tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post2555859270024156126..comments2023-10-30T05:58:54.390-07:00Comments on Contra Gentes: The Eisegeted Verses, Matthew 18:15-18Saint and Sinnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-77621681255984669372007-11-14T03:40:00.000-08:002007-11-14T03:40:00.000-08:00So, if the "one of you" spoken of in Matthew is/ar...So, if the "one of you" spoken of in Matthew is/are actually "two or three", and against these come other "two or three" ... then what? :-) <BR/><BR/>And this is NOT given to individuals: individuals can never constitute two or three. Two/three individuals are "you and I [and him]"; never "we". The Lord's Prayer is not meant for individuals: "OUR Father". <BR/><BR/>-------------------------<I><BR/>When Christ said two or three, the meaning is a qualitative one as well, and not just merely a cantitative one: i.e., unity in plurality should be sought [according to the Image of The One in Unity-in-Plurality in Heaven]: let me explain: <BR/><BR/>-- these innitially ONE person in Matthew doesn't say : "I condemned you, and that's it!" -- rather what he does is to go and find at least a minimal plurality to support him ... and only AFTER he DOES indeed find such a plurality (i.e., he realises that he's *not* the *only* one to think that the other one's opinion is derailed from Apostolic preaching and teaching), does he go on and reproof the STILL *one* man, of his strange teaching and/or way of life. <BR/><BR/>-- now, when these two or three see that that *one* STILL doesn't submit to >their< voice, they don't say: "we condemn you, and that's it!" -- rather, they seek confirmation from the Church -- <BR/>because of the possibility that they (two, three) might stand ALONE in that counter-teaching, and maybe it is they that are the ONE group of persons to think like that ... maybe the "one" that >they< were trying to reproof is actually doing nothing else but to submit to the Teaching of the entire Church, ... the entire Church, minus these alone-standing rebellious group of two or three! <BR/>:-) <BR/><BR/>(THIS situation would be ironic now, wouldn't it? --> it's just like in that joke with the high-way patrol car that receives a notification: "hey, guys, there's A CAR on the street that you're surveiling, that goes in counter-sense!" --> to which the police-men reply: "JUST ONE? There are dozens, ... nay, even hundreds!")<BR/>:-)) <BR/><BR/>-- so, far from stopping there, they go further and beyond, to the Church. -- just like the innitial one didn't stop at himself alone condemning the "outsider", but sought plurality, so this plurality in its turn, seeks an even greater consent : that of the entire congregation. <BR/><BR/>-- now, IF the "outsider" STILL thinks he's being done wrong, he may chose to plea for an even wider tribunal, consisting of the representaives of other neighbouring congregations as well. When even THIS is not enough, he may be judged by the representatives of the entire number of congregations from his own fatherland. (the Patriarchy). When not even THIS satisfies him, he may ne judged by an Ecumenical Synod. WHEN NOT EVEN THIS fulfills his desire, ... then there's nothing else that he can do. :-( <BR/><BR/>-- God's Trinitarian Existence in self-less and self-giving Love teaches us that self-sufficiency is from the devil. </I><BR/><BR/>No one man is an island for himself. No one congregation is an island for herself. No one Bishoprick is an island for itself (e.g., in order to ordain another Bishop, you need two or three Bishops). <BR/><BR/>The sky is the limit. <BR/><BR/>We are the Body of Christ and members all in part. Christ is God and fills the Universe. The NEW Universe which He created is His Body, the Church. <BR/><BR/>-------------------------<BR/>We think of man as microcosmos and of the Universe as Macrocosmos; but with the Incarnation of the infinite God in Christ Jesus, it is man who is now the Macrocosmos, and the Universe (which in all its enormity was unable to contain God) who finds itself to be the Microcosmons. :-) <BR/><BR/>Now, at the creation of the World, in the O.T., God does A QUITE A LOT of discrimination and distinction and separation:<BR/><BR/>- Day from Night; and Light from Darkness; <BR/>- the waters above from those below; Heaven and Earth;<BR/>- the dry land from the seas; <BR/>- the Sun and the Moon; <BR/>- the fishes of the seas from the fowls of the air; <BR/>- Man from the animals;<BR/>- rest from labour; <BR/>- good from evil; (: the Tree of Knowledge)<BR/>- life from death; (: the Tree of Life)<BR/>- man from woman;<BR/>- etc. <BR/><BR/>Now, at the re-creation of the World, in the N.T., the same God distinguishes and separates two oposing and antithetical entities, leading the New Israel, which is the Church of the Living God, through the middle of them ... just like he did with the Old Israel in the days of Moses, at the Red Sea, leading them through the two oposing walls of water gathered at each side: left and right, and making His People walk through their middle: <BR/><BR/>- Paganism and Judaism;<BR/>- Gnostics and Judaizers;<BR/>- Sabellianism and Tritheism;<BR/>- Nestorianism and Monophysism;<BR/>- Pelagianism and Augustinianism;<BR/>- Iconoclasm and Idolatry;<BR/>- Catholicism and Protestantism;<BR/>- superstition and skepticism;<BR/>- etc.