www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Really need Ecumenical Unity (Evangelicals embracing Orthodoxy!)

The problem is that if they looked to Rome, they may have to look at Rome at a particular angle. If Anglicans happen to see Rome through the Charismatic rite; they may not really feel they are looking at an Apostolic Church.

I REALLY don't think its wise to distinguish between Orthodox & Catholics. The Catholics do themselves a huge disservice by portraying an image that "we are the only Church of God". The Orthodox equally do themselves and the entire Body of Christ great damage by thinking that they are the only ones saved also.

Its wiser to look at "what" salvation is and "how" we are being saved. We are ALL (Orthodox & Catholics) are being saved through the sacraments. Of course, you cannot approach the sacraments when engaging in any mortal sin, so one has to be repentant and yearning to receive this Holy-of-Holies beforehand. Nevertheless, reducing the other denomination as a bunch of heretics is just fruitless.

Whether a person becomes Catholic or Orthodox should be a matter of rejoicing - not sadness ("oh! He's gone to the other side.... ") .

The differences between us don't add to someone's salvation; its the engagement in the sacraments that makes a difference. Anglicans and protestants don't have have these sacraments, so it would be wise to encourage them to be either Catholic or Orthodox.

For example: a muslim guy from Egypt decided to become Christian. He chose the Catholic faith and Pope Benedict baptised him. He was welcomed into the Christian faith by MANY Coptic Orthodox people. We didn't go around saying "well... let's just try and make him Orthodox - because the others are heretics".

I just feel that your charismatic movements do yourselves injustice, and do not show the true Church that you are meant to be in a good light. Your Church fathers formulated the liturgy in a reason, and it wasn't a novel idea, it was based on apostolic traditions that we both (Orthodox & Catholic) are direct descendants of.

What would you suggest instead?

There are priests (Orthodox & Catholics) - i've met both, who seem to teach that the other church are heretics, and are not saved. We have to move away from this.

I think you are all theologically capable at least to figure out that whether a catholic believes in the filoque or not, it doesn't impact their salvation.

We ought to be focused on salvation of souls, not labels.

Salvation of Souls is through the sacraments : "Whoever eats my body and drinks my blood WILL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE".

It cannot be clearer than that.

I'm suggesting to the Orthodox folk that a protestant becoming Catholic is a far better state than him/her remaining protestant; or not even knowing God.

I'm suggesting to the Catholic folk that a protestant becoming orthodox, is a far better state than him/her remaining protestant.; or not even knowing God.

We share fundamental truths that unite us more than divide us. If we focus on what divides us, we'll lose out on bringing people to Christ.

There's a strong hatred in the Catholic rite against the orthodox faith. I do not understand why this is; but if it continues, if your priests continue to teach their flock that Orthodox are all heretics, then this will lead many people away from God.

There's no point in our Bishops discussing unity if they agree on any formula that unites us, yet we are divided and have not yet received each other in a Christian fellowship.

This has to stop.

I brought someone to the Christian faith. Of course the most obvious place for that person to learn and have fellowship was in the Catholic Church.
After sometime away, they called me to invite me to attend liturgy with the new prayer group they had met. These were latin rite catholics.
It turned out that their priest, the youth, everyone there was telling this person to stay away from me because I was heretical (being Orthodox).

Me? The one that brought that person TO the Catholic Church??!

If you look at this example above, can you see how destructive it is, or how destructive it could be if it happens at a global scale?

And why was I heretical? Because the Bishop of Rome was not my Bishop.

How does that save? How does the successor of St Peter save you?
Is it the successor of St Peter, or St Peter's Church. There's a difference. This makes no sense.

The above example shows how Church servants are more focused on the label of the garment than actually wearing or putting on the garment. This is pure fanatism.

Please let me say that Orthodox priests would never teach that Catholics are not saved.

Likewise I would be certain Catholic priests would never say that Orthodox are not saved.

Not to go off topic but I can't help thinking of Harry, on the Third Rock From the Sun episode where he worked in a video store, describing his sorting system: "[pointing] Good movies ... bad movies ... movies I haven't seen." (I figured you'd get a kick out of that, Thanos. )

Amos 3:3 εἰ πορεύσονται δύο ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ καθόλου ἐὰν μὴ γνωρίσωσιν ἑαυτούς - Shall two go together at all lest they make themselves known? (English translation mine)

Notwithstanding any who departed their former heritage to become extreme Fundamentalist, even protesting the Protestants. So, I'm compelled to wear a heretic's mantle being manifoldly dis-fellowshipped.

I simply read the text of the New Testament and concluded my family's tradition isn't what scripture describes. Lots of high church pageantry added from millennia of man-made traditions, but apparently not the Church the Apostle Paul intended. For me it comes down to a matter of conscience before God.

I have come to believe the early Protestants got some things right: Sola Scriptura (Tota scriptura), Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria, Justification by faith alone, the Doctrines of Grace, etc. These are actually Pauline doctrines. But today many Protestants have backed away from the Apostle Paul's doctrine. And invariably they've all added layers of man-made traditions too. Some decidedly departing the ground they once held.

Still, I truly appreciate one aspect of the GOC. It was their medieval scribal tradition that preserved the Biblical Greek textform of ancient Apostolic tradition. Even today I prefer the Byzantine Majority Greek New Testament (edited by American Baptists) and the Greek Septuaginta (edited by the German Lutheran, Rahlfs). I use those printed Greek texts for hermeneutical study and derive doctrine from such. Its as close as I can get to the Primitive Pauline Apostolic Church which was notably Chiastic, simplified in polity and praxis, housebound and bypassed entirely in the headlong rush to Constantinople.

Even though I may disagree fundamentally with some and they with me, I think no Christian group is without merit so long as they carry the essential testimony of Christ crucified for our offenses and resurrected for our justification. (Rom.4:25) For instance, some time ago I listed to a lecture by the Metropolitan Kallistos Ware on the subject of salvation. If the Metropolitan meant what he said in so far as he said it - he and I agree. He didn't mention any soteriological effect of Sacraments in that lecture.

Thus I deduce there probably are some areas where fellowship is possible between Christians of different subscriptions while other things remain in contention. Certainly a little mutual respect might go a long way too. But I would be the last to suggest unity be compelled at the expense of legitimate scruples of conscience.

Κυριε ελεησον ημας

μιχαηλ η αιρετικη