Dunedain,

Thank you for your response. You seem to have hit bullseye on some key issues. We can't live without each other. We are like children of divorced parents - no one parent is the 'truer' parent. It is hard to continue justifying brokeness and failure to love. Schism, with its weighted baggage of polemics and historical re-interpretation, is just like divorce. Poor model for 'church.' Maybe someday East and West will renew their Crowning in Marriage? Hopefully this will be something we can celebrate here in this life before the Eternal Banquet.

Elias

One last point.

I see one of the problems of the Eastern Orthodox communion of churches as not really knowing what's doctrine and what not doctrine. Not to sound trite, but the assertion that the Mysteries of the Roman Catholic Church are 'graceless' is something which is absolutely NOT agreed upon by the body politic of the EO communion.

Timothy's assertion of the 'gracelessness' of the Mysteries of the RC Church sounds suspiciously like the RC assertion that the Mysteries of the Anglican Communion of Churches are 'graceless' as well. Both approach the validity of the sacramental system from a highly legalistic point of view. In the EO view taken by Timothy, validity of the Mysteries is contingent upon the profession of a specific formulation of faith, which includes a de-facto rejection of the position of Peter as the unique titular head of the Church and universal pastor, as well as a host of other relatively unique formulations of docrine such as Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility, and so on.

In the RC view which is 'official policy' (as in the tome of Pope Leo XII), the Anglican Mysteries are deemed 'invalid' due to a legal viewpoint as to validity of intent of ordination to the Episcopacy. That point of view rests on the understanding of the sacrificial role of the Presbyter, one standing as 'alter Christus' in the Celebration of the Sacraments.

I find it seriously difficult to believe that the Saviour would see things from such a legalistic point of view, either from the RC or the EO perspective.

The fact of inter-communion and recognition of the 'validity' of a Sacramental life are things that have been highly fluid throughout Christian history. At various times, the Russian church has been in Communion with Rome, the Eastern Orthodox with the Anglican, the Anglican with the Lutheran, the Lutheran with the Old Catholics, and so on. It isn't nearly as cut and dried as many would have us believe.

IMHO, and strictly a personal one, I believe that God calls Christians to vocations within the entire body of Christian belief. Who am I to doubt that a person is called to understand and worship God as an Orthodox Christian, as an Anglican Christian, as a Byzantine Christian, or as any other flavor of 'Christian' that exists? It is certainly not up to me to judge for others - only to see if I am being authentic to the Christian vocation to which I am called. 'Judge not, lest ye be judged...' or something like that.

It is my opinion that the schisms that exist within the Body of Christ are due to sins against Charity. I was reading M. Scott Peck's 'Further along the road less travelled' the other day and found a very valid point - there has ALWAYS been diversity within the Church - including a diversity of churches.

My personal model of ecclesiology allows for seeing the Roman Catholic (including all the sui iuris churches which comprise it) as being the Fullness of Truth, and all other Christians attached to it by virtue of their baptism, some in less perfect communion than others. I think this was the model of ecclesiology put forth by the fathers of Vatican II. Makes sense to me, and allows for a more charitible understanding of the vocations of other Christians.

In my personal journey, I have at various times adopted different suits of clothes which all have bourne the label of 'Christian'. I was sincerely following God, and I find it incomprehensible to think that He would have rejected me or the Christian family I was a part of as being 'invalid'. The core of my spiritual life as a Christian has always been to have faith in Jesus Christ as my Saviour and to strive to do good works. I am reminded that

"Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world." James 1:27

And this, regardless of what creed we profess as Christians.

Peace,

Dunedain

Dunedain,

You wrote: "...there has ALWAYS been diversity within the Church - including a diversity of churches."


In reading the scriptures, I can't ignore the sometimes totally diverse forms of Christianity are presented; I perceive this as the diverse Christian Continuum:

1. Radical Hellenistic Christianity - as represented by Stephen.
2. Moderate Hellenistic Christianity - as represented by Paul.
3. Moderate Jewish Christianity - as represented by Peter.
4. Radical Jewish Christianity - as represented by James.

Stephen went head-first into accepting Gentiles and rejecting Judaism. He got stoned. Bad tactic.

Paul became the hallmark of what would become typical Christianity. He was not one of the original Twelve, but his writings make up the bulk of the New Testament canon of scriptures!

I can't get over the feelings of fear in Peter when Jame's boys come down from Jerusalem for a visit. Peter is willing to eat with the Gentiles, then he absents himself because of Jame's elders. Paul reprimands Peter for his waffling - a characteristic of the 'rock.'

James, a bishop, got killed. Ersheim has some challenging things to say about him.

Elias