Blessed Father Kyrill --

About three months ago I visited a Great Liturgy at St. Anne's in Harrisburg PA. I would like to ask a couple of questions, if you would be so kind.

1.) Why does the Byzantine Church use the form of a combined bread/wine dispensed with a spoon to the faithful? Is this dogma or a local practice?

2.) What is the understanding of the Byzantine Church in relation to the elements? Do the elements change in substance as the Western Rite teaches, or do you simply leave it as being a "divine mystery" by which when receiving the Bread and Wine you truely receive Christ's Body and Blood?

3.) Does the priest, by the words of consecration, change the elements (which seems to be the Western teaching) or does Christ, honoring the priest's request, change the elements?

4.) As I sit outside the boundaries of what you would define as the catholic church, I see several bodies, all claiming to be the original Church. What am I to make of this division in my search for the truth? How am I, of a simple mind, and 25 years a Protestant to boot, supposed to know who is presenting the truth to me, since there are disagreements even within the unity of these bodies?

5.) Vatican II proclaimed that Christ may well have sheep outside the fold of Rome, thus making allowances for those who, for various reasons, are unable to come to Rome. Salvation it seems, is more of Christ, and less of Rome, than previously taught. Would you agree that one may work out one's baptism without the necessity of being in full communion with the Byzantine Church? I guess to put it bluntly, if I die tomorrow while I am trying to figure this all out, do I have a chance at eternal bliss?

6.) Here's a question I asked one of my Western Rite brothers which intrigues me. To which of the following is the Eucharist more real? A.) The nominal catholic who goes out of a sense of ritual and thinks fairly little of the importance of the Eucharist B.) The fervent believer (for instance, an Anglican or Lutheran) who comes to the altar with active and fervent faith that the elements are the Body and Blood of the Lord and receives them in faith that they will be a means of grace to him.

Well, I suppose that is enough for now.

Thank you again for this forum and for allowing me to be here.

Brother Ed

Doxa Theo!

Dear TruthSeeker Brother Ed:

I'm not Fr. Kyrill, but perhaps I can offer some answers to your questions.

1. First, not all Churches in the Byzantine tradition use the spoon -- my own Melkite Church does not, for example. Communion by intinction, that is the bread and wine mixed, is an ancient tradition. It is not dogmatic, nor is it local tradition. This method of tradition goes back as far as memory reaches. The reason for communion "under both species" as the West says is because the symbolism is fuller and it allows us to comply more fully with the command of Jesus to "take, eat...take, drink."
2. Here I will admit that my understanding may not be completely correct. The Western understanding of transubstantiation is not an Eastern understanding. In general, the Church is content to say that it is a mystery.
3. Both East and West teach that Christ changes the bread and wine into his body and blood through the agency of the priest. The West explains that the sacraments are efficacious ex opere operato which is shorthand for "through the working of Christ" (although that is not a literal translation of the Latin). The East also teaches this. However, only the West teaches that the specific words "this is my body" and "this is my blood" effect the change. The East is less precise and simply says that the Anaphora, the entire Eucharistic Prayer effects the change.
4. Knowing Truth can be difficult or it can be easy depending on how open you are to God's movement in your life. If there are serious questions, study the history of the Church, read the Church Fathers, look at the early Church and then see which Church today has all the practices and teachings found in these sources. When you do that you will have found your answer, sort of. I say sort of because both Orthodox and Catholic can lay claim to meeting those criteria. At that point prayer is the only recourse.
5. Salvation is always from Christ and from Christ alone. The Church is the institution founded by Jesus and through which Jesus works in the world. In answer to your question about "working out" salvation -- if you are convinced that membership in the Catholic Church (Byzantine or otherwise) and you remain outside the Church salvation is not possible. If you are seeking God with a sincere heart, are trying to follow Him with the light that He has given you, and have simply not arrived at a point where you can make a decision before your death -- then we trust in God's mercy to know what was in your heart as evidenced by how you lived.
6. The answer here is simple -- the casual Catholic. The reason for that is equally simple, neither the Lutherans nor the Anglicans have valid orders (per Leo XIII with regard to the Anglicans) and, therefore, they do not have grace filled mysteries.

