The one thing that I can say is that the Lord Jesus goes outside of all boundaries and saves people! He goes and reveals himself to people everywhere all over and fills and baptizes people with His Holy Spirit!!
There is no doubt, Rich, that the Lord is working throughout the earth, revealing Himself to all men, in so far as they seek Him and are open to His Word. He calls. Many follow. Yet, following on our own, without being initiated, is not yet the salvation He came to bring (THEOSIS). There are untold numbers of followers of Christ; there are a certain number of disciples, of the initiated, of the purified, illumined, deified. The Holy Spirit works to bring all to salvation, which is Life in Christ, that is in the Church, His Body. But, what is salvation? Where is it found? What are its presuppositions? The Councils and Holy Fathers clearly lay down the boundaries of salvation and they are demarcated by the Holy Mysteries, initiation into the Mystery of Salvation. You speak of the Lord baptizing people with His Holy Spirit. This happened first on Pentecost. This is repeated for each one “being added to the portion of the saved” (Acts) at their baptism, chrismation (in particular) and communion of the Body and Blood of Christ. This is what the Orthodox Church has always taught - since apostolic times until today. Upon the Rock of the Confession of Christ’s divinity, which is not just words but life and experience expressed in both words and deed, the Church is founded. Upon this rock of Pentecost salvation happens. In particular, baptism does not happen apart from initiation, from death and resurrection in the Mystery of Baptism (with water and the Spirit, as recorded in Scripture). Therefore, one can only claim to speak subjectively and personally, without either Scriptural or Patristic authority, of people being baptized with the Holy Spirit apart from initiation into His Body through the Mysteries. This is not to doubt the reality or sincerity of the experiences of those whose lives have been transformed by Christ apart from the Mysteries. This transformation, however, is NOT YET salvation AS CHRIST has brought to the world. It is not yet the fullness of what He has planned for each one of us (if it is apart from the Mysteries). That is how GREAT His salvation Is! THEOSIS - being transfigured and becoming all aflame with the Holy Spirit as seen in the Lives of the Saints happens only within the Body of Christ, the Church. The authenticity of this experience is apparent in the Lives of the Saints. Whoever does not read the Lives of the Saints can easily be deceived.
Thank you for your reply and I wasn't disagreeing. I was just stating that the Lord goes himself to people and reveals himself to them and delivers them on his own. I have walked with the Lord for 20 years and only 3 years ago I found the orthodox church and I am currently attending a orthodox church.
One other question what if I don't want to be a lone ranger ? Or I don't want to do things on my own? Where were my orthodox brother's telling me about the ancient church? A person like myself has a radical life changing encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ where do you go? I studied and searched for 20 years!! Only to find some of what the Lord was teaching me has been taught by the orthodox for 2,000 years. Then when you try to go to a orthodox church you can't find any ! And when you do the church you find speaks Russian! It's not as simple as get in line . Thank the Lord Jesus he has been with me the whole time!
What does a person do if they were received via chrismation and have been in the Orthodox Church for years? I was told I did not need to be re baptized. I only recently became concerned about it. A different priest told me to baptize me now would be an error and would be a denial of all the times I had received the Eucharist. Is our conversation status valid? If not what would someone in this position do?
There are Orthodox Churches which receive converts from Catholicism by chrismation, not baptism. Other OC, like on mount Athos receive converts by baptism. You can ask the bishop to which your OC listens to. This is a matter of ecomomia, depending on how far or how close the denomination one is coming from into Orthodox Church. If you were not christian before, or you were protestant, I think baptism is necesary.
Dear Fr Peter, how would you approach the difficult case of St Isaac the Syrian, recognized since centuries as a great saint by the Orthodox Church, although he was not from the Orthodox Church, but member of the "Church of the East" (= "Nestorian Church"), bishop of Nineveh in Mesopotamia in the VIIth century. It is true he has been condemned by his own Church in a council (along with other syro-oriental mystics) for a mystical theology close to that of the Orthodox Church, but it is well known and proven nowadays (from evidence from the Syriac manuscripts) that he held several heretic statements, among which "apocatastasis", prayer for the demons and a christology infuenced by Theodoros of Mopsueste (condemned in the 5th Ecumenical Council along with origenism), who was the true "official theologian" of the "Nestorian" Church. If we maintain he was a saint, then he is the traditional proof that one can be deified or at least considered as a saint outside of the boundaries of Orthodoxy. (My guess is that St Isaac's canonization has been possible and acceptable only because nothing else was known of him than the greek adaptation of the "Ascetic Discourses", which had modified some parts and details of the Syriac original in order to make the work more readable for the Orthodox monks. Only now are we sure that he was an heretic despite the beauty and depth of his ascetic writings; in this regard we could compare him to Evagrius Ponticus, who has been very important in the monastic literary tradition, but justly condemned for origenism in the 5th Ec. Council, along with Origen, Didymus and Theodoros of Mopsueste).
