www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology outside their church

Do the Orthodox churches teach that people outside of their Church dont recieve the Holy Spirit. Or is this just a matter of opinion.

As an Orthodox Catholic, let me try to reply to this by copying and pasting a reply I wrote to a RC regarding the equality of Grace and Salvation to be found in both churches.
Maybe I better copy both the question and answer regarding this so it makes better sense for you to tie it into what you ask

Bob

>Also, please address the issue too that, although we (I include myself
>in the Church, of course) say that "you" are "co-equal", the feeling
>is not homogeneously mutual.

An Orthodox will evaluate a non Orthodox denomination by looking at how much
Orthodoxy they have retained. Why? Because we have not altered the faith
since before the schism. We have neither added, subtracted, or changed the
faith as the non Orthodox have. What we now have, you RC's also had at one
time. You cannot criticize us or the faith we hold without critizing your own
ancestors and we know it. We, therefore believe we have the fullness of the
faith handed down to us by Christ, the Apostles, and the early church fathers.
And have guarded that faith. Therefore, you don't have to tell us we are your
equal. We already know. As for your equality to us that is for God alone to
judge. We know where the Holy Spirt dwells in fulness...Holy Orthodoxy. Where
else it dwells and to what extent it dwells is up to God alone. It is his
concern, not ours.

Dear Broric,

It might be interesting if you posted this question on one of the Orthodox question areas.

I think it is traditional Orthodox teaching (indeed scriptural too!), not to judge. As for how the Holy Spirit works outside of the Church, and where there is grace, they would not feel qualified to speak or say for certain.

Inside the Church, they confidently affirm, and clearly point to the presence of grace, and the power of the Holy Spirit! But outside the Church, Orthodoxy keeps silent, offering no speculation or opinion. Does not the Spirit blow where he will, and who can contain him? What a mystery!

Security however, is found inside the Church, and in the fervent, frequent, and loving reception of the Holy Mysteries by the Baptized.

This is only my Orthodox answer, and I do not pretend to speak for "Orthodoxy".

Elias

Ortho-man you said, Can you elaberate on the specifics of Orthodoxy retainded, since there are differences in Orthodoxy. Also, what catagory do the first generaton of Christians fall into, since they did not have as much Orthodoxy as the Church has today. Does that mean they recieve less of the Holy Spirit. I know their liturgy and theological understanding is far from what it became. They had no concepts like the trinity or veneration of Mary, ext.. So according to you statement does that mean they get less of God?

I can contribute these excerpts from the Russian Orthodox (Moscow Pat.) Jubilee Bishops'Council statement on the attitude toward other Christian Confessions, issued in August of 2000:
"The Orthodox Church...affirms that salvation can be attained only in the Church of Christ. At the same time however, communities which have fallen away from Orthodoxy have never been viewed as fully deprived of the grace of God....
The existence of various rites of reception (through Baptism, through Chrismation, through Repentance) shows that the Orthodox Church relates to the different non-Orthodox confessions in different ways. [But the Orthodox Church] does not assess the extent to which grace-filled life has either been preserved intact or distorted in a non-Orthodox confession, considering this to be a mystery of God's providence and judgement."

Boric:

To be honest with you, I am at a loss on just how to answer your response.
What differences are you referring to when you mention the differences in Orthodoxy?
All Byzantine Orthodox share the same faith (doctrine). The only differences within the various Orthodox are traditions ( with a small 't').

What my response is referring to was the FORMULATION of Church doctines when the church could still be considered as basically Universal and undivided. The undivided 'One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church'.

However, I decided to take Monk Elias advice to you and I posted your question, my reply, and your response in the Orthodox discussion groups I belong to.

I hope I haven't broken any rules. I will be glad to post the replies here if I am within the guidelines of this site in doing so. Will someone please let me know?

If I am not able to do that. If you (or anyone else who is interested) send me a private email, I will set up a buddy address and forward those responses that are posted.

