Oddbean new post about login | logout I’m not sure you quite answered my questions. I’m still trying to understand how what you define as “religion” is separate from “relationship with God”. I ask with genuine concern because I care very deeply, the most deeply, about my relationship with God and view my religion as that expression. To demonstrate my confusion, is any relationship with any God what matters? If my relationship is with a God I believe to be Unitarian (like the Jewish or Islamic faith) vs a Trinitarian God (Christian faith), does that matter? What if I portray God to be unknowable like Sikhism or coming in various forms like Hinduism or deny Christ’s divinity as true God as Arians do? Don’t we need to know who and what we mean to form a relationship?
Religion as as systematized collection of ritual and dogma, and I consider all of that outside of what's explicitly stated in The New Testament to be a corruption of God's intentions for His people. By God, I mean the God of the Bible, triune in The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. I reject all others as corruptions of the above or as falsely worshiped little g gods who have taken on worship meant for The Most High.
If religion is to follow a systemized collection of ritual and dogma, it seems you would classify as someone who follows a religion. The ritual being reading the Bible and the dogma being that the Bible is authoritative. And I think it’s safe to assume when you say “Bible” you mean “Protestant Bible” as in the 73 books minus the 7 books the printing press axed for cost savings after Luther moved them to the appendix. I totally agree that the Bible is the word of God but it’s important to remember that the Catholic Church (guided by the Holy Spirit as our Lord tells us in Matthew 16:18) is the one that compiled it and for that reason I don’t think anyone can just go around messing with the canon like Luther and the publishing houses did. What I imagine you would consider all the “extra stuff” like the Eucharist, the Papacy, etc. is actually just an extension from the authority our Lord gave to Peter and the apostles to safeguard the deposit of faith and preach the Gospel. Instead of viewing the dogmas as constraining, may I suggest viewing them as liberating and a deepening of relationship with God, just as the Commandments do. Just as the Bible brings us closer to God, so too does the sacrifice of the mass, receiving the Eucharist, praying the rosary, etc. A proper relationship with God requires more than just a mental assent to His truth. Relationship is incarnate. It takes a material form. Just as our Lord did when he took on human flesh and died for our sins. How we comport body and soul matters which is why religion is the expression of our faith.
The papacy is my primary objection to the catholic church. The rest you typed is pretty much what any devout catholic would say. I'm also not exactly a protestant anymore, though that's how I was raised. I also have objections to quite a lot that the orthodox do. So, I don't have a defined box, and I prefer it to be that way.
Understandable, I struggled greatly with it as well. I actually wanted to be anything but Catholic when I reverted last year but I refused to let my pride be what got in the way of as deep of a relationship with God as possible. It was because of Pope Damascus that we even have the Bible so having a problem with the papacy implies a problem with the inerrancy of Scripture. I think you’d also agree Popes can be infallible given that the first Pope has 2 letters in the Bible, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. I appreciate the discourse. I pray for the unity of all our brothers and sisters in Christ. If you ever have any questions I would love to continue our discussion. 🙏 St. John Henry Newman, pray for us!