For our part, we are sure he is not a heretic. The claim that he was a “member of the Nestorian church” is problematic. How and where is this supported? Furthermore, the claim that the writings you mentioned are his is rejected by many here in Greece. There is another writer with the same name who lived later than the Saint to whom these writings are attributed. There is a book on the matter, which, God-willing, we will eventually translate into English. So, no, here he is not accepted as either among the heretics or holding the views attributed to him. Are you aware that St. Paisios addressed this matter in particular and on the basis of spiritual encounters and heavenly visitations rejected the claim he was not Orthodox, or a member of the Nestorian sect.
@@OrthodoxEthos Well I don't claim to know the truth about his case, but I will sure remain cautious for the moment. I hope this will come to light with more tangible evidence, and I would surely be interested about the book you mention! As I said, he has been condemned by the Nestorians (along with Joseph Hazzaya and John of Dalyatha), so he was not recognized by the Church of the East as a saint because of his mystical theology, but did he have for that reason an orthodox faith on every point, it's really hard to say at the moment, especially if one rejects all the Syriac manuscripts attributed to him as "not his". Let's hope St Païsios was rightly inspired on the subject!
@@OrthodoxEthos Dear Fr Peter, could you give me a link or some information about the book you mentioned? I am learning Greek and could maybe try to read it in the original. Thank you!
@@OrthodoxEthos Thank you father! I do not doubt that Paissios is a great saint, but I think it is up to each one's conviction whether he was right on each and every subject he gave his opinion about (and even personal "divine revelations" should be considered cautiously). Saints do not always agree even with one another on some points which pertains to the realm of opinion and personal conviction and not to dogma, and we can admire and respect a saint without considering every word of his as divine revelation and universal truth (St John Chrysostomos might be a good example, and his opinions about some things may not be shared by others who are as saintly as he is). However, the case of St Isaac is closely related, as we have seen, with dogmatic considerations about sanctity, deification and the boundaries of the Church, it is no matter of discipline nor a little detail, so I am inclined to believe Paissios was right (it would relieve me of this confusing doctrinal point which was taught to me by my catechist, that one can be considered saint without being completely orthodox). But I cannot say I know for sure he was right (may St Isaac light my candle as well and confirm us all in the true faith!), for I think even a saint is still a man, and can be wrong sometimes, at least before his death and definitive glorification. PS: after reading the text about Abba Isaac you sent me, I still remain very cautious, for it hides some serious issues (like the fact that the letter supposedly addressed to St Symeon in the VIth century is a resume of the "Letter to Patricius" by jacobite author Philoxenos of Mabbug of which we have the syriac original ; then, that even in the syriac manuscripts of the "Ascetic Homilies" recognized as authentic, there are several mentions of "the Interpret", that is Theodore of Mopsuestia, which all have been of course modified and adapted by the palestinian translators in St-Sabbas, along with other small but characteristic modifications all explainable sometimes by problems of interpretation and comprehension of the Syriac text by the translators, and sometimes by intentional motives, because the original didn't sound very orthodox or was ambiguous ; so that if there really is a "Pseudo-Isaac", there are still evidence of nestorianism in the original Homilies that have been translated into Greek). I still stand that there is a possibility (of which I am not sure nor totally convinced either) that Isaac's canonization has been proclaimed because of the high spiritual value of his ascetic texts, and in total ignorance of his Nestorian background and complete Syriac works (and that is enough to explain that all the holy authors mentioned in the article did all consider Isaac as an orthodox saint, none of them having any knowledge of the Syriac tongue, they just repeated what was told to them, and their appreciation only concerned the Greek version which they could read and was the only available). We can find moreover at least four homilies in the Greek version that are actually by John of Dalyatha, another impressive mystic and hermit condemned along with Isaac by a council of the Church of the East, and whose spiritual texts are of high spiritual value, though they unfortunately were not translated into Greek, unless under the name of Isaac. Those authors were not "plain Nestorians", and have many in common with the orthodox view of asceticism and deification, and they didn't talk too much about theological topics (at least it is not the center of the writings we still possess), so it was easy (and still is), to erase every little difference in theological expression, and render a perfectly acceptable Greek "purified" version (it was, in fact, a common practice, and comprehensible, used also by translators from Greek to Syriac).
on point! I couldn't agree more! May God bless fr. Peter and all those who uphold this sacred truth of our Holy Orthodox Faith!
Hard teachings here. Still, we need to hear this more often.
Thank you, Fr. Peter Heers May God bless you ☦️
Thank you, Father Heers.
Well said! God bless
Amen!
Xristos Anesti Fr. Peter
Amen!! Well said. Thank You so much. May God Bless You!!!!!