Now a disclaimer. I am theologically trained in the West, and I serve as a bi-ritual deacon with both a Latin and a Melkite parish. I am stydying Eastern theology, but I am nowhere near as comfortable there as I am with Western theology.

Fr. Deacon Edward

Blessed Fr. Deacon Edward

Thank you for your grace filled responses to my questions.

I would like to persue question 6 just a tad more, if I may without seeming to be stubborn.

There is considerable argument in relation to the validity of Anglican orders, based on the tracing of the apostolic lineage back through English history to the 4th century when missionaries from the catholic church came to the Celts and began their work. But let me put that aside for a while.

It seems that in your answer it is not Christ as the priest who consecrates the elements by faith as much as it is the having of proper form and personage at the altar. While the idea I am about to present is a bit to the extreme, it possibly could happen that one who really is either heretical or even has left, at least inwardly, the faith, could preside at the altar, possibly for a lack of having any other vocation to persue.

I find it interesting to think that despite this man's being out of the faith, because of his orders, he could still pronounce the consecration and Christ would respond and become present in the elements.

Yet there are those of us of good will who sincerely believe that we serve under legitimately ordained priests and who recieve the elements believing that our Lord has interceded upon the consecration, yet there is some question to the validity of those elements.

*sigh* For the life of me, I cannot imagine why the Lord, in such a matter as important as the salvation of one's soul, would have allowed both the schism and the Protestant revolt. You cannot believe how hard all this makes it on one who reads all the fine apologia from all sides and yet realizes the need to make a choice. I do not believe that Christ's salvation comes outside the Church.

Where is it? That is the question, isn't it?

Thank you for your time.

Brother Ed A dumb sheep.

Greetings Truthseeker,

It's me, your old friend, Xpihs...

If I may, brother, answer some of your questions...

You asked...

3.) Does the priest, by the words of consecration, change the elements (which seems to be the Western teaching) or does Christ, honoring the priest's request, change the elements?


I would say that the Western Theology is that it is Christ's words that the priest says that effects the sacrament, not because the priest's human powers, but because of the Sacrament of Holy Orders affords him this authority to speak authoritatively in the Name of Christ for the whole Church... So it isn't really the priest's words, but Christ's and it isn't really a request, but the fulfilment of Christ's command to the Apostles...


You also asked...
4.) As I sit outside the boundaries of what you would define as the catholic church, I see several bodies, all claiming to be the original Church. What am I to make of this division in my search for the truth? How am I, of a simple mind, and 25 years a Protestant to boot, supposed to know who is presenting the truth to me, since there are disagreements even within the unity of these bodies?

I would offer that there is no disagreement but perhaps a misunderstanding between the West and the East...The Western Theology is Latin in thought, Scholastic more than the East, but also a different Language, and as I have personally learned, people of different languages think a little differently not just because of culture but do to the language itself...The Eastern Theology is Greek in thought, not as inclined to explain everything, but content to contemplate the mystery knowing that God cannot be fully explained anyway... I believe one saint once said, I cannot speak of God perfectly so I dare not speak of God at all, but if I dare not speak of God at all I would die, so I must speak of God even if it can only be inperfectly...so the East speaks of God and perhaps mantains the balance more so than the West who in speaking of God attempts to be a thourough as he can even if he must invent a new word...

You asked too this question...

5.) Vatican II proclaimed that Christ may well have sheep outside the fold of Rome, thus making allowances for those who, for various reasons, are unable to come to Rome. Salvation it seems, is more of Christ, and less of Rome, than previously taught. Would you agree that one may work out one's baptism without the necessity of being in full communion with the Byzantine Church? I guess to put it bluntly, if I die tomorrow while I am trying to figure this all out, do I have a chance at eternal bliss?

I believe that if one is in communion with any Church that is Catholic one is in communion with the Whole Church....be one Byzantine, Roman, Ambrosian, or Coptic, (thinking that there is a Coptic Rite Catholic Church)...