No human is infallible, popes especially so. Given the long history of really awful stuff propagated by the catholic church as a useful tool of various kings and other petty tyrants, I cannot see anything that looks like it is Chris-centered for most of the instanciation of the papacy. Peter was not infallible, and there is nothing that I'm aware of that shows that Jesus intended for there to be a single, centralized person to be in charge of all of Christendom other than Himself. As I like to say: "No king but Christ." I have no need of anyone else to lead the church (meaning all believers in Christ, of all flavors, though, there are plenty of heretical beliefs floating around, and I'm not sure it's exactly correct to just say "believers" anymore given that I know more about our enemy these days). I'm usually up for discussions, though, I'm definitely not wanting to be antagonistic as that is fruitless. 😁
Mother trucking duck sucker... Christ-centered, you dumb keyboard. I'm not talking about the stupid MCU. 🙄
LOL we've all been there, @The Beave I actually needed three readings to find it, my brain kept correcting it back to "Christ". I'm using a keyboard without autocorrect now, my embarrassing typos are my own :)
Agreed, the only infallible human is the God Man, Jesus Christ. What I said though was that people, through the working of the Holy Spirit, can have infallible teachings. For example, we have to believe as a matter of faith that the writers of the Bible were infallible in their writings (inerrant) for it to be considered the word of God. It’s important to distinguish that of course the Pope is not impeccable (meaning sinless) and that he’s not infallible about everything all the time (such as having a favorite color). What we do take as a matter of faith however is that when the Pope speaks from the Holy See as it relates to faith and morals then he is infallible (ex cathedra). He will never and can never do or say anything ex cathedra that contradicts the deposit of faith our Lord left us with. One of those teachings being the Bible for example. It was compiled in the 4th century. The Church precedes the Bible and demonstrates that one can be Christian without the Bible. The Bible itself even says so. I greatly enjoy our discussion! I appreciate the open nature of it. I also wish not to be antagonistic in any way. Only antagonistic towards typos 😁
"There is nothing that I'm aware of that shows that Jesus intended for there to be a single, centralized person to be in charge of all Christendom other than Himself." I'm curious to hear your thoughts on some of the Biblical sources for the papacy. Matthew 16 is often quoted, but I only learned recently that it references the book of Isaiah and the office if Chief Steward in the Davidic kingdom. This article gives a summary of that, and some other Scripture that relates to the papacy: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/peters-authority
I'm reading through the article you linked and I'll be adding thoughts as I think they are important: This part caught my eye: "In the context of the whole Old Testament, Jesus the rock gives his teaching about the rock. Specifically, the important passage of Isaiah 51 describes God as the “rock from which [the people of Israel] are hewn,” but they are told to “look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who gave you birth.” Stephen Ray’s masterful work Upon This Rock piles up evidence showing that the Jewish teachers repeatedly referred to Abraham as the God-appointed foundation stone of the Jewish people. God was the ultimate rock, but Abraham was his earthly presence. Just as Abram was given a new name to indicate his new foundational status, so Jesus gives Simon a new name—Rock —to indicate his foundational status in the new covenant." The author seems to be conflating the idea of the title of Rock given by God to a specific, singularly appointed person as opposed to the chain of people who are pretty much self- or otherwise appointed to a position that, IMO, was never meant to exist. I conclude this BECAUSE of the similarities between Abraham and Peter, which the author correctly associated, but! Just as Abraham was the rock upon which God built His chosen people, the same thing that happened to Isreal has happened to the church, in this case, Isreal begged to have an earthly king, and this angered God, as this was not what God preferred or had in mind for the shepherding of His people. In the same way, the church was founded on Peter and due to the idiocy of humans, we set up an earthly system of supposed authority and this, I think, is anathema to how God would shephard His people. More to follow.
Second passage that caught my eye: "So the king holds the keys of the kingdom, but he delegates his power to the steward, and the keys of the kingdom are the symbol of this delegated authority." Yes, but the stewards are chosen by the king or by a prophet (IIRC), NOT by a bunch of corrupt, pretty hungry politicians, or for the Christian context, by fallible, often outright evil earthly kings. So, I can concede that if God appointed a man to be the Shepherd of His people, cool, but, the pope, historically, has absolutely not been that person.
"The stewards are chosen by the king or by a prophet." What makes someone a prophet? In the Old Testament, there is a moment of prophetic call in which God gives His spirit to the prophet. Moses encounters God in the burning bush, Isaiah's lips are cleansed by the burning coal, and Elijah even leaves his prophetic spirit on his successor, Elisha. After the Resurrection, Jesus gives the Holy Spirit to the Apostles. As we see in John 20, He breathes on them and says "Receive the Holy Spirit." Later, in Acts, the Apostles appoint others to carry out the work of the Church in their absence by the laying on of hands, which imparts the Holy Spirit. Likewise, in his letters, Paul speaks often of members of the faithful prophecying or speaking in tongues, and of how it ought to be used for the building up of the church. Certainly, then, the Apostles are prophets in the New Covenant, for they have the Holy Spirit. We see them exercising their prophetic authority to see to the governance of the Church. In the first chapter of Acts, Peter calls upon the Apostles to exercise this authority to name a new Apostle to fill the place of Judas, and thus Matthias is brought into their ranks. This is remarkable, for previously, only Jesus claimed to possess the authority to appoint the Twelve. However, after the Ascension, it is clear that the Apostles understand this authority to have been passed on to them. Why, then, should the college of the Apostles and their successors not have the authority to appoint a successor to Peter?