🕯
The one thing that I can say is that the Lord Jesus goes outside of all boundaries and saves people! He goes and reveals himself to people everywhere all over and fills and baptizes people with His Holy Spirit!!
There is no doubt, Rich, that the Lord is working throughout the earth, revealing Himself to all men, in so far as they seek Him and are open to His Word. He calls. Many follow. Yet, following on our own, without being initiated, is not yet the salvation He came to bring (THEOSIS). There are untold numbers of followers of Christ; there are a certain number of disciples, of the initiated, of the purified, illumined, deified. The Holy Spirit works to bring all to salvation, which is Life in Christ, that is in the Church, His Body. But, what is salvation? Where is it found? What are its presuppositions? The Councils and Holy Fathers clearly lay down the boundaries of salvation and they are demarcated by the Holy Mysteries, initiation into the Mystery of Salvation. You speak of the Lord baptizing people with His Holy Spirit. This happened first on Pentecost. This is repeated for each one “being added to the portion of the saved” (Acts) at their baptism, chrismation (in particular) and communion of the Body and Blood of Christ. This is what the Orthodox Church has always taught - since apostolic times until today. Upon the Rock of the Confession of Christ’s divinity, which is not just words but life and experience expressed in both words and deed, the Church is founded. Upon this rock of Pentecost salvation happens. In particular, baptism does not happen apart from initiation, from death and resurrection in the Mystery of Baptism (with water and the Spirit, as recorded in Scripture). Therefore, one can only claim to speak subjectively and personally, without either Scriptural or Patristic authority, of people being baptized with the Holy Spirit apart from initiation into His Body through the Mysteries. This is not to doubt the reality or sincerity of the experiences of those whose lives have been transformed by Christ apart from the Mysteries. This transformation, however, is NOT YET salvation AS CHRIST has brought to the world. It is not yet the fullness of what He has planned for each one of us (if it is apart from the Mysteries). That is how GREAT His salvation Is! THEOSIS - being transfigured and becoming all aflame with the Holy Spirit as seen in the Lives of the Saints happens only within the Body of Christ, the Church. The authenticity of this experience is apparent in the Lives of the Saints. Whoever does not read the Lives of the Saints can easily be deceived.
Thank you for your reply and I wasn't disagreeing. I was just stating that the Lord goes himself to people and reveals himself to them and delivers them on his own. I have walked with the Lord for 20 years and only 3 years ago I found the orthodox church and I am currently attending a orthodox church.
One other question what if I don't want to be a lone ranger ? Or I don't want to do things on my own? Where were my orthodox brother's telling me about the ancient church? A person like myself has a radical life changing encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ where do you go? I studied and searched for 20 years!! Only to find some of what the Lord was teaching me has been taught by the orthodox for 2,000 years. Then when you try to go to a orthodox church you can't find any ! And when you do the church you find speaks Russian! It's not as simple as get in line . Thank the Lord Jesus he has been with me the whole time!
What does a person do if they were received via chrismation and have been in the Orthodox Church for years? I was told I did not need to be re baptized. I only recently became concerned about it. A different priest told me to baptize me now would be an error and would be a denial of all the times I had received the Eucharist. Is our conversation status valid? If not what would someone in this position do?
There are Orthodox Churches which receive converts from Catholicism by chrismation, not baptism. Other OC, like on mount Athos receive converts by baptism. You can ask the bishop to which your OC listens to. This is a matter of ecomomia, depending on how far or how close the denomination one is coming from into Orthodox Church.
If you were not christian before, or you were protestant, I think baptism is necesary.
I, personally, think baptism is 100% necessary to 100% who have not recite an Orthodox baptism.
God closed the Kingdom of Heaven and I AM a witness on August 25, 2019! The only way I brought my brother into Kingdom of Heaven is over a wall.
Dear Fr Peter, how would you approach the difficult case of St Isaac the Syrian, recognized since centuries as a great saint by the Orthodox Church, although he was not from the Orthodox Church, but member of the "Church of the East" (= "Nestorian Church"), bishop of Nineveh in Mesopotamia in the VIIth century. It is true he has been condemned by his own Church in a council (along with other syro-oriental mystics) for a mystical theology close to that of the Orthodox Church, but it is well known and proven nowadays (from evidence from the Syriac manuscripts) that he held several heretic statements, among which "apocatastasis", prayer for the demons and a christology infuenced by Theodoros of Mopsueste (condemned in the 5th Ecumenical Council along with origenism), who was the true "official theologian" of the "Nestorian" Church. If we maintain he was a saint, then he is the traditional proof that one can be deified or at least considered as a saint outside of the boundaries of Orthodoxy. (My guess is that St Isaac's canonization has been possible and acceptable only because nothing else was known of him than the greek adaptation of the "Ascetic Discourses", which had modified some parts and details of the Syriac original in order to make the work more readable for the Orthodox monks. Only now are we sure that he was an heretic despite the beauty and depth of his ascetic writings; in this regard we could compare him to Evagrius Ponticus, who has been very important in the monastic literary tradition, but justly condemned for origenism in the 5th Ec. Council, along with Origen, Didymus and Theodoros of Mopsueste).