If you are seeking Ed, it is not because you need to find the Truth more than it is God who is calling to Himself who is the Truth...and if you seek the Truth, he will reveal himself...he did for me...and even in the Latin Church, the Roman Rite...

And your final question...

6.) Here's a question I asked one of my Western Rite brothers which intrigues me. To which of the following is the Eucharist more real? A.) The nominal catholic who goes out of a sense of ritual and thinks fairly little of the importance of the Eucharist B.) The fervent believer (for instance, an Anglican or Lutheran) who comes to the altar with active and fervent faith that the elements are the Body and Blood of the Lord and receives them in faith that they will be a means of grace to him.


And I have a very different answer...

And it goes like this... To a sane man reality is more real to him than is imagination...to an insane man, his imagination is more real to him than reality...

The saint is the most sane of men, for to him, the reality of God and his work is more real to him than his apparent environment...

So while the Eucharist may seem to be more real to an Anglican without valid orders or to a Lutheran with out orders, and while the Eucharist may not seem real to even a nominal Catholic who has little if any faith, the Valid Eucharist of a Validly ordained Priest is The Only Real Eucharist because, at least from the Catholic Perspective, no matter how one views it be they nominal or fervent, and bread is bread no matter one be Anglican, Lutheran or Jewish... The Reality of the Eucharist is an objective truth, where as the question you ask: " To which of the following is the Eucharist more real?" is a question of subjective truth not objective truth...so in a sense is a trick question... the better and more interesting question, at least for me, would be to ask who is more sane...the Nominal Catholic or the devout Anglican or Lutheran?

Xpihs

Dear Brother,

Thank you for your very thought provoking questions. Not wishing to pre-empt Father Kyrill's answers, may I address one of the points you raise?

I recall a few words of the Anaphora, or the 'Eucharistic Prayer' used most often in the Eastern (Byzantine) Church.

Praying to God (the Father), the priest asks him:

"make this bread the precious body of your Christ"

"and that which is in this chalice the precious blood of your Christ"

"changing them by your Holy Spirit."


So, it is the sending down of the Holy Spirit upon us, and upon the gifts, that effects the Change.

The Father sends, Christ offers (and is offered), the Spirit accomplishes, invoked by the priest, who prays for himself, and on behalf of the whole Church.

So no one 'agent' accomplishes, so much as it is a coming together in harmony, of the Trinity, and the whole Church with its ministers. The whole Divine Liturgy, and not just the reception of the Holy Mysteries, is a real experience of 'holy communion' between the work of God and his creatures.

This may hint, at a solution to your greater question, which moves my heart. I am touched by the sincerity with which it is expressed.

Where is God, where is my salvation, where is my hope, where is Church?

It is God's grace that places this yearning for him, within you. Even as you are reading, and searching for the Lord, in humility, in Spirit, in truth; please rejoice and know that he is already within, already leading and directing you. To yearn for him, is to be a true and faithful servant of God.
The mystery of Salvation (like the Eucharistic Mysteries) involves more, accomplishes more, effects more, than our human minds can grasp or imagine.

I look forward to hearing other responses to your challenging questions.

Elias, monk

[This message has been edited by Monk Elias (edited 01-30-2000).]

Dear in Christ Ed,

May God Bless you.

The path to Faith is not an easy one, especially when we look for "proofs". This is a very Western approach to Theology, "tell what the truth is, tell me what it is". The Eastern Church is not at all that way. We rather look at "what it is not", thereby softening the hard edges of Domatic Theology. Eastern mysticism far outweighs Eastern dogmatism. And so it is most empatically with the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist.

The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is the God-ordained mystery in which Christ Himself IS in reality in the elements of Bread and WineBecause of this is is far more than a "memorial". It is rather the actual Sacrament and the Sacrifice of Christ. In the myticism of the Eastern Church, the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is not performed other than when It was actually Instituted...in other words It is beyond time and space, and therefore the same Act as that of the Last Supper.

