DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**w4HPpbSW** · 12-20-2007, 08:22 AM

In the various descriptions I've read, the "Branch Theory" which Orthodoxy rejects was described as the view that the EOC, OOC, and RCC are all branches of the same trunk (Christ), to the degree that they maintain apostolic succession and the teachings of the ancient church (Protestant churches, which mostly don't hold any form of apostolic succession, get left out). That doesn't sound quite the same as what the Bishop said, or what Amy echoed, which puts the Orthodox Church as the trunk or root (being the "Body of Christ").

As a soon-to-be-but-not-yet-a-catechumen, I'm not exactly qualified to critique a Bishop's remarks. But it does seem that his particular emphases would make a great deal of difference. What does it mean, to him, that the various denominations are "branches"? Is it to say that they are legitimate, though of lesser fulness than the trunk? Or merely that all that is true within them, any Life that is found there, derives in some way from Orthodoxy (which sounds like what Amy was saying)? Or maybe something else entirely? That would seem to me to make a big difference in interpretation.

In Christ,
Mike

I agree with you Mike. There was a distinct "break" in the apostolic succession and some are now out side of the Church. In addition, it is not my intention to call the Bishop a heretic, nor can I judge his heart. My comment was simply an observation of a controversial analogy that made me extremely uncomfortable. I do know that a spirit of ecumenism has definitely entered the Orthodox Church. This has been discussed in other threads like the Patriarch of Constantinople, and his efforts to find common ground with the RC church. I do not think we should compromise dogma to accommodate other separated churches. In another thread I made reference to the difference between economia and ackrivia. This issue has changed what for centuries was the praxis in Orthodoxy. I refer to Baptism. A convert to Orthodoxy who was baptized in the RC church is now merely Chrismated and not Baptized, as the RC baptism is considered valid. The opinion is that grace fills in for the lack of actual baptism. My opinion is that if their baptism is valid, then why not all of the rest of their sacraments. That would mean we would be in full communion with them and there would be no difference between us. I know that now, if an Orthodox priest baptized a convert who had been baptized in the name of the Trinity by a separated heterodox church he would be brought before an ecclesiastical court and defrocked. I see this as an effort to "accomodate" other Christians and legitimize their faith. This is exactly what happens in the useless dialogue that goes on in the WCC. Their stated agenda is to make us all into one church. A global, warm and fuzzy, homogenized, lets all just love one another church without Orthodox dogma that would be just perfect for the arrival of the Antichrist. This is why the monks of Mt Athos have taken a hard line with the Patriarchate. I have no idea how it will all end up, but I am extremely concerned.

INXC,
Seraphim

12-20-2007, 08:22 AM	#13
w4HPpbSW Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 394 Senior Member	In the various descriptions I've read, the "Branch Theory" which Orthodoxy rejects was described as the view that the EOC, OOC, and RCC are all branches of the same trunk (Christ), to the degree that they maintain apostolic succession and the teachings of the ancient church (Protestant churches, which mostly don't hold any form of apostolic succession, get left out). That doesn't sound quite the same as what the Bishop said, or what Amy echoed, which puts the Orthodox Church as the trunk or root (being the "Body of Christ"). As a soon-to-be-but-not-yet-a-catechumen, I'm not exactly qualified to critique a Bishop's remarks. But it does seem that his particular emphases would make a great deal of difference. What does it mean, to him, that the various denominations are "branches"? Is it to say that they are legitimate, though of lesser fulness than the trunk? Or merely that all that is true within them, any Life that is found there, derives in some way from Orthodoxy (which sounds like what Amy was saying)? Or maybe something else entirely? That would seem to me to make a big difference in interpretation. In Christ, Mike I agree with you Mike. There was a distinct "break" in the apostolic succession and some are now out side of the Church. In addition, it is not my intention to call the Bishop a heretic, nor can I judge his heart. My comment was simply an observation of a controversial analogy that made me extremely uncomfortable. I do know that a spirit of ecumenism has definitely entered the Orthodox Church. This has been discussed in other threads like the Patriarch of Constantinople, and his efforts to find common ground with the RC church. I do not think we should compromise dogma to accommodate other separated churches. In another thread I made reference to the difference between economia and ackrivia. This issue has changed what for centuries was the praxis in Orthodoxy. I refer to Baptism. A convert to Orthodoxy who was baptized in the RC church is now merely Chrismated and not Baptized, as the RC baptism is considered valid. The opinion is that grace fills in for the lack of actual baptism. My opinion is that if their baptism is valid, then why not all of the rest of their sacraments. That would mean we would be in full communion with them and there would be no difference between us. I know that now, if an Orthodox priest baptized a convert who had been baptized in the name of the Trinity by a separated heterodox church he would be brought before an ecclesiastical court and defrocked. I see this as an effort to "accomodate" other Christians and legitimize their faith. This is exactly what happens in the useless dialogue that goes on in the WCC. Their stated agenda is to make us all into one church. A global, warm and fuzzy, homogenized, lets all just love one another church without Orthodox dogma that would be just perfect for the arrival of the Antichrist. This is why the monks of Mt Athos have taken a hard line with the Patriarchate. I have no idea how it will all end up, but I am extremely concerned. INXC, Seraphim
	Quote