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-90840473591746253822007-11-12T18:13:00.000-08:002007-11-12T18:13:00.000-08:00"Secondly, if one is excomunicated by a local Chur..."Secondly, if one is excomunicated by a local Church with regard to heresy and/or sinfulness, isn't it rather absurd to think that he's just gonna flee into another one, that suits his tastes better and/or is unaware of his prior conviction by his prior Church? -- I find Your insistance on the word "local" to be devoid of sense."<BR/><BR/>This verse is sometimes used as a proof of the Magesterium's infallibility. My point is that this verse cannot be used for that purpose since the power of infallibility in RCism and EOxy is only invested in the congregate of the universal church, but here, the local congregation is said to have it. The next two verses (not covered here) go even farther and give this power to individuals.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, I can't help the fact that in America we have religious liberty to allow churches to accept heretics and the wicked. [Kind of like when Hippolytus condemned Pope Callistus :)] I condemn those churches that do, but I'd rather have religious liberty than totalitarianism.<BR/><BR/>Thirdly, when was the last time you heard of the Roman Catholic Church excommunicate a mafia Don? An abortion supporting politician? The conservative Protestant churches got rid of our liberals back in the early twentieth century. Your church has not only kept them, they are at the height of power.<BR/><BR/>"... but now, after big, bad C-tine corrupted our faith, it's the poor little Bishops, whose feet are the ones hurting ... :-("<BR/><BR/>This is a straw-man. I never said (and nor do I believe) that it was Constantine that corrupted the one true orthodox catholic faith. This happened over many centuries and it came from pagan philosophy, culture, and language.<BR/><BR/>Now that you don't have any real arguments, you're just getting irrational.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-28672683850857037132007-11-05T01:21:00.000-08:002007-11-05T01:21:00.000-08:00Quite frankly, I liked it better before C-tine: in...Quite frankly, I liked it better before C-tine: in those old days, it was that little piece of ____ we call a heretic that wandered around like a mad, rabbied, vagrant dog, desperately seeking acceptance from Church to Chuch, unable to find it anywhere, being the one to take the pain (only if it was just sadness and/or hurting feet) for holding to his derailed opinions over and against the one mind of the Chuch, which repeatedly and steadfastly condemned him over and over again as with one mouth ... <BR/><BR/> ... but now, after big, bad C-tine corrupted our faith, it's the poor little Bishops, whose feet are the ones hurting ... :-(The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-56329659583399566722007-11-05T01:12:00.000-08:002007-11-05T01:12:00.000-08:00First of all, Jewish synagogues were headed by pre...First of all, Jewish synagogues were headed by presbyters. <BR/><BR/>The fact that a Synod unendorsed by the faithful is not Ecumenical is shown throughout Church history.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, if one is excomunicated by a local Church with regard to heresy and/or sinfulness, isn't it rather absurd to think that he's just gonna flee into another one, that suits his tastes better and/or is unaware of his prior conviction by his prior Church? -- I find Your insistance on the word "local" to be devoid of sense.<BR/><BR/>If a man thinks he's been judged biasly or incorrectly, he has all the right in the world to appeal to the judgement of other Churches. (We see this happening throughout Church history). The problem is that all the members of the Church have one mind in Christ Jesus (St. Paul), so that usually we see these "poor, little, missunderstood souls" convicted by any Church to which appeal was made. (What one particular congregation found heretical and/or sinful the other ones did also ... because the Faith is the same all over).The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-28584568196210239842007-11-04T15:41:00.000-08:002007-11-04T15:41:00.000-08:00No, that's not generally how Orthodox apply this v...No, that's not generally how Orthodox apply this verse. It's not about what the church does, either in entirety, or among clerics.<BR/><BR/>What it's about, from Orthodoxy's point of view, is the right of the local priest to bind (or restrict, or bind by laws) or loose (make free, allow, remove restrictions) in enforcing church canons and discipline<BR/><BR/>And yes, excommunication is one such important issue to bind and loose, in the context, albeit that "whatever you loose" does not restrict itself to only that one issue. The other thing is making a judgement concerning the sins in v15.<BR/><BR/>Of course, it is this very right of the church to excommunicate as an act binding in heaven that makes protestantism not work. Because no protestant is going accept their own excommunication, they are just going to join a different sect of protestantism. When was the last time a protestant accepted an excommunication as an act bound in heaven? Never.<BR/><BR/>It's the very fact that the church has the right, bound in heaven, to judge who is in or out of the church, that gives the Church the right to say that protestants are not in communion with herself.<BR/><BR/>So great, the verse means what you say, proving that protestantism is wrong.orthodoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09445301151975209564noreply@blogger.com