Oh! Good points. Jude was a traitor and should be replaced. So they did. They did not add anyone else to the rank of apostles themselves, though, the one who became Paul was also an apostle because he directly received his mission from Jesus. So, while the original 11 could choose a replacement for the traitor it was and is Jesus who appoints any other apostle to that position. Not another man. This is exactly the same as all the OT references that you bring up: God appoints prophets to judge Isreal. It follows that God will appoint prophets to judge/guide/shepherd His church. Again: God does that, not man. Even those that are given the gifts are the spirit are not always appointed as leaders of the body of the church. They may go out and preach the gospel or admonish as congregation, but... Not everyone gifted prophecy after the ascension is supposed to be a church leader, nor does that make them an apostle.
God appoints prophets to judge and guide Israel, and those prophets anoint Israel's leaders. In the Old Testament, then, authority passes from God to the prophets, who speak on God's behalf, and from the prophets to the king and civil rulers, whom the prophets identify and anoint. Christ founds a new Israel, the Church, as is clear from his calling of the Twelve, to stand in the place of the Twelve Tribes of ancient times. In the old Israel, God makes covenants with David, the king, and intervenes through the prophetic office in the appointment of a chief steward, as we see in Isaiah. In the new Israel, the king is Christ, who appoints Peter as his chief steward to keep the keys of the kingdom. The Apostles, who hold the prophetic office and are given the Holy Spirit, are empowered to anoint leaders in the new Israel, like Isaiah did, and to pass on the Holy Spirit to their successors, as Elijah did to Elisha. In the new Israel, it is true, their is "no king but Christ," but if we accept Christ as the perfection of the Davidic kingship, then we must also expect that the other elements of the Israel of the Old Covenant are perfected in the New.
After Peter and Paul went to Rome and were martyred, the early continued to recognize the See of Rome as possessing a special significance. As early as AD 80, around the time John the Evangelist was writing his Gospel, we have a letter from Clement, bishop of Rome, to the Corinthians, in which Clement speaks with the Apostolic authority of Peter and Paul to settle a dispute that had arisen among the faithful in Corinth. The letter is well worth referencing for the glimpse it gives us into the first century of the Church, and I've linked it below. All throughout, we see implicitly the authority of Rome recognized and exercised. At the outset, Clement writes, "Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which *you consulted us*; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God" (emphasis mine). So it is clear that the church in Corinth appealed to the church of Rome to settle a conflict. Later, we see Clement say "If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger," which indicates his own solemn knowledge of his authority over the Church. Yet later, the letter concludes with the following: "Right is it, therefore, to approach examples so good and so many, and submit the neck and fulfill the part of obedience, in order that, undisturbed by vain sedition, we may attain unto the goal set before us in truth wholly free from blame. Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter." It is clear, then, that even in the earliest days after the death of Peter, his successor in Rome was aware of his authority as the chief steward, and the holder of the keys, and the other churches recognized and submitted to this authority. Again, this letter was written while the Apostle John was still alive. Surely, if the church in Rome had overstepped, the Apostles directly appointed by Christ would have had ample opportunity to set the record straight.