The Bread and Wine are "changed" into the Body and Blood of Christ. This does not mean that Christ's Body and Blood are "present" in the bread and wine; but that the bread and wine become in subatnce the Very Body and the Very Blood of Christ. This Change is made by the creative almightiness of God and as such cannot be comprehended by the mind of man. This act is evident in the prayer of the Anafora:
Again we offer to Thee this
reasonable and bloodless service,
and we ask and pray and supplicate:
end down Thy Holy Spirit upon us
and upon these Gifts here presented,
and make this bread the Precious
Body of Thy Christ, and that which
is in this Cup the Precious Blood
of Thy Christ, changing then by Thy
Holy Spirit.

Because of this, it is NOT the priest who makes the change, it is the Holy Spirit. So even an unworthy priest can stand at the Holy Altar and prayer to God to make this change, and it will occur. If we were to begin requiring only the worthy , sinless and holy at the Altar, we may never be able to have another Divine Liturgy. It is precisely because we recognized that it is not us who do this, as well as all Sacraments, that they are worthily conducted. There is no "legality" involved in this Act, it is a pure spiritual mystery..

I cannot say what it is that Christians outside of the Tradition and Apostolic Succession receive at their Holy Communion. Surely many do not even claim it to be the Actual Body and Blood of Christ, but rather a memorial meal. Others do believe that there is some form of transmutation, which is present for a time and then dissipates.I am ceertain that this is one of those great "leaps of faith" a person must make as they approach the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

I will tell one story , if I may. I had a man who in a parish once, who never came to Holy Communion . I asked him why he never received, even on the Great Feasts. He told me he was a recovering alcoholic and did not want to "tempt fate" by drinking the "wine". I just laughed out loud and told him, "Don't be silly, we don't receive wine, we partake of the Precious Blood of Christ. If you believe that what problem do you have receiving Holy Communion?" I asked if he believed that he was an Orthodox Christian, to which he aanswered yes. " So what's the problem, then?" He soon started to come to Communion, and is still quite sober.

And please bear with me for one more story from ther same parish, ( in Los Angeles ). There was a group of women who had been very faithful receivers of Holy Communion, along with their children who suddenly stopped rec eiving. I asked them why, and they told me that they believed one of the Church members had AIDS and they did not want to take the chance of contracting the disease ( this was in the mid 80's ). I asked them if they were Orthodox and believed that the Holy Eucharist was Truly the Most Preceious Body and Most Precious Blood of Jesus Christ. If they believed this as Orthodox then they would know it was ONLY His Blody and His Blood they would be receiving. They came back to Communion....no one got sick!


unworthy servant

+Kyrill

Blessed Elias, monk --

One of the first books I read involving Eastern thought was by Bishop Kallistos Ware on the Orthodox Church. I found it stimulating and refreshing. Your post reminds me again of just how refreshing and different I find the Eastern mindset.

Out of curiousity and in my quest to learn, I attended RCIA classes at one of the local RCC parishes. When the presiding priest said that the priest "calls Christ down out of Heaven and into the host" I was deeply offended by the tone of what he said. Perhaps I misunderstood, but in the context he was speaking, he was referring to the power given to the priest in the Eucharistic ceremony.

To the contrary, I was much blessed by the words of the Anaphora which you shared with me, for I think they represent the humility with which we, mere creatures, approach the holy and mighty God, beseeching Him that once again we might be blest to receive the Blessed Sacrament which, according to our Lord, to eat is to live. Or, as I so love to tell others, "the medicine of immortality" as the Early Fathers referred to it.

Thank you for your kind words of encouragement for me as I journey onward. My pilgrimage has already led me in places I would have never expected to be in last year at this time. To change from a diehard, bigoted, anti-catholic to having a thirst to know the truth and an acceptance of and real appreciation of Apostolic practice and doctrine is nothing short of a miracle.

Who would have guessed it. It has been something of a shock to my Protestant brothers.