OrthoMan
T254@aol.com

Another Orthodox responds -


>>Can you elaberate on the specifics of Orthodoxy retained, since there are
>differences in Orthodoxy. Also, what catagory do the first generaton of
>Christians fall into, since they did not have as much Orthodoxy as the
Church
>has today. Does that mean they recieve less of the Holy Spirit. I know
their
>liturgy and theological understanding is far from what it became. They had
no
>concepts like the trinity or veneration of Mary, ext.. So according to you
>statement does that mean they get less of God?
>

I would certainly hate to quantify an "amount of God" that one receives!
Of course the Trinity is not a concept but the experience of God and the
revelation of God to the Apostles. They may not have used the word
Trinity, but that does not mean that they did not worship the Triune God.
Mary was venerated by the Apostles as well as the early believers. What I
think is the problem is *when* the dogmas were formulated. Remember that
the Orthodox are usually quite reluctant to put down concrete statements
about what is essentially a Mystery. They (should I say we?) usually
dogmatized when an innovation came up that threatened the right teaching of
the Church handed down by the Apostles. When faced with new Christological
heresies, the Church defended Her original teaching by emphasizing that the
Panagia Mary is the Theotokos (among other dogmas that were formulated).
Since the term Theotokos came a couple of hundred years after her life
doesn't mean that the Church did not venerate her until they had an
appropriate title for her.

I hope this helps.

in XC,
Philip, reader
St. Mary of Egypt Orthodox Church (OCA)
Atlanta, GA

Dear Bob,

Thanks for providing this information, I find it enlightening. If you would, could you explain something to me regarding the above statement? You say that the Orthodox haven't changed the faith in any way. I believe you. But, using one broad example, does Orthodoxy not have "development of doctrine"? I would think that it did, since "Theotokos" is an example, to me, of this. It doesn't imply that anything was added or changed, just clarified and elucidated. If Orthodoxy doesn't have development of doctrine, or doesn't have it after a certain point in time, then alright, I'd like to know the particulars. But if the Orthodox Church does have some sense of development of doctrine, then how does the Orthodox Church differentiate obvious changes to the faith (for example, those espoused by Protestants) from what may look like changes, but are really just a case of the development of doctrine (some would argue that the vast majority, if not the whole, of Orthodox "grievances" with the Catholic Church are just misunderstandings or cases of development of doctrine)? Looking forward to your answer; thanks!

More replies from Orthodox -

Response #1

I would gently correct his errors of fact and of point of view. Your
correspondent obviously thinks of Orthodoxy mostly in terms of praxis and
not faith, otherwise he wouldn't have claimed there were differences within
Orthodoxy and that primitive Christianity didn't have as much Orthodoxy as
we do today. Whereas we in fact conceive of Orthodoxy *primarily* in terms
of faith, within the context of which a variety of practices are acceptable.

"Does that mean they recieve [sic] less of the Holy Spirit."

Modern Orthodox Christians, considering the wealth of the spiritual gifts
poured out on the early Christian community, would say they had more.

"I know their liturgy and theological understanding is far from what it
became."

He's in for a bit of a surprise then, but only if he wants to read up on
the subject. Otherwise, he'll have to take your word for it that both
halves of this statement are false. The liturgy reached a remarkably
developed form very early on. The Divine Liturgy of St. James is extremely
ancient, and I believe is attested to in the early second century. Many
other practices were taken over directly from synagogue and Temple usage.
Theological understanding was not undeveloped, only the expression of it
was. Precise dogmatic statements were not necessary until heresies arose,
when they were formulated to combat them. But these dogmas are all founded
on the original kerygma, what the West calls the "Apostolic deposit", which
the Apostles and their disciples understood thoroughly. My *personal
opinion* is that this is why God suffered heresies to exist: so that the
Church would formulate precise dogmatic statements that would aid in
preserving the Faith even when times come when Spirit-bearing Fathers are
not so common among us as they have been at other times.

