Define "Supremacy"

[Fr_Ambrose]

“invincibly ignorant” comes up when salvation is discussed. Who is to be saved? It is a brief explanation of how someone can be saved without being a member of Christ’s true church, the Catholic Church.

Dear Aris, Sorry for jumping in on a question to Sophia, but I don’t believe we need to develop non-scriptural and non-traditional theories of invincible ignorance to explain how those outside the Church may be saved.

Saint Paul has already told us how it occurs and it has nothing to do with ignorance…

"…for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."
Romans 2:14-16

---

God is the one loveable who is always rejoicing without end in infinite happiness.
~St.Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, died 395

 

[Orthodoc]

[And you stated “when it suited the purpose of Rome to do so.” I guess you selectively failed to read the part of my post which stated that Rome did not initiate the celibacy directive. It was initiated by an Archbishop of the North American territories. I believe this was the proper canonical procedure in the undivided Church, so I do not know what you are ranting and raving about.]

Perhaps you should do a little more reading before making erroneous statements like the above. It was the issuance of two Papal Bulls that came directly from Rome and were geared specifically regulate those eastern rite sui juris churches located in North America. It might have been in response to the complaints of the Latin Rite bishops but it certainly shows that the equallty that is claimed amongst Rome and its sui juris churches is a farce. When push comes to shove, Rome still calls all the shots and when she says ‘Jump’ the sui juris churches still say ‘How high’? The ‘non Latin’ rites will always have to take a back seat to the other rites. And Eatern Rite clergy will always walk in the back of the procession after the superior Latin Rite clergy -

============

1907 The papal bull Ea Semper curtailed the rights of Greek Catholics in the United States. It required that all Ruthenian Clergy be celibate, forbade clergy from administering baptism and chrismation, made the Ruthenian church in the US report directly to Rome rather than to the leaders in Ruthenia and Galacia, mandated that bishops be appointed directly by Rome, required Ruthenian bishops to obtain permission from Latin Rite Bishop before visiting Ruthenian parishes, and allowed Ruthenians wishing to be priests to study at Latin seminaries, but only if they were celibate.

1929 Pope Pius XI issued the bull Cum Data Fuerit, which regulated Greek Catholics in the United States. The bull forbade Greek Catholics from ordaining married men to the priesthood and immigrant married priests from serving parishes in the United States.

===========

Both of these directives from Rome reulsted in the the return to Orthodoxy of thousands or percecuted Uniates.
Orthodoc

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Ugh! Did we have to bring Josephat Kuntsevich into this thread?

[snip]

in those evil times, there is no denying that the hands of Orthodox and Catholics alike were stained with the blood of their fellow men. But for the Pope to proclaim Josephat Kuntsevich a Saint is an endorsement of savagery and murder against the Orthodox.

you still have to get that parting shot to the eye don’t you!

It was either you or Orthodoc who introduced the unia issue, not me. I don’t spring that stuff on someone out of the clear blue during a conversation. But you guys do. You like opening the can of worms, thinking you can embarrass Catholics. Then when you see the other side sees it differently, and can show supporting evidence, you then want to play the victim. The mob of Orthodox killed Josephat. And when Orthodox archbishop Meliteus, a player in Josephat’s murder, converts to Catholicism after the death of Josephat, it really bothered the Orthodox. They had to trash him as well. Your revisionist history of Josephat doesn’t stand up to scrutiny nor logic. The reason Josephat was declared a saint, is because he is. He tried bringing peace between Catholics and Orthodox. And it got him killed. As for the other players in this event, they will be judged on their actions as well.

Now let’s get back to the topic shall we?

 

[Orthodoc]

[It was either you or Orthodoc who introduced the unia issue, not me. I don’t spring that stuff on someone out of the clear blue during a conversation. But you guys do. You like opening the can of worms, thinking you can embarrass Catholics. Then when you see the other side sees it differently, and can show supporting evidence, you then want to play the victim. ]

Actually the subject of the Unia came up as a reply to the ridiculous claim the the Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian entity in the world and it was all accomplished through evangelization rather than ‘sheep stealing’. [See Post #237]

Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of both the Unia and how and why Latin Patriachates were set up in predominately Orthodox lands as a result of the crusades, will not let such a ludicrous claim go unanswered! Especially since the RCC has been sheep stealing from the Orthodox Catholic Church for over a thousand years.

It seems that when you run out of ammo both Fr Ambrose and myself become the object of slander for defending our faith and correcting erroneous statements.

And what supporting evidence? All we have seen so far is a rewrite of history with no factual evidence to back it up other than a claim another Orthodox bishop converted after the death of Kuntsevitch! You have yet to prove that the letter to Kuntsevitch by the Roman Catholic governor at the time doesn’t exist or is a forgery.

