Ethan D Good > Recent Status Updates

"The Principle or Accommodation" chapter caught me by surprise. It explains clearly how the Primitive Church was almost immediately structured around the regional structure of the Roman Empire, as major cities were major social hubs. Thus bishops in a "metropolis" were also given the titles "Metropolitan" as head of the city, and "Patriarch" as head of the diocese/province. Hence, elevating Constantinople later...

"The differences that become clear both in Byzantium and the West in the conception of the Church and its earthly aspect, the differences which stand out also in the evolution of the organization of the two Churches, are due to the fact that the two portions of Christendom have developed under different political and social conditions."

This assessment of Eastern religions like Hinduism, with all of their meditative practices, available to all to partake in regardless of anyone's personal religious views or lack there of, poses a legitimate theological question for Christians: with the proven effects of these practices, along with the testimonies of many to its effectiveness, what is behind this spiritual practice?
This book's clear answer: Demons.

"The 'dialogue with non-Christian religions' has become part of the intellectual fashion of the day; it represents the present stage of ecumenism in its progress towards a universal religious syncretism."

There is no good reason to "dialogue" with non-Christian religions, as if there were some middle ground between our faiths. The only result of this kind of dialogue is a compromise of the truth of Christianity.

"Our holy God has molded us for Theosis, so if we are not deified, our whole life is failure."

The holy Fathers certainly say that within the Church we can attain Theosis. But at the same time they say Theosis is a gift from God, it is not something we can attain on our own. Of course, we must desire, struggle, and prepare ourselves so that we are worthy, capable, and receptive enough to accept and guard this great gift from God,[...] but at the same time, Theosis is a gift of God.

God is not only essence, as the West thinks: He is also energy. If God was only essence, we could not unite with Him, as was written: Never will man see My face and live (Exodus 33:20).

If we grasp a bare electric wire, we will die. However, if we connect a lamp to the same wire, we are illuminated. We see, enjoy, and are assisted by, the energy of electric current, but we are not able to grasp its essence.

"Everything in the Church leads to Theosis [...] Only within the Church can man become a god, and nowhere else: not in universities; not in social services; not in any of the fine and good things that the world has. None of these are able to offer what the Church offers, however good they may be."

With the incarnation of the Logos, a second communion between God and humanity is realised. The first communion was in Paradise. This was broken. Man was separated from God. The all-good God then provided for another, a second communion which can no longer be severed, a union of God and men. This second communion of God and men happens in the person of Christ

Having been endowed "in His image," man is called upon to be completed "in His likeness." This is Theosis. The Creator, God by nature, calls man to become a god by Grace.

"Our life's purpose is declared in the first chapter of the loly Bible, when the Holy author tells us that God created man "in His image and likeness." From this we discover the reat love the Triune God has for man: He does not wish hin simply to be a being with certain gifts, certain qualities, a certain superiority over the rest of creation, He wishes him to
be a god [as in becoming completely like God] by Grace."

This chapter was very fascinating, as the author clearly admits that modern Orthodox ecclesiology is, along with Catholic ecclesiology, inconsistent with the ecclesiology of the early Church.
Where Catholics have a single, universal leader, the Orthodox have a group of national leaders of the universal Church, which is refuted as a nationalistic heresy and merely a different form of universal ecclesiology.

This chapter didn't end how I expected it to, as it actually acknowledges the very glaring flaws I was seeing in the modern Orthodox practice of governance, compared to the perfect pre-Schism model.
The issue isn't that Orthodox have a Eucharistic, priority-based ecclesiology, and the Catholics have a Universal, primacy-based one, it's that both have failed to embody the Eucharistic former ecclesiology properly today

Continued...

Why does the Pentarchy even exist if "priority" is given to the church which best witnesses to Faith in love?

Furthermore, why was Constantinople elevated to 2nd place in the Pentarchy? The answer to all of this is because of the Roman Emperor. The fact that the State and the Church were intertwined so early makes things confusing...

Also, Peter was placed at the head of the first church, Jerusalem.