"They had no concepts like the trinity or veneration of Mary, ext..[sic]"

If early Christianity had no concept of the Holy Trinity, your
correspondent needs to explain how Modalism (Sabellianism) was recognized
as a heresy when it arose. And his statement about the veneration of the
Theotokos is simply false. Christianity has no memory of a time when she
was *not* venerated. Veneration was accorded her even during her lifetime.
It's the Protestant West that has forgotten, and it mistakes this lack of
memory for the memory of a lack. That's fallacious.

========

Response #2

> Can you elaberate on the specifics of Orthodoxy retained, since
> there are
> differences in Orthodoxy. Also, what catagory do the first generaton
> of
> Christians fall into, since they did not have as much Orthodoxy as
> the Church
> has today.

I do not believe that we (the Orthodox) admit this.

Does that mean they recieve less of the Holy Spirit. I
> know their
> liturgy and theological understanding is far from what it became.
> They had no
> concepts like the trinity or veneration of Mary, ext.. So according
> to you
> statement does that mean they get less of God?

Or this. They had the whole Trinitarian life, even if they could not
fully express it in words (yet you will find all three Members of the
Trinity mentioned in St Paul's letters to those "first Christians") and
they venerated the Blessed Theotokos, still living among them (in the
home of the Apostle John, we are told).

Also I am not sure what your friend means by "differences in Orthodoxy."
Sure, the language, and the forms, of the liturgy changed and developed,
but we would say that the FAITH which was expressed was the same
everywhere.

As for the "specifics of Orthodoxy retained," surely they are for the
most part the specifics mentioned in the Nicene Creed, or the first three
or four Councils? These aren't found in =all= Protestant denominations,
but they certainly are in many.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Broric,
When I posed this question to my priest many years ago his answer was simple. "I know that the Orthodox Church is the True Church of Christ. It is why I am an Orthodox Christian. I know and see the workings of the Holy Spirit in this Church. I do not judge other churches and denominations and leave it to our God to bless them and to judge them".
So to the Orthodox, they know the Holy Spirit is in their Church. They leave it to God how and when He reveals Himself through the Holy Spirit to other Churches.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

What is the position of the Orthodox Church on apostasy.i.e., "deserting" Orthodoxy for a non-Orthodox Christian denomination?

Certainly, one would have to take into consideration one's personal experiences or reasons of conscience that would compel one to break ranks with one's past and paternal/maternal heritage.

What is the position of Orthooxy on Tolstoy's rejection of orthodox Christianity?

Are agnostics and atheists summarily consigned to the pits of Hell, according to the Orthodox schema?

Are Orthodox Christians, converted to atheism/scientific materialism out of reasons of conscience, (again) summarily consigned to the eternal miseries of Hell?


ER

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Ephraim,
The question you pose makes the error of judgement. We, sinners on the earth who are in the Orthodox Church can judge only ourselves and our behavior while we are on the earth. The question of eternal judgement that you pose is in the hands of God.

The Church Fathers indicate in their writings concerning the classic heresies, of the early several hundred years of the church, the effects of men choosing to deny Christ or to assert false or heretical teachings. These men in reality excommunicate themselves from the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church in this world. The Holy Fathers write that unless these apostates and heretics return to the Church's embrace they will die out of communion with the church and all that that means. We must remember that only God knows the reasons for their desertion of the Church and ONLY He can judge and hold them accountable in the end. As He is merciful, He may take into consideration what He will as he administers justice with mercy.

The true sadness is that each person that you mention have made a personal decision to reject the Orthodox Church and as such have excommunicated themselves before a priest or bishop has ever uttered the words. If one believes, as do the Orthodox Christians, that all one needs for salvation is found within the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church, the question would be "why would one leave or desert Orthodoxy for a non-Orthodox Christian denomination?" Upon doing so they have excommunicated themselves.

Tolstoy's rejection of orthodox Christianity is an excellent example of someone excommunicating himself from the Church before the Church formally declared excommunication. It is interesting to note that the Moscow Patriarchate has documents which indicate that prior to his death, Tolstoy made confession and was given final rites of the church. Some family members deny this but other members proclaim it and have remained in the Orthodox Church to the present time.