Your first insinuation was that the Orthodox were angry because so many were converting to the RCC when in fact the exact opposite was taking place. People were returning back to the faith that was made illegal by the Roman Catholic government. It was a result of the Poles lifting the edict making the Orthodox Church illegal so they could have the support of the Cossacks against the Turks.

[The church there was literally and figuratively in ruins with buildings falling apart, clergy marrying two or three times, and monks and clergy everywhere not really interested in pastoral care or model Christian living. Within three years, Josaphat had rebuilt the church by holding synods, publishing a catechism to be used all over, and enforcing rules of conduct for clergy.]

Ever to stop and ask yourself why the Orthodox Churches and seminaries were is such deplorable condition? If you did, you would find your first clue in the following article contained in the Union of Brest -

Article 17:—Inasmuch as we have lost the possession of many ecclesiastical properties, some of which our predecessors alienated by rights other than the free administration of these goods during their personal lives,* so that we find ourselves in such want and poverty that we cannot provide satisfactorily for the needs of the churches, and indeed we ourselves scarcely have the means of subsistence, we require that these properties be returned to our churches.* If anyone has legitimately acquired the lifetime usufruct of any ecclesiastical benefice, let him be obliged to pay an annual rent to the Church, and upon his death let the benefice revert to the Church. Such a benefice shall not be granted to anyone without the consent of the bishop and his chapter. Every benefice to which the Church presently has title is to be recorded in the Gospel Books, even if the Church does not exercise any control over some benefices. In that way they will at least belong indisputably to the Church. With this accomplished, the Church can then undertake to regain those benefices which have been alienated at an earlier time.

One has to take into consideration that at the time the churches as well as the theological institutions were all paid for and supported by the governament Even the salaries of the clergy were paid by the governemnet. Once the new Roman Catholic government took over in Orthodox lands it began to undermine the Orthodox Church by failing to monetarily support both the churches and seminaries while they remained Orthodox. Which resulted in a deterioration of both. They even had the final say over who would enter the seminaries. Allowing many who were not sincere in becoming priests but rather just being taught to read and write. Once the Unia was implemented Kuntsevitch had the monetray support of the governmant to accomplish his tasks. If he was so wonderful and beloved & bringing peace to the Orthodox & Catholics, how come he caused riots whenever he went out?

Once again, all one has to do is read the 33 articles and use some common sense to be able to see what life was like being an Orthodox in RC conquered lands. And ask why such a saintly man was so hated by some of his own people.

Orthodoc

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

you still have to get that parting shot to the eye don’t you! …

You like opening the can of worms, thinking you can embarrass Catholics.

I think it was you who opened the can of worms when you mentioned Josaphat Kuntsevich - “Josaphat was a voice of peace in this dissent.”

Mentioning Kuntsevich in Orthodox company has the same effect as mentioning Hitler among the Jews.

 

[HagiaSophia]

GAssisi:

Dear Hagia Sophia,

I did not go to a Catholic school, but was brought up Protestant. May I inquire as to the relevance? I am not easily jostled, so don’t worry.

God bless,

Greg

As I think I already mentioned, there is a distinct difference in “style” towards posters of other faiths and I assumed that you had not had a Catholic education and just inquired about it.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Aris:

Dear HagiaSophia,

“invincibly ignorant” comes up when salvation is discussed. Who is to be saved? It is a brief explanation of how someone can be saved without being a member of Christ’s true church, the Catholic Church. For purposes of better apologetics, and so that I may not turn off others when my purpose is to get them back to the fold, how do i phrase invincibly ignorant in better terms?

When discussing apologetics with people - one has to consider that more than written documents, or static theological definitions are involved. It’s called being pastoral. Every priest and deacon will understand exactly what I mean by that. We speak of our “sister churches”…how would you talk to your “:sister”?

And I thank Fr., Ambrose for St. Paul which came immediately to mind but he saved me the trouble of scouring all over for it - that’s one of the best ones, but here’s another which accents the “pastoral” expression of our feelings toward the Orthodox as written by a very well known Catholic of the Roman Rite…

"…Christ calls all his disciples to unity . My earnest desire is to renew this call today, to propose it once more with determination, repeating what I said at the Roman Colosseum on Good Friday 1994, at the end of the meditation on the Via Cruces prepared by my Venerable Brother Bartholomew, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. There I stated that believers in Christ, united in following in the footsteps of the martyrs, cannot remain divided. If they wish truly and effectively to oppose the world’s tendency to reduce to powerlessness the Mystery of Redemption, they must profess together the same truth about the Cross. 1 The Cross! An anti- Christian outlook seeks to minimize the Cross, to empty it of its meaning, and to deny that in it man has the source of his new life. It claims that the Cross is unable to provide either vision or hope. Man, it says, is nothing but an earthly being, who must live as if God did not exist.