Yours in Christ,

Brother Ed -- A dumb sheep

Blessed Father Kyrill --

How puzzling sometimes is the way that God works. I first became Eucharistic in my thought from, of all places, an article written in a Calvinist magazine defending Sacramentalism from the attacks of the nominalist Evangelicals. The cover of the magazine was especially striking.

On the cover was a picture of a mass of humanity, presumably at one of those Evagelical dog-and-pony shows they call a "Crusade for Christ". (sorry -- came out of this system and have no respect for it) The inference is that they are ready to respond to the "altar call" and "accept Jeeeeezus".

Then, down at the lower right hand of the cover, the corner is "peeled back" to reveal the Bread and Chalice. Above this is printed the words: "How do we receive Christ? Our way or His?"

Stunning effect.

What do nominalists receive at their "Lord's Supper"? Well, could it be that they receive exactly what they believe they receive -- NOTHING? Makes sense to me. Does God have compassion on them in their ignorance and give some measure of grace anyway? Well, that is for Him to know and me not to speculate upon.

Then there is the enigma of we darned Anglicans. There is claim made to Apostolic authority based upon the establishment of the mission by St. Augustine to Great Britan in the fourth century in subjection to the Pope. There is a plea to that lineage of bishops which I have heard.

What amount of politics goes into Rome's refusal to acknowledge the ordination of Anglican bishops? It is a sticky issue, but do remember that up until just recently , the anathemas were headed East also. Now, all of a sudden, according to Rome, the Orthodox have valid orders. What changed? They still don't recognize Rome.

Must one be Roman to be catholic? Or must one believe at the Vincentine Canons state "that which has been believed at all times, by all people, in all places" to be catholic? What little I have learned of the Anglican Church indicates to me that the Anglicans have the same agenda as the Orthodox, a repudiation of certain "errors" they see in Rome. Yet we are not recognized, even with our ecclessiastical history. *sigh*

Who knows. Perhaps the Anglican Church is just a way station for me to stop at and get my breath while I study the harder points of Apostolic and Eastern thought. Worked that way for John Cardinal Newman. (Not that I would ever be the mind he was) :-)

I pray for light. Your prayers are appreciated also.

Brother Ed -- Sheep, seeking Shepherd

Doxa Theo!

Dear TruthSeeker:

You ask: No, it is Christ who works in the mysteries to effect the change. But Christ does not do this just because someone invokes the change. Were I to read the Eucharistic prayer nothing would happen -- for I am not ordained a priest. And that is the key. If one is not validly ordained a priest it does not matter what one believes or thinks for there can be no mystery where there is no valid priest.

In the East only a priest may marry a couple because our theology teaches that in the mystery of holy crowning it is Christ working through the priest who brings about the graces of marriage and who actually joins the couple. If I were to go through the motions of holy crowning nothing would happen.

You see, Jesus established a particular Church through which He operates. He does not distribute the Mysteries to any who go through the motions, but only to those who are properly disposed and ordained.

Since the issue of Anglican orders has already been ruled upon by Pope Leo XIII based upon an examination of the rites employed and the intention evidenced in those rites, it logically follows that there can be no grace in their mysteries.

Fr. Deacon Edward

Blessed Fr. Deacon Edward --

Okay. I understand the idea of authority and that authority coming from a source. If I might use the same kind of military metaphor which Paul used, I would have no authority to go to the local military base and begin to order around privates, corporals, etc. I haven't been given that authority.

What I do find very funny is a story I heard at RCIA class. Father Mahoney told me that there are now Lutheran and Anglican priests who are going to the bishops of the Old Catholic order in Sweden and having them lay hands on them so that they can go back and offer their parishoners a valid Eucharist.

That really seems funny in light of the fact that these people want the blessing of valid orders but not the submission to Rome nor the primacy of the Chair of Peter.

Why, I wonder, would God honor with valid authority, attitudes such as that and how are they any different than the Anglican attitude which Leo XIII condemned?

Oh, and BTW, you wouldn't think that there would be any politics or desire for power involved in that, do you?

Naaaaaaahhhhh!!

Brother Ed

I don't believe I'm doing this, but I'm going to quote the "Baltimore Catechism".