(Here is a link to the letter of Clement, since I forgot to include it in the post above) https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm
Later writings from the first centuries of the Church continue to indicate that Rome, and the successors of Peter who preside there, hold special place. In AD 110, Ignatius of Antioch, writing to the church in Rome, says to them: "You have never envied any one; you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions you enjoin [on others]" (brackets in original, source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm). This shows that Ignatius, living in Syria, recognized the primacy of Rome's teaching authority. Eusebius, a bishop and historian writing in the 4th century, gives us an excerpt from a letter written by the bishop Dionysius of Corinth to the Romans, indicating the role as shepherd and father the bishops of Rome had assumed over the whole church: "You Romans keep up the hereditary customs of the Romans, which your blessed bishop Soter has not only maintained, but also added to, furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints, and encouraging the brethren from abroad with blessed words, as a loving father his children." Dionysius likewise indicates a reverence for the writing received from Pope Soter and from the previous bishops of Rome, particularly Clement: "Today we have passed the Lord's holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement" (source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm) In the work of Irenaeus, Against Heresies, written in AD 189, rebukes heretics by appealing to the teaching authority of the church of Rome: "[we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority" (source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm, brackets in original). Irenaeus also gives us an accounting of the succession of popes, from Peter down to his own day. I could go on, as the examples are numerous, but the point is that, both in Scripture itself and in the earliest extant Christian writings outside of Scripture, the various churches around the world recognize that the office of chief steward, to which Peter was appointed, has been passed on to his successors in the See of Rome.
Next: "We see this in the passage in John 21. Jesus gives his pastoral authority to Peter with three solemn commands: “Feed my lambs, take care of my sheep, feed my sheep.” Here Jesus delegates his authority three times in three different ways, using imagery found throughout the Old Testament. In so doing he clearly reveals his delegation of authority to Peter." Jesus is the Christ, The King, and Peter was his steward. Nowhere did Jesus say that Peter or anyone else would appoint a successor to that position. Since we need to follow the continuity of the authority and privileges of Jesus' kingship, He alone can appoint a steward. I have not read, seen, or heard anything that suggests that He did so after Peter's death. It's been a while since I thought about this, though, so I might be forgetting something, and would like to know if anyone has any input on this point, since it would be the most critical point in attempting to establish a legitimacy to the papacy.
Finally, the whole conclusion: I can't stand the illogical leap and forgetfulness of the author! Geez... 1. As a Christian, I think it's one of the basic tenets to believe that we, as believers in Jesus, are granted eternal life. 2. Since we are granted life by the grace of God, and since Peter saw given the type of steward, why is he (Peter) not STILL in that appointed position even now? 🙄 This is one thing that I think the orthobros have got a heck of a lot better handle on than you catholics, even if some of their ideas make me uncomfortable having been raised as a protestant. To summarize and conclude: I think that is logical and likely that Jesus appointed Peter to be the eternal steward of His Church, therefore, the papacy is exactly equivalent to the Kings of Israel, and yes, obviously God can use that system to His own end, it was NOT WHAT HE INTENDED FOR HIS PEOPLE, and, in fact, has brought about many troubles and evils to them and the rest of the world. Yes, I think the catholic church has been a net evil on the world, especially after the infiltration of gnostic and worse occult BS throughout its structure. No, I don't think even most catholics are bad people, I just think that much of their faith is misplaced and very incorrectly acted out. 🤷♂️ I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but... Gosh that article is frustrating.
Which ideas do Orthobros propose that make you uncomfortable?
Icons and prayers to saints, specifically. But I hear that's a common issue with protestants learning about orthodoxy.
have any orthodox done mushrooms and talked with the saints on their trip? some people talk to Buddha, Jesus, God, the universe, sometimes all of them at once. the idea is that we see the people that we identify with when we are introduced to religion. Are the saints just sharing some of the responsibility. or do all requests need to be channeled through God?
All of that is very outside my experience, so I'm not qualified nor do I want to speculate, though I do have some opinions that are apart definitely terrible. 😁
would love to hear those opinions
I think most Orthodox would likely consider those apparitions to be either demons or delusion
That's certainly understandable and common, as you said. We do not worship planks of wood, nor the saints. To a degree you just have to trust us on that. We don't know what's in the hearts of others so when I say I'm not worshipping this icon there's a necessary degree of trust. We have a clear, defined understanding of what worship is. Praying that a saint intercede before Christ on our behalf isn't it. The Bible itself teaches us to pray for one another. Since we believe in more than this life we believe that the saints aren't dead, but alive in Christ. So why can't they pray for us? Why can't we ask them to pray for us? Certainly we can, and do, go directly to the Lord, but there's no reason to deprive ourselves of intercessory prayer. As for icons, God Himself became fully man. The materiality of icons remind us of that; that Christ wasn't a ghost as the Docetists argued. Please forgive the jumbled thoughts. It's been difficult responding and juggling a toddler
I heave been made aware that you are not worshiping the icons or the saints. I find the orthodox definition of worship (to my knowledge) to be very correct. My issue with praying for the deceased is that they are beyond our reach having been loosed from this mortal coil, too use a cliché. I see them as not involved much in our affairs until heaven and earth are remade when Jesus returns. That's an interesting point that they might pray for us. I honestly hadn't considered that. I'll have to mull that over for a while. It makes me a bit uncomfortable to think about praying to people to intercede. Prayer doesn't seem like it should be directed to anyone but God. LOL! Jumble away. I've spent the morning with my sister and neice. She's not yet two. I get it. 😁 Thank you for responding. I enjoy it. I do have a lot to learn about orthodoxy as I never had much experience with it, though I spent significant time in Lutheran and catholic schools, so I'm most familiar with those sects.