" …No one is unaware of the challenge which all this poses to believers. They cannot fail to meet this challenge. Indeed, how could they refuse to do everything possible, with God’s help, to break down the walls of division and distrust, to overcome obstacles and prejudices which thwart the proclamation of the Gospel of salvation in the Cross of Jesus, the one Redeemer of man, of every individual?

**Nevertheless, besides the doctrinal differences needing to be resolved, Christians cannot underestimate the burden of long-standing misgivings inherited from the past, and of mutual misunderstandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse. Consequently, the commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the conversion of hearts and upon prayer, which will also lead to the necessary purification of past memories **. With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lord’s disciples, inspired by love, by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, are called to re-examine together their painful past and the hurt which that past regrettably continues to provoke even today. All together, they are invited by the ever fresh power of the Gospel to acknowledge with sincere and total objectivity the mistakes made and the contingent factors at work at the origins of their deplorable divisions. What is needed is a calm, clear-sighted and truthful vision of things, a vision enlivened by divine mercy and capable of freeing people’s minds and of inspiring in everyone a renewed willingness, precisely with a view to proclaiming the Gospel to the men and women of every people and nation…"

Without one pejorative, speaking great truth, without name calling, without a finger pointing - he said it all. This is what we are called to do.

I suggest to all members of this little group in this little corner of this one forum that the goal has been set, the mission outlined and the instruction given…it then behooves us I think rather than trying to “one up” the other, to “score the point” insert the stiletto, twist the phrase, to keep the words in mind, of one who has written the above reminding us of the wish of God himself, and perhaps we can by the way we treat one another , start that “purification of memory”, help erase those predjudices and LISTEN to one another in the spirit of those words.

As Greeley tells us, our expressions of religion and faith are our stories, they are the stories of our peoples, our nations, our churches and the journey we have made together through time since the Ascension. Each of our peoples, each of our churches will have a different view of those stories but they belong to all of us. We have an opportunity in our living history to right what went so wrong and help implement the greatest healing since Christ and His apostles walked the earth.The choice is ours to make.

 

[Aris]

Well said and of course well noted.

However, are you saying that “invincible ignorance” is not to be used when explaining how those outside the Church is saved?

 

[GAssisi]

Dear All,

I am presently not at liberty to give the quotes because I am writing a book with a friend defending the Catholic Faith. One of the topics is “invincible ignorance” and we have given a rather complete list of biblical and patristic proofs for this universal Catholic principle of the undivided Church. For now, let me give you just a few of the extra-biblical sources we have discovered that have supported the principle of invincible ignorance:

St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Hilary, St. John Damascene, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bellarmine, Vatican I, Pius IX, etc., etc., etc., etc. ,etc.

Our book also contains a refutation of attempts to use St. Augustine as proof against the principle of invincible ignorance.

As to the biblical proof, I feel more free to discuss it, since the Bible is public record. First of all, Father, your citation from Romans doesn’t prove a thing. Note that St. Paul says that these people who are not honoring God “KNEW GOD.” How you can apply this as an argument against the principle of invincible ignorance is illogical.

Please suffer the following presentation which allows a more contextual reading of ALL of Scripture:

In the Old Testament, there is a definite distinction made between acts committed in ignorance as opposed to those which are done in full knowledge. For instance:

If he touches human uncleanness, of whatever sort the uncleanness may be with which one becomes unclean, and it is hidden from him, when he comes to know it he shall be guilty. Or if any one utters with his lips a rash oath to do evil or to do good, any sort of rash oath that men swear, if it is hidden from him, when he comes to know it he shall in any of these be guilty. (Lev 5:3,4)

The fourth chapter of Leviticus is a record of the provisions made for sins done “unwittingly,” by priest, congregation, or ruler. Again, in Numbers, we have this distinction:

You shall have one law for him who does anything unwittingly, for him who is native among the people of Israel, and for the stranger who sojourns among them. But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the Lord, and has broken his commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him. (Num 15:29-31)

This passage expressively captures the very essence of the principle of invincible ignorance.

