...
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. Through
the prayers of our holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us and
save us. Amen. Glory to You, our God, Glory to You.
O Heavenly King,
the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, You are everywhere and fill all things, Treasury
of blessings, and Giver of life: come and abide in us, and cleanse us from every
impurity, and save our souls, O Good One.
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal,
have mercy on us (three times).
Glory be to the Father,
and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, as it is now, was in the beginning, and ever
shall be, world without end. Amen.
All-holy Trinity, have mercy on us. Lord, cleanse us from our sins. Master, pardon our iniquities. Holy One, visit us and heal our infirmities for
Your Name’s sake. Lord have mercy (three times).
July
22, 2014 Tuesday Talk, Catholicity and Orthodoxy
The
Revelation
Revelation 4:1-11
After this I looked,
and, behold, a door was opened in heaven. The first voice I heard was like a trumpet
talking with me; who said, “Come up here, and I will show thee things which
must come afterward.” Immediately I was
in the spirit. Behold, a throne was set
in heaven, and One sat on the throne. He
looked like a jasper and a sardius stone. There was a rainbow around His throne, in
sight like an emerald.
Around the throne
were twenty-four thrones: and on the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting,
clothed in white raiment; and they had crowns of gold on their heads.
Out of the throne
proceeded lightning and thunder and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire
burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.
Before the throne
there was a sea of glass like crystal. In
the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four beasts full of eyes
before and behind. The first beast was
like a lion. The second beast like a calf. The third beast had a face like a man. The fourth beast was like a flying eagle. Each of the four beasts had six wings around him,
and they were full of eyes within, and they rest not day and night, saying,
“Holy, holy, holy,
Lord God Pantokrator, Who is, Who was, and Who is coming.”
These beasts give
glory and honor and thanks to Him, Who sits on the throne, Who lives for ever
and ever. The twenty-four elders fall down
before Him, Who sits on the throne, and worship Him, Who lives for ever and
ever, casting their crowns before the throne, saying,
“You are worthy, O
Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for You have created all things,
and for Your pleasure they are and were created.”
The
Talk
Who decides, what is Catholic? The Holy Ghost decides! Who decides, what is Orthodox? The Holy Ghost decides! Who decides, which baptisms, communions, and
other sacraments lack or have fullness or validity? The Holy Ghost decides![1]
Peter and Paul do not decide. Popes
and Councils do not decide. Mere men and
women do not decide. Peter and Paul, every
pope and council, and all individual men and women are at most witnesses of the
acts of God. Every council and decision
is subject to the Highest Court of God, and will be judged by that Supreme
Court: for even Peter himself would claim nothing for himself, other than he
was one witness among many others. Are
we greater than Peter? Are we greater
than the Apostles? Are we greater than the
Holy Ghost? Μὴ γένοιτο, may it never be![2]
I find then, this very curious fact
that we ever dare to discuss, who is and is not Catholic and Orthodox, and we
dare to call other communions and people Apostate, Heretic, or Heterodox and do
not confine ourselves to condemning specific statements. Oh yes, the undivided Church addressed such
people and schisms, but it has been a long time since we have had an undivided
Church.
I am a firm believer in the
importance of guarding sound doctrine, as well as Apostolic Succession. But Who is the ultimate decider in such
matters? Is it not the Holy Ghost?[3] Or is an illegitimate child any less a child
in the eyes of God? Or are persons who
have lost their baptismal certificates, suddenly unbaptized? Is the confession of the heart invalidated by
men, or is the priest at most a witness?
Is a marriage validated by a piece of paper or by rings, in the eyes of
God? Is a lover and teacher of the Bible
any less a lover and teacher of the Bible simply because he has no Apostolic Succession? Of course not. The Holy Ghost is the real decider of Apostolic
Succession. Should I, given the opportunity,
buy up Apostolic Succession with my very soul?
Absolutely! But such a purchase
is nothing more than a testimony and a witness of what the Holy Ghost has
already done.
We seem to have forgotten Who leads
and rules The Church in this age. We
seem to have forgotten that the LORD Jesus Christ Himself has prayed to the
Father to send us the Holy Ghost. We
seem to have forgotten that ever since the Day of Pentecost, since the heavenly
enthronement of Jesus Christ, since the birth of The Church in 33 AD; we seem to
have forgotten, Who leads, Who empowers, Who is in charge. It is the Holy Ghost Who leads, Who empowers,
and Who is in charge.
How dare we then, lift our voices to
judge that which we are no longer fit to judge?
It is ethically, intellectually,
morally, and rationally dishonest to adduce authorities who spoke and wrote
prior to the act of schism. It is the height
of folly to quote Saints Ignatius of Antioch (35-107), Basil the Great
(329-379), John Chrysostom (347-407), Maximus the Confessor (580-662), or John
of Damascus (675-749) in evidence and support of the Great Schism and
subsequent events. If the terms Roman
Catholic or Protestant were used during their lifetimes, they would have no
idea of their meaning; and would have thought the users of such terms as more
than strange. At most we may bring such
witnesses, as witnesses of principle alone: for they were most certainly not
witnesses of the events of 1054 and beyond.