I don't think you're wrong to be cautious when it comes to the direction of your prayer. Personally, I don't think of myself praying TO the saints. All prayer and focus is on God, but that can be directed to Him through His saints. They are saints because of their devotion to Him and it is Him that shines through them. Orthodoxy can be jarring, from my experience, as externally much resembles some of the Western tradition, but those things are quite different internally. A podcast called "Our Life in Christ" from Ancient Faith Radio helped me explore those differences when I was first discovering Orthodoxy a few years ago. It may interest you
I just don't see the point since Jesus came to restore us to the Father and is our intercessor. I don't need to pray to anyone but God drive Jesus did all the hard work. I don't need a priest to sacrifice things for atonement. I don't need the saints who have gone before us to do anything. Why invent a beauracracy (my goodness, I can't ever spell that word) where none is needed? I've been listening to Lord of Spirits and my goodness is that pretty much overwhelming... But ultra-fascinating. Thank you for the recommendation. I may add that to my podcast rotation.
I'll admit I don't have a sufficient counter-argument as it's just never been an issue for me. Priests and structure have just always made sense to me even though I was raised without religion at all. I will say that priests and bishops are a Biblical, New Testament thing, but you know that. And none of us are the body of Christ, but help make up that body. Everyone has their calling and role so it just makes sense to me to have priests. It's useless to have everyone prophesying if there's no one to interpret. Oh boy, you just dove into the deep end, eh? Lol I love Lord of Spirits, but I don't often suggest it. Fr. Stephen has a Bible study called The Whole Counsel of God. I haven't dove into that yet, but what I've heard is good. A few others I like are Search the Scriptures, Symbolic World, The Arena, and, most importantly, The Path. But really, man, I suggest attending a liturgy if you're interested. Vespers is super beautiful, but liturgy is something special
Interesting conversation. You all seem to agree that God is comfort?
God is love, and that should be a comfort, but I think that only applies to one's who accept His grace and authority. To those that don't, He's probably the most terrifying thing that could think of since His existence undermines literally everything that they have built their lives on.
I wonder if the people in this conversation could each list five attributes for God, using that word in no specific way, but only as a generalized concept for an entity that is existential and operates as a deity relative to mankind. I will start. I wonder if by combining words with like meanings we could arrive at a set of five words that we all agree are descriptive of the God we personally believe in. 1. Uncompromising 2. Wise 3. Powerless 4. Omnipresent 5. Influential
1. Truth 2. Goodness 3. Beauty 4. Mercy (highest form of love which He is) 5. Justice Surprised to see “powerless” on there. Would you mind elaborating on that?
I think for me, powerless helps to explain the suffering I observe in every echelon of human existence.
That seems to suggest that God is the author of evil, of sin, which He’s not. A sort of Manichaeism it seems. Just as cold is the absence of heat, evil is the absence of good which we are the authors of due to our misuse of our free will as a result of the fall. God came to save us so that we may be made perfect in Him and as such death has been defeated, we just need to cooperate with His grace to eventually be raised again for eternal life.
I have thoughts, but Beave is noodling, so we should wait to discuss. 🙂 I suggest, and tell me if you disagree, that God did in fact create evil for in the beginning there was only God. To suggest that God didn’t create evil is to suggest that evil is an equal negative mirror image of God, no?