(continued)

 

[GAssisi]

(continued)

In the New Testament, Jesus himself tells the Pharisees, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (Jn 9:39-41). And again, speaking to His Apostles, “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin … If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father” (Jn 15:22, 24). St. Peter declares, “And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. But what God foretold by the mouths of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he thus fulfilled. Repent, therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord”(Ac 3:17). Not knowing Christ is itself a sin worthy of condemnation, but here Peter excuses his audience because of their ignorance. But now that Christ has come, they should confess all their sins in the presence of the Lord. The plural “sins” here indicates that St. Peter is not referring to the one sin of not knowing Christ, but other sins, probably of a moral nature. This implies that the condition of not knowing Christ in invincible ignorance is not itself condemnable. St James exhorts, “Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” (Jm 4:17). St. Paul also says in his speech to the Athenians, “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent” (Ac 17:30). Again, Paul definitely assigns the guilt of unbelief only to those who have heard and then rejected:

For a man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved … But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? … So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ. But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have; for ‘Their voice has gone out to all th earth, and their words to the ends of the world’ … Again, I ask, did Israel not understand?”(Rom 10:10-21)

Here, Paul even implies that understanding is a key element to culpability, not just the fact of hearing.

Non-Catholic Christians deny the principle of invincible ignorance to their detriment, not only because they are neglecting Sacred Tradition (which includes Holy Scripture), but also because it causes them to hurl judgments on others whom they have no right to judge. It is also evident that the only Church which adheres to the principle of invincible ignorance is that Church which has remained faithful to the apostolic and patristic faith.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

Non-Catholic Christians deny the principle of invincible ignorance to their detriment, not only because they are neglecting Sacred Tradition (which includes Holy Scripture), but also because it causes them to hurl judgments on others whom they have no right to judge

Oh dear, certainly not. I feel this is an unsustainable assertion. Not having a doctrine of invincible ignorance does not cause people to hurl judgements…

The Orthodox position can be quickly summed up in the words of a Russian theologian…

**"Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and … does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day. **

**"**The Church on earth judges for herself only, according to the grace of the Spirit, and the freedom granted her through Christ, inviting also the rest of mankind to the unity and adoption of God in Christ; but upon those who do not hear her appeal she pronounces no sentence, knowing the command of her Saviour and Head, “not to judge another man’s servant” (Rom. 14. 4)."
**
**(Alexei Khomiakov, “The Church is One”)

This essay is at
orthodoxphotos.com/readings/one/visible.shtml
and also
westernorthodox.com/khomiakov

---

God is the one loveable who is always rejoicing without end in infinite happiness.
~St.Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, died 395

 

[HagiaSophia]

Aris:

Well said and of course well noted.
However, are you saying that “invincible ignorance” is not to be used when explaining how those outside the Church is saved?

When one is talking in strict theological terms or definitions; invincible ignorance is certainly known and defined. However most of our talking is with people and so we don’t usually tell them they are “heretics” or that what they are saying is “blasphemy” - or when sinners come to repent, the priest doesn’t call them apostates or recalcitrant offenders, even though we sin and sin again.

I don’t recall the last 3-4 popes in all the discussions they’ve had speaking in theological definitions to other faiths they are dealing with. And the same is true of the other faiths - I don’t think any of the patriarchs have said to John Paul - well you’re just a Romanist heretic so what can you know. By ridding ourselves of these confrontational issues in our dealings with one another, we have found surprisingly that we have much in common with one another, we speak to each other at very high levels of church management, we visit one another, we participate together trying to find ways to share our commonality, our faith and I think people do not take the pope seriously when he talks about what will happen to us all, if we do not come together as a Christian family and change the world.

IOW the words of God " that they all may be one" was not just a suggestion–I think it goes much deeper than that.

I believe the future is going to be full of some very grave issues and the Christan family must stand together with those even of non-Christian traditions in the common fight for the human soul and the right to express that spiritual part of itself or we shall all be lost and consigned in a secular world to irrelevance.

It is similar to talking medicine at a medical convention - you use terminology which is tekkie - when you are talking a patient’s condition outside of the medical field, you leave that jargon go and you talk in terms that others can understand and can accept. You also put an emphasis on feeling, on the understanding and compassion for the patient. You don’'t just shove medical dissertations on his illness into his hand.

For example, by definition I am a papist; one who follows the Pope. Yet it is a pejorative term and if a Protestant said to me, well you’re just a papist, I can tell you I wouldn’t take it too kindly.

Jesus uses the parable with His audiences, why? Because they are great storytellers and it was the vehicle of His time of how to get a point across. He never stood up and announced, all of you are heretics–I’m here to found Christianity - you’d better join or you’re all going to burn. He let His life unfold in incremental stages, He brings the Apostles slowly into “changed men” (I grant you a tongue of fire. a roaring wind, and a charismatic “happening” is pretty convincing stuff) but He brings them along together. What happens when He leaves, fights break out, disagreements occur, but somehow they keep it together, the first Christian congregation. We need to do the same and if we move carefully, kindly and slowly enough no one will be left behind.

