint of their job? THAT, to me, is what I'm trying to explore. I'm NOT denying it or arguing against it (obviously) I'm seeking to gather the evidence for the truthfulness of it.





.

 

[Thekla]

The radical alteration in "hearing" indeed can begin here (as we are now).
("He who has ears to hear ...)
Likewise the alteration in "seeing", including to see beyond, to see Truth.
(A blessed Transfiguration to those who celebrate today +)
But that the spiritual senses are more acute when we are absent from the body but present with Him is taught by Paul ("now we see as through a glass darkly ...").

That some here, and some with Christ, have a greater gift, greater seeing and hearing, is a blessing to me - who has far to go in this regard.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I think it is a bit disingenous of you to expect churches to present beliefs in the form of; if this is a blessing to you, then do it, but if you don't want to, then don't.

The Roman Catholic Church has truth; it believes that truth to be full, and it is therefore authorised to present that truth to its members. The EO also believes itself to have truth, not just opinion, or belief. Again, you seem to resent other churches for not being as uncertain of their teachings as you are.

Do you really think this is reasonable?

I think you misunderstand. Sorry.

Beliefs are confessions. Dogmas are statements of highest importance and greatest certainty of Truth. IF you were to say, "I believe there is life on other planets" that is ENTIRELY, WHOLLY different than saying, "it is a dogmatic fact of greatest certainty of Truth and highest importance that there are 6 billion furry brown creatures living on the Moon of Endor - and I have no need to supply any substantiation for that." Do you see the difference?

Let me use a sppecific example from this thread. Luther believed - quite passionately - that Mary was immaculately conceived, a view Orthodox do not teach but Catholics do (although NOT as dogma in Luther's day). It was his belief. However, he noted that Scripture in no sense teaches such, that no Council taught such, and that there is no firm consensus - and thus it should not be a dividing, condemning issue among us. SOME Lutherans in his day did not share his view and they were not burned at the stake or even excommunicated. This has nothing to do with Luther being CERTAIN - he most certainly was! It has to do with whether it is dogma. Read on....

I actually RESPECT and esteem those with definitive positions. Refreshing in this day of raging relativism. However, if I'm going to be told that I'm apostate, heretical, WRONG for not believing that Joseph Smith found those plates - then I think more is needed than just "cuz I say you are." To the issue here, I realize people passionately believe that Mary Had No Sex EVER. I don't know WHY they believe that or what difference it makes, but they SURELY do! And I do not call that wrong (never have) - I (to date) have no more evidence of it's falsehood than I do of it's truthfulness, no more basis to say one than the other. I'm DISCUSSING it in hopes of moving one way or the other. But when one declares, "this is a matter of dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty of FACT" that seems to suggest (to me anyway) that they have something to show that it is (should be EASIEST where it has the GREATEST certainty of Truth). Do you do that when LDS speak of those plates? Or do you just say, "If they believe it - that's ALL that matters, what is true is whatever one believes it is?" Which is it for you? While I realize that "proof" doesn't exist in these matters (so "skepticism" in that extreme sense is most inappropriate) on the other hand, "it's DOGMA if the one teaching it says its true" seems equally inappropriate to me. Perhaps we disagree. But I have a HUNCH Protestants and Orthodox are MUCH closer on this than are Protestants and Catholics, but I'm still CAREFULLY reading what Orthodox post to try to discern this.



Back to the issue: The issue, as I see it, is this: Where is the evidence that upon death, as believers are ascending to heaven, their souls undergo a radical evolutionary advance so that their sense of hearing now means that they can detect the prayers of all 2 billion or so believers on earth (separately) - even those unspoken - and that those specific, particular petitions are forwarded as such to the Father who will respond to them in a way more to the liking of the believer becuase he/she so prayed to that saint, especially if that saint is the assign patron saint of their job? THAT, to me, is what I'm trying to explore. I'm NOT denying it or arguing against it (obviously) I'm seeking to gather the evidence for the truthfulness of it.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Dorothea]

The radical alteration in "hearing" indeed can begin here (as we are now).
("He who has ears to hear ...)
Likewise the alteration in "seeing", including to see beyond, to see Truth.
(A blessed Transfiguration to those who celebrate today +)
But that the spiritual senses are more acute when we are absent from the body but present with Him is taught by Paul ("now we see as through a glass darkly ...").

That some here, and some with Christ, have a greater gift, greater seeing and hearing, is a blessing to me - who has far to go in this regard.

Me, too, sister!

And a blessed Transfiguration to you as well.

 

[revrobor]

Indeed so.

I find great comfort in the thought that every single person who goes to an EO service tomorrow is a believer, is fully committed to the Lord, and worships him in spirit and truth. I am happy that all these good people are much nearer to God than I am, as long as I come in somewhere along the line, that is fine with me.

Ditto Roman Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, and any other demonination you care to mention; each following his or her conscience and going to church to meet God.

It is beyond me why any Christian would want to think any other way.

To believe this is not only very naive but is to be totally unaware of the fact that Satan is enjoying some of his greatest success in the religious institutions by dividing Believers, especially over non-salvation issues, and convincing them to believe non-biblical doctrine and getting them to focus on defending these rather than following the Lord's command to "Go into all the world..." and "Love one another...". Every "Christian" religious institution contains some true Believers but to assume every one is a Believes is to be deceived.

 

[LOCO]

I agree, we shouldn't judge people's hearts.
I think we can - and should - regard people's statements as accountable, because truth should matter among Christians.


I refer you to my post a few above yours. What has bothered ME in this is those telling me that their prayers are more meritous, that they are more holy than I, superior to me, that I have less faith, less spirituality, less love of Our Lady if I don't pray the Rosary to pray to my patron saint (frankly, I don't even know who that is). Judging my heart. A LOT of that goes on here at CF (not always intentionally, I hope).

.

Can you show me the posts where the poster has accused you have having less merit, less faith, less love of Our Lady and less holiness simply because you don't pray to Saints?

As far as I know no-one has said it is dogma i.e. that you must pray to Saints. The CC and EO have always taught that it is optional.