Agnostics and atheists are not members of the Church and thus are judged by God and fully dependent upon His Mercy in that judgement.

Orthodox Christians, converted to atheism/ scientific materialism out of reasons of conscience and leave the Church,once again, are among those who chose to excommunicate themselves from the Church. If unreconciled, they will have to face the judgement seat of God without confession, the sacraments, and the saints who tend and comfort, those of the Church, as they stand before the judgement bar.

Hell is used in the Orthodox Church as a warning of what happens when we miss the mark (Hamartia). If we fail to repent and seek the forgiveness of God, Hell is a definite possibility.

The Imagery of Hell is found in the icons of the church. The Icon of the Ladder of St John Climacus [Seen during Great Lent] shows patriarchs, monks, priests and laity being grabbed by hooks [their unrepented sins] held by demons and pulled down to Hell. AThis same imagery is repeated in the Icon of the Last Judgement. In this icon each person brought before the judgement Seat of God and there judged by God to the bliss of Heaven or the darkness of Hell symbolized by a huge Fish swallowing the person.

The imagery of Hell in Orthodoxy is used as a teaching tool for those IN THE CHURCH to look at themselves as sinners and evaluate what they need to do to repent. In Orthodoxy the focus of sin and judgement should be upon oneself and not one's brother. We are commanded to judge not lest we be judged.

It is to the Priests, Bishops, Abbots, those in authority and have a calling to confront sin and heresy when they see it. These annointed leaders of the Church are allowed a small measure of judgement, in order to cull the wolves from the sheep to protect the flock.

In the End however, the final reality is that when one rejects the Church, they have excommunicated themselves by action and thought long before any ecclesiatical court is convened.
It is to the mercy of God and his Justice that each will face in the end---the decision is God's.

I remain your brother in Christ,
Thomas

How come I, a Byzantine Cattholic, cant recieve communion at the local orthodox church. I believe in the same things they do. Except for the fact that I go to a byzantine catholic church. Also, I would like it if your responses would not included the word (Sic). I am just asking questions and dont like to be insulted. Furthermore, I would like to point out that you dont have to be a christian to be an orthodox or a catholic. Its a sacred istitution created by christians any any one can be baptized into it. As far as the first Christian communities are concerned there is no historical evidence of veneration of mary, structured liturgy, and correct theological concepts by the first generation of Christians like today. All that seemed to matter was that Jesus was the savior and he was the word incarnate. There are many Christians today who have never heard of what the Orthodox churches teach through no fault of their own and are seeking God with all their heart. So they in essence are in the same boat as the fisrt generation Christians. To deny that they are just as much Christian and have just as much the spirit of God is wrong. To turn them away from communion is to turn Jesus away.

[ 02-27-2002: Message edited by: Broric ]

Perhaps God, Whose ways are not our ways, even has a positive/constructive purpose, within His "transcendent plan" for those, who no matter how hard they try, just cannot believe.


Many of my friends on the Left do not believe in a god, but what good and sincere people they are and, on average, better than the disciples of Christ, or Moses, Muhammed, etc.

And believers, who have a tendency to ruin religion by constantly quibbling with one another, should just be thankful that they believe. Or, maybe they don't.

"We have found the enemy and the enemy is us," certainly applies to Christians.


Those with a scientific bent of mind, or those who are pragmatists or politically oriented are doomed to struggle with faith and "the gods."


What a wrestling match it is.

Thank you for your answers to my questions.

ER

"Like a bridge over troubled waters...."

[ 02-27-2002: Message edited by: Ephraim Reynolds ]

Yes, the Divine Liturgy of Saint James is extremely ancient...but when I read the James as used by those Churches stemming from Constantinople and compared them to our James (Syriac), I couldn't recognise that of Constantinople...too Byzantine, it seemed to me. Perhaps your James comes from our James, but was Byzantinised to "clean it up", since we're non-Chalcedonians? I don't know...that's just my idea...but if anyone knows the story, let me know.