If we do not, I fear we shall answer for it here on earth in ways we cannot yet imagine and in heaven as well. It bears out what He tells us are the two Great Commandments: Love God and love one another. If we truly love God, we shall surely love one another.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

Alexei Khomiakov’s explanation sounds pretty Catholic to me; it is about “invincible ignorance” by any other name. One thing you might not realize about invincible ignorance is that the Catholic Church does not say WHO is invincibly ignorant. There are conditions set down for its determination, but only God knows if those conditions are being met. Khomiakov’s explanation boils down to the same thing. When was the first time this idea was proposed in the Orthodox Church? The Catholic Church has been teaching it continuously and explicitly since biblical times. Is the Orthodox Church finally coming around to the fullness of the faith?

Dear Hagia Sophia,

Regarding the use of the word “heretic.” Except for a very few Catholics (who have been chided – I haven’t seen Catholics use that word for a while) only the Orthodox on this board have felt free to use the word “heretic” to describe the other party, while putting down the Catholic reason for not calling Orthodox “heretics.”

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

Alexei Khomiakov’s explanation sounds pretty Catholic to me; it is about “invincible ignorance” by any other name. One thing you might not realize about invincible ignorance is that the Catholic Church does not say WHO is invincibly ignorant. There are conditions set down for its determination, but only God knows if those conditions are being met. Khomiakov’s explanation boils down to the same thing. When was the first time this idea was proposed in the Orthodox Church? The Catholic Church has been teaching it continuously and explicitly since biblical times. Is the Orthodox Church finally coming around to the fullness of the faith

“Is the Orthodox Church finally coming around to the fulness of the faith?” sounds very supercilious to me but I am sure you did not mean it that way.

But to say that the Orthodox teaching has been taught continuously in the Roman Catholic Church took me very much by surprise. After all, although you must not be aware of them, it is not difficult to draw upon numerous statements from the Popes through the centuries which declare that salvation is impossible outside the Roman Catholic Church. The Feeneyite teaching did not spring out of thin air. Admittedly this teaching has done a 180 degree since Vatican II but it is all the same the more enduring teaching which was paramount in the Roman Catholic Church for most of the 1000 years of its existence.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

Regarding the use of the word “heretic.” Except for a very few Catholics (who have been chided – I haven’t seen Catholics use that word for a while) only the Orthodox on this board have felt free to use the word “heretic” to describe the other party, while putting down the Catholic reason for not calling Orthodox “heretics.”

Yes, there is a difference of usage here and we are aware of it.

The Orthodox use the word in its original sense - of someone who adheres to an incorrect belief, to a belief which is not part of the Catholic faith, to a belief which cuts him off from the faith and the Church. It does not have the emotive connotations for us which it can have for Western Christians who have sometimes waged wars because of heresies. The word stirs up bad memories. The Orthodox do not cringe so much when they hear the word. It is more ‘clinical’ for them and it has less emotional impact.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

I really wish I could demonstrate to you here the continuity of Catholic teaching on invincible ignorance, but I need to keep it under wraps for the sake of the book my friend and I are writing.

Needless to say, you have so very often maligned the principle of invincible ignorance that I truly doubt you can claim the Orthodox have been teaching this idea (if not in name) continuously. As I requested before, which I insist on now, can you please indicate the earliest date – AFTER 1054 – that you find the Orthodox teaching the Catholic truth so well expressed by Khomiakov: “The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day.”

God bless,

Greg

 

[steve_b]

HagiaSophia:

Jesus uses the parable with His audiences, why? Because they are great storytellers and it was the vehicle of His time of how to get a point across.

There’s another reason as well.

Mt 13
10The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”

11He replied, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has, will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “ ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’a] 16But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it. 18“Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. 22The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. 23But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”

 

[HagiaSophia]

steve b:

But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”

Which I believe bears out my point. I am particularly fond of: "Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal "

Our churches could all benefit from a “great healing” and it will come only when we meet Jesus’ wish to do what it takes to get it.

 

[steve_b]

GAssisi:

As I requested before, which I insist on now, can you please indicate the earliest date – AFTER 1054 – that you find the Orthodox teaching the Catholic truth so well expressed by Khomiakov: “The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day.”

God bless,

Greg

Christianity didn’t reach Russia till 988. This would be the earliest date Russia made a contribution to Christianity.

 

[steve_b]

HagiaSophia:

Our churches could all benefit from a “great healing”

I agree.