What is a Sacrament?

A sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace.

So, the purpose of the sacraments is to provide 'grace' or 'spirit' to follow God's will. If someone doesn't receive the sacraments, can that person be holy and fulfill God's plan for salvation? I think the answer is yes because Christ welcomed everyone, even the Samaritan woman. I'm not saying that a person should avoid the sacraments that are available. But I truly believe that when Anglicans or Lutherans pray, they are communing with God.
Interestingly enough, the Latin church used to have a pious practice called 'spiritual communion'. It essentially taught that when one was not physically able to go to communion at church, one could 'receive' by lifting one's heart and mind to God and by asking for the grace of the Eucharist. Thus, when good Anglicans and Lutherans lift their hearts and minds to God to receive the Eucharist, I don't think that God would deny them the graces based upon their pastor's ordination status. (I guess I'm just a big old softy!)

I think that there is a distinct danger of approaching the Eucharist as some sort of 'magic'. "You say the words, you get the magic". I think that the eucharist comes to us as the result of good people praying together with their bishop/priest and begging the Holy Spirit to provide the graces mediated by the sacrament. Can that happen if there is no priest present? I'm not sure what God does in that case. But when an 'apostate' priest speaks the words of consecration over a bread basket and a glass of wine at a restaurant, I don't believe that the bread and wine are consecrated, despite the "priest's" intention. (I know that this flies in the face of a lot of pious beliefs, but I don't quite understand how God would allow this mockery to take place.) For me, the Eucharist as a mediator of grace comes when the 'ekklesia' gathers with its bishop or priest and calls down the Holy Spirit to make the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. It irks me to think that the Creator of Heaven and Earth, the Absolute Source of Being, is thought to be able to be held hostage by human beings who can just 'say the words' and by virtue of ordination can bring God down to earth for whatever purpose. The priest is 'chosen from among the people to serve the people in the things that pertain to God.' If the priest is not doing that, then he's not a priest. I'm sure that the grenades will start flying in my direction very soon, but I just can't live with the 'magic' aura that surrounds the sacraments. It's God that we are dealing with; and our relationship with God is paramount, not the sacraments that are meant to provide grace.

8)Our relationship with God is through partaking of the Sacraments which are filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit if you believed in Orthodoxy. Christ should have sent the Holy Spirit on Pentecost to some other people to suit your understanding. I sincerely and truly understand the reasoning of your phronema(mindset) which is not Orthodox but it certainly is not acceptable. What am I to say about the Melkites who broke communion with the Antiochian Orthodox Church? The Orthodox believe that Rome is lacking in grace. By how much I don't know. If I were to guess I would probably have to say zero. The Orthodox Church is indivisible and I pray that those outside the communion come home soon. Forgive my narrowness which I surely expect from you and from many. Matthew 7:13-14 states "Enter by the NARROW gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way which leads to destruction, and there are many who go by it. Because NARROW is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

[This message has been edited by Robert Sweiss (edited 01-31-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Robert Sweiss (edited 01-31-2000).]

Dear Blessed Robert --

First of all, let me make what might sound like a very strange statement from one who seems to be begging for tolerance. I actually appreciate your firm stand on principle.

I think what Dr. John is saying is that grace is, well, GRACE!! It is undeserved kindness of God to us scruffy sinners, us lost sheep who wander confused in this wilderness.

I wonder how God views my struggle? Remember, I have spent 25 years in Protestantism hearing that anything catholic is of the devil (I kid you not!!). Now, all of a sudden, I find that I am highly sympathetic to and completely in agreement with catholic doctrine in principle and have joined a church I THOUGHT was apostolic, only to find out that there is some question about this too.

I did so, not out of rebellion, but out of what I thought was obedience. Are you saying that there is no grace for those who operate on the principle of trying to be an obedience son or daughter.

And to make matters worse, for whatever reason, God ALLOWED the schism to happen, so that there is not one church claiming authority but two, and actually, more than that if you take into account the claims of the HOCNA that they alone are the real and true Orthodox church.