So Jerusalem had "priority" over the whole Church because of her witness to the Faith, but after 70AD, Jerusalem fell. Afterwards, Rome clearly and decisively earned priority because of her undeniable witness across the empire, and her roots in Peter and Paul. However, if "priority" is granted based on witness, not authority, why did Constantinople inherit Rome's authority instead of a more charitable church?

...Continued

I'd argue it doesn't, as having one bishop at the head of the Universal Church, in the same way you have a bishop at the head of the local body, is a natural/logical development. Also, I doubt any catholic would claim that the local catholic parish is lacking in it's fullness because it has the fullness of Christ in the Eucharist, which is the same Eucharistic Ecclesiology that's supposed to contradict.

These pages draw a clear line: Universal Ecclesiology and Eucharistic Ecclesiology are contradictory. However, I fail to see why. The latter suggests that the "Universal Church" is found in every local church, with the entire body of local churches representing the Universal Church, not by empirical sum, but by oneness.
How then, does that in any way contradict the (obviously Catholic) Universal Ecclesiology?

Continuing...

This chapter so far is clear that universal ecclesiology, taken to its logical extreme leads to one bishop over the Universal Church, just as you might have one bishop over the local church.
The issue is that, while logical, the early Church was conciliar, and a universal bishop naturally has universal primacy which negates the conciliar principle, reducing all other councilmen to advisory positions.

I have an issue with the "First Among Equals" perspective of Orthodox governance because, as this chapter highlights, it is very difficult to balance *equality* among bishops whilst also affording one bishop *first* privileges.

This difficulty seems to be made even more apparent given lack of ecumenical councils in Orthodox history post-Schism, as well as an inability to solve simple disputes without a primate.

It is clear that the Western idea of what is the Papacy, in the early Church, developed without the knowledge of the East. It was only until the Roman sacking and occupation of Constantinople in 1204 that the East was finally confronted with the Western developments.
This development in the West is understandable to be fair, seeing as the only See in the West was/is Rome. That said, the gradual stray of Rome is sad.

"Most of life comes down to this: Keep moving. And keep moving in the right direction. Direction always matters more than distance. If you take care of the direction, God will take care of the distance. We just keep walking. Every moment matters because God is working in you, and every small and insignificant moment is the process. Every one of those moments is making you into the man He wants you to be."

"Being God's man is less about doing the big things once and more about doing small things consistently."

After God sent Elijah to confront king Ahab, God told Elijah to retreat to wilderness. Elijah remained there for 3 YEARS. Yet, God sent him there with the purpose of preparing Elijah and teaching him to listen, wait, and trust.

God works IN us before He works THROUGH us. This is His divine preparation for us.

"A new work of God always demands a new surrender to God."

I like the idea of "God's Man" or "the man for the day" necessarily being a "Surrendered Man."

"You can never be God's man unless you are a surrendered man because you can't be your man and God's man at the same time. [...] We miss the truth that life with Jesus is one of continual surrender. It is about dying daily."

...Furthermore, there is not a special distinction between a local church and a universal (or "Catholic") Church, as every local church embodies the universal "Church" in it's entirety.

"The idea of a universal church, in which each local church is only a part of a larger whole, is not the teaching of the New Testament Neither is the concept of Peter's trans-apostolic authority."

It is clear, based on the included excerpts from Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, that Peter ALONE is the rock upon which Christ promised to build His Church.

There is a line drawn between the Apostles as founders, and the bishops as their successors. Their successors are "first after" not "second to."

Therefore, Peter's status as "the rock" is not transmitted to his successors.

Nor, is there a special primacy.

This chapter was why I bought the book. It describes the prophecy in the book of Daniel which describes the four kingdoms that would rule over the Jews before God institutes His eternal kingdom.

Historically, this "kingdom" was the Roman Empire, which was prophesied to be given to the saints of the Lord, which it was.

While the author argues this proves Catholicism, the Pentarchy was within the empire too so...

On the Essence-Energies view of God, which is exclusively an Orthodox view in Christianity, the book describes God as being like the sun in that the rays, or energies, of the sun are inseparable from the essense of the sun itself. The rays are indeed an outflowing of the sun, but as far as we can understand, they ARE the sun itself. It is impossible to know what the sun is beyond its rays. God is similar in this way.