Even here we must use caution, lest we twist their meaning, or put words
in their mouths. Such words and meanings
will surely be judged by the LORD of All, and it would be very embarrassing, at
the very least, to have any of these great Fathers of The Church stand up and
refute our claims about what they said. What
these Fathers said and wrote is true.
How they are being quoted is questionable. This is dishonest to call them as witnesses
of acts and works, which they neither heard nor saw, while they were yet alive
on this earth, and to which they certainly speak in heaven, when they cry out
with the angels, “Holy! Holy! Holy!”
It is equally dishonest to adduce as
authorities and witnesses great Ecumenical Councils, such as Chalcedon[4] (451), Nicaea II[5] (787): for these and other
Ecumenical Councils were equally ignorant of the terms Roman Catholic and Protestant. The Apostolic Canons (ca 692) do not have the
weight of Ecumenical Council. The Church
was not divided in the days of Chalcedon or Nicaea II. The realities and judgments concerning Monophysites
and Monothelites have little bearing on 1054, nor was The Church really divided
at that time.
This is not to say that 1054 is
trivial or unimportant; it is extremely important. However, east and west, Greeks and Latins did
not cease to co-commune in 1054. Even
the Fourth Crusade (1202-1204) was insufficient to produce such a rift: for
afterward there is evidence that Orthodox priests, who may only commune once a
day, serving under Roman rule, served communion to their Orthodox congregations;
then in a separate but adjacent room, proceeded to serve their Latin rulers
from the same table. Not even the Council
of Constance (1414-1418) led to such action: for even today Catholics,
Orthodox, and Protestants all lay claim to Hus. It is not until Basel-Ferrara-Florence
(1431-1449) in the aftermath of Conciliarism’s failure that this violent
separation took place.
Florence was not marked by the
apostasia (leaving) of the Latins; it was the Greeks who left in anger and
betrayal. Was that anger justified? Certainly, at least somewhat. Nor should the Orthodox again risk union with
the Latins until such legislative rules are set in place to prevent a
repetition of such betrayal. The ensuing
actions among the Greeks reveal political, rather than theological moves to
prevent infiltration by Latin adversaries.
Hence, the vacating of Latin baptisms serves a reasonable political
necessity; on the other hand it is ludicrous to suppose that the gift of the
Holy Ghost in baptism1 is now vacated by the act of man. Equally ludicrous is the supposition that
either side of Florence, acting in division, and defiance of the Holy Ghost,
might possibly have His blessing. What
man blesses, God condemns. Florence is
little better than an exercise in Nicolaitanism.[6]
Further investigation of the
fifteenth century reveals even more Nicolaitanism: brother lording over
brother in the most tyrannical way; the crushing of the Conciliar movement,
popes and anti-popes, the murder of Hus, the Hussite wars, and now Florence.
The building of a theological empire
on the basis of political bitterness cannot be made to stand. Yes, many worth voices have spoken to this
issue: Saints Nicodemus the Hagiorite (1749-1809), John of Kronstadt (1829-1908),
Nectarios of Aegina (1846-1920), John Maximovitch (1896-1966), Justin
Popovich (1894-1979), Philaret of New York (1903-1985), with Elder Paisios
(1924-1994), not yet canonized), to name a few. Even so, the words written cannot be entirely
correct, or correctly applied; and none of these blessed Fathers is
sufficiently aged to speak to the fifteenth century, nor am I. The piling up of names and quotations does
not correct a fundamental error of the nous.
The same error cannot be repeated again and again, to be made into
truth. A fundamentally political action
cannot be made into a theological truth.
The Holy Ghost is still God, and until the Second Coming of Christ, He
rules The Church. He decides which
ordinations stand and fall; which baptisms are empty or filled; which
organizations are apostate or both Catholic and Orthodox. He brings everything under the feet of Jesus.
As far as the idea that Orthodoxy is
undivided, this too is ridiculous. As we
write, three churches vie for supremacy in Ukraine. In the United States, one Orthodox? body considers
all others as gone astray. Many others
wish to embrace the west, while still others reject that idea entirely, or else
this discussion would not be taking place.
Need we multiply examples? Orthodoxy
is severely divided.
Be that as it may, many Orthodox
consider themselves closer to Monophysites, than to anything in the west. This in spite of the fact that many in the
west are sincerely Chalcedonian;[7] while nearly all are sincerely
Nicaean, and many would be happy to expunge the filioque clause, to bring peace
and unity to The Church. Is Sanctity
possible outside of Orthodoxy?
Certainly!
The Holy Ghost decides. Jesus reigns.
The Father judges.
[1] Luke
11:13
[2] Psalm
119:126; Acts 2:32; Hebrews 12:18-29; Revelation 4:1-11
[3] 1
Corinthians 12:11
[4] The
Fourth Ecumenical Council
[5] The
Seventh Ecumenical Council
[6] Revelation
2:15
[7] For
example Rousas John Rushdoony, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rousas_ Rushdoony
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedon_Foundation.
[8] If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations,
please repost, share, or use any of them as you wish. No rights are reserved. They are designed and intended for your free
participation. They were freely
received, and are freely given. No other
permission is required for their use.
No comments:
Post a Comment