And I, with my pea brain, am supposed to figure this out or I can't get the grace of God?

I'm sorry if this sounds wrong, but there have been times that I have considered this and been severely tempted of the evil one to just chuck Christianity altogether. If my salvation depends upon finding the TRUE CHURCH, and yet God has allowed schism and division and arguements which confuse someone like me one the outside, then I might as well roll dice and pick a church based upon how the numbers come up.

I hope I have conveyed a sense of my deep frustration. And now I am told that I might as well be eating a chicken sandwich at the altar for all the spiritual good it does me.

I thought that Scripture said "man looks upon the outer appearence, but God regardeth the heart" Is this a heart issue or an issue of having perfect outward obedience? Surely if there are not valid orders in the Anglican congregation, I may not be getting the full blessing and grace which others are getting, but again, isn't it the point of grace that it is "UNMERITED FAVOR"? If it is unmerited, then does it depend solely upon perfect understanding and right decisions to receive grace, or might I receive grace as I move towards God in imperfect attempt at obeying the light I have been given?

God's rich blessings up you. Thank you for your input and answers.

Brother Ed

Dear Truthseeker,
Forgive me for correcting you but I am far from being proclaimed "Blessed" by the Orthodox Church. Augustine is called Blessed Augustine. However I understand and appreciate your good intentions. I spent over a decade as a agnostic searching for evidence of truth regarding Christ and His Church. I discovered that I was immersed in Western culture which Western Christianity had shaped and infected me with the heresy of relativism. The understanding of grace in the West is far removed and watered down in comparison to Eastern Christian thought of mysticism. Studying the early Church Fathers such as St. Gregory Palamas and Dionysius the Areopagite will give you a greater appreciation of the meaning of grace. I do not possess authority over grace or where grace is complete and available. An adequate understanding of grace stems from our understanding of the Holy Spirit and how that grace is poured out to the people of God. If you believe in the day of Pentecost and who were the people that were in communion, by you following Church history, it would have to be the Orthodox Church. The Roman Catholic Church was Orthodox and forfeited this historical claim through its arrogancy. The Roman Catholic and Protestant view and understanding of grace is nothing in comparison to Eastern Christian thought. Please take the time out to read about the eastern understanding of grace. If God willed His grace to everyone without any demands from us then I must say one has submitted to relativsim rather than to the True Church. People in the world are confused and frustrated as it is when there are thousands of sects, cults, denominations, heretical and heterodox churches staking their claim to the truth. The fact is there is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The question for you remains: which one, the Roman Catholic and her affiliates or the Orthodox Church? I could tell you the answer but that would be biased and I truly believe you have to discover that for yourself.
In Christ,
Robert

<font color=blue><b>Not blessed? Well, you are in my book. Anyway, if not blessed, then I shall call you --BROTHER ROBERT --

unless you have an objection to that. :-)

Thank you for your post. I would like to ask if you have any links or books to recommend which wouyld help me to understand this relativistic stance of the Western Church?

I went to the dentist today and while waiting I was reading Bishop Ware's book THE ORTHODOX WAY. I haven't been in it for a while, but I must admit that it reminded me of several things about the Eastern mindset that I really like.

BTW -- Are you Orthodox or Byzantine? How close do you consider these two bodies to be/

Thank you for your communication with me. In closing, I just want to share with you something that hit me today like a ton of bricks.

I was thinking about my struggle to understand and find the Church. As I sat in my chair pondering, I suddenly realized that what I am looking for, based on my arguements, is a church which meets my criteria for what Christ's Church should be.

And suddenly it hit me with a force that "I" am not the one who has any right whatsoever to determine what the Church should look like. That is Christ's job, for it is His Bride. For me to refuse to join a Church until I find one that meets my criterion is not only a lack of faith, but it is putting my trust in myself rather than in Him, and taking His place, usurping Him as God.

I was, to say the least, stunned for several minutes.

Pray that God will make my path and duty abundantly clear. I believe I have a willing heart to go where ever He leads me.

Thank you.
Brother Ed