Comments on: Historic. Orthodox. Christianity.

By: TT

TT — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:56:50 +0000

Corey, thank you very much, but there is no need to clarify that the Orthodox are generally wonderful people. Welcome.

By: Corey

Corey — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:50:52 +0000

As an Orthodox Christian, I ask your forgiveness for Seraphim’s comments. That sort of attitude is not Christ-like, and Is not representative of most Orthodox people.

By: W. V. Smith

W. V. Smith — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:30:09 +0000

“I personally think that Mormon historians have too long allowed its history and its views of Christianity to be driven by a dialogue with particular strains of American Protestantism, much of it surrounding these types of questions of norms and orthodoxies.”

My thoughts exactly, Sam.

By: smb

smb — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:36:51 +0000

Nice post.
I’m not usually a fan of theory of religion, but Jonathan Z. Smith has a lot of interesting material on these kinds of issues, ideas about maps and territories and their relationships and the kinds of difference that make things different.
I have a great respect and fondness for the Eastern traditions; this particular Seraphim is not its best public representative.
I personally think that Mormon historians have too long allowed its history and its views of Christianity to be driven by a dialogue with particular strains of American Protestantism, much of it surrounding these types of questions of norms and orthodoxies.

By: Todd Wood

Todd Wood — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:13:53 +0000

I wonder if LDS friends would like to jump into the Manhattan Declaration.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/11/the_manhattan_declaration.html

perhaps it is the counter to this . . .

http://newyorkcity.unitedcor.org/

By: Todd Wood

Todd Wood — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:57:28 +0000

Historic. Orthodox. Christianity.

TT, I do love the sounding ring of all three of these words.

Of course, unorthodox has been historic, too. One can note that by just opening up the KJV Bible on the coffee table, reading both its full preface and then the books (canonical plus apocrypha). 400 years for the English world.

We shall see how the Tradition might be upheld among the English in future days in what they have carried over from the Greek and Latinate locales.

By: Mormon

Mormon — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:34:05 +0000

It appears from #7, that Angel Moroni is now a permablogger here at FPR. While I am surprised that nobody informed me, I am very pleased by this development.

You think you’re surprised? He didn’t even tell his own father. What happened to the patriarchal order?

By: TT

TT — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:06:22 +0000

Dear all,
I probably shouldve deleted Seraphim’s comment but let’s refrain from attacking his religion in response. In fact, let’s just not respond. Sorry for leaving this bait out there.

By: Chris H.

Chris H. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:05:02 +0000

It appears from #7, that Angel Moroni is now a permablogger here at FPR. While I am surprised that nobody informed me, I am very pleased by this development.

By: Rameumptom

Rameumptom — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:36:01 +0000

Sounds like Seraphim does not understand the history of early Christianity.

Was Origen’s writings considered orthodox or heretical? It depends on whether you were quoting him in 275 AD or 500 AD. Eusebius of Caesarea considered himself a follower of Origen, the defender of the “orthodox Christianity”. However, St Augustine later considered Origen a heretic.

I think this is the gist and scope and problem of equating orthodoxy and historic. You cannot tie down orthodox ideas for centuries after Jesus’ death. The Trinity came about in 325 with Nicea’s Council, yet was again rejected and Athanasius exiled not long afterward, but then was reestablished as orthodox by the end of the century.

Not long after that, the Council of Chalcedon was announced to figure out problems with the Trinity – such as the duality of Christ. These were not issues 2 centuries earlier, but were very important in the late 4th century AD.

Even the schism between the Roman and Eastern Churches shows a rift in the “orthodoxy” of the Church. Does the Pope hold all the cards? Or is the Patriarch really the possessor of the ancient priesthood authority?