For our part, we are sure he is not a heretic.
The claim that he was a “member of the Nestorian church” is problematic. How and where is this supported? Furthermore, the claim that the writings you mentioned are his is rejected by many here in Greece. There is another writer with the same name who lived later than the Saint to whom these writings are attributed. There is a book on the matter, which, God-willing, we will eventually translate into English. So, no, here he is not accepted as either among the heretics or holding the views attributed to him. Are you aware that St. Paisios addressed this matter in particular and on the basis of spiritual encounters and heavenly visitations rejected the claim he was not Orthodox, or a member of the Nestorian sect.
@@OrthodoxEthos Well I don't claim to know the truth about his case, but I will sure remain cautious for the moment. I hope this will come to light with more tangible evidence, and I would surely be interested about the book you mention! As I said, he has been condemned by the Nestorians (along with Joseph Hazzaya and John of Dalyatha), so he was not recognized by the Church of the East as a saint because of his mystical theology, but did he have for that reason an orthodox faith on every point, it's really hard to say at the moment, especially if one rejects all the Syriac manuscripts attributed to him as "not his". Let's hope St Païsios was rightly inspired on the subject!
@@OrthodoxEthos Dear Fr Peter, could you give me a link or some information about the book you mentioned? I am learning Greek and could maybe try to read it in the original. Thank you!
www.orthros.eu/2012-09-24-17-08-09/οἰκουμενισμός/188-k-agisaaksyroshtm.html
Do we doubt that St. Paisios was right? I do not.
@@OrthodoxEthos Thank you father! I do not doubt that Paissios is a great saint, but I think it is up to each one's conviction whether he was right on each and every subject he gave his opinion about (and even personal "divine revelations" should be considered cautiously). Saints do not always agree even with one another on some points which pertains to the realm of opinion and personal conviction and not to dogma, and we can admire and respect a saint without considering every word of his as divine revelation and universal truth (St John Chrysostomos might be a good example, and his opinions about some things may not be shared by others who are as saintly as he is). However, the case of St Isaac is closely related, as we have seen, with dogmatic considerations about sanctity, deification and the boundaries of the Church, it is no matter of discipline nor a little detail, so I am inclined to believe Paissios was right (it would relieve me of this confusing doctrinal point which was taught to me by my catechist, that one can be considered saint without being completely orthodox). But I cannot say I know for sure he was right (may St Isaac light my candle as well and confirm us all in the true faith!), for I think even a saint is still a man, and can be wrong sometimes, at least before his death and definitive glorification.
PS: after reading the text about Abba Isaac you sent me, I still remain very cautious, for it hides some serious issues (like the fact that the letter supposedly addressed to St Symeon in the VIth century is a resume of the "Letter to Patricius" by jacobite author Philoxenos of Mabbug of which we have the syriac original ; then, that even in the syriac manuscripts of the "Ascetic Homilies" recognized as authentic, there are several mentions of "the Interpret", that is Theodore of Mopsuestia, which all have been of course modified and adapted by the palestinian translators in St-Sabbas, along with other small but characteristic modifications all explainable sometimes by problems of interpretation and comprehension of the Syriac text by the translators, and sometimes by intentional motives, because the original didn't sound very orthodox or was ambiguous ; so that if there really is a "Pseudo-Isaac", there are still evidence of nestorianism in the original Homilies that have been translated into Greek). I still stand that there is a possibility (of which I am not sure nor totally convinced either) that Isaac's canonization has been proclaimed because of the high spiritual value of his ascetic texts, and in total ignorance of his Nestorian background and complete Syriac works (and that is enough to explain that all the holy authors mentioned in the article did all consider Isaac as an orthodox saint, none of them having any knowledge of the Syriac tongue, they just repeated what was told to them, and their appreciation only concerned the Greek version which they could read and was the only available). We can find moreover at least four homilies in the Greek version that are actually by John of Dalyatha, another impressive mystic and hermit condemned along with Isaac by a council of the Church of the East, and whose spiritual texts are of high spiritual value, though they unfortunately were not translated into Greek, unless under the name of Isaac. Those authors were not "plain Nestorians", and have many in common with the orthodox view of asceticism and deification, and they didn't talk too much about theological topics (at least it is not the center of the writings we still possess), so it was easy (and still is), to erase every little difference in theological expression, and render a perfectly acceptable Greek "purified" version (it was, in fact, a common practice, and comprehensible, used also by translators from Greek to Syriac).