quote:

---

gguskid: "To what end is the believer to be transfigured into (love-lacking murderous types)? And, is that transfiguring work, though standing in stark contrast to a Biblical portrait of the transforming work of the Spirit, reality depicting of Love at work in individuals (past, present and future)?"

---

quote:

---

Perhaps there are two issues to deal with RE: why “LOVE has NOT, and usually IS NOT, the central criteria for our assessing authentic Christrianity (in either Church history OR OURSELVES),” justification and sanctification.

Do you think there is some connection between “transfiguration” and justification or sanctification as far as the quote is concerned?

---

• ...tell me, were the Western and Eastern churches at adds any earlier than the Council of Constantinople (381)?


Al: You mentioned (I looked it up) "Constantinople 1 : 381 : Formulated the Second Part of the Creed, defining the divinity of the Holy Spirit. I wasn't aware of that being important to the split. I know that at a later council, the combined input of St. Cyril (eastern) and the Tome of Leo from the Roman Pope. THAT illustrates how the diversity of the whole church provides a range of perspectives with which to handle real threats.

A more interesting place to begin in looking at controversy is Charlamagne. The Franks produced the fiction that East/West was the natural and right boundary, and that the Latins had been enslaved by the Byzantines. There never were any Byzantines--only Romans. Greeks under Moslem occupation were always called "Romans." The Franks lied. They took the natural linguistic North/South differentiation between Greek (Julius Caesar wrote plays in Greek) next to the Sea and Latin inland (who were brought into the Empire and given citizenship). Charlamagne also took the Spanish Creedal statement of the Spirit being sent by the Son (true), and (shortening the story) turned it into a statement as to the origin of the Spirit from both the Father and the Son ("filoque") THAT is a major, major thing. Such subordination of the Spirit to double-procession subjects not on the Spirit to second-class, but reduces the place of the church (led by the Spirit, Biblically) to being subordinate to the historical bearers of Christ's message (the Bishops). Eventually, you have Papal infalability as a result. THAT is one of the biggest things. And it took more than a hundred years, and an army, to get the Roman Popes to accept a non-representative (no vote) change in the Church's Creed.


• What became the defining moment in history for the great schism between the West and the East?


Al: The excommunication of each by the other, at some date in the 1000s. But the rift was deep long before. You can read on it. Both sides tell a different story. I like reading John Meyendorff's "The Orthodox Church." He did work on the World Council of Churches, Eccumenical work. And he is very fare: warts and all!


• How did the Eastern church fare in terms of persecution from the West?


Al: Rome didn't help when they were being invaded by the Moslems. And then the West came and destroyed their city, raped, killed, etc. That is VERU deep, I guess.


• When people talk about the Church do you think most people understand it to mean Roman Catholic and Protestant with the Eastern church an after thought or even no thought at all?


Al: Ask them. But lots of people I grew up with simply would consider the Orthodox as foreigners, or new comers. Slavs in Pennsylvania were cheep labor in the coal mines. They die, the company would bring home the body and put it on the kitchen floor. And if no son could replace the dad's job, the family had to get out of the company house. Really. To us white people these folks ate strange food, and acted weird. And perhaps were mistaken for Jewish.


• Does the Easter church see itself as coming from the Western church or the Western church breaking from true Christian orthodoxy of the East?


Al: Rome definitely broke off of the whole of the Church. They inserted heresy into the Creed.


• Is there a desire to reconnect with the Western church though ecumenical pursuits?


Al: Yes. And their is progess. But Rome has been shifting towards making power moves, to try to absorb the Orthodox. I really do cringe at stories (true) of Orthodox being very mean to Catholic Churches in Soviet countries. But I'm not personally in a place to judge those who were sold to Rome in geopolitical moves back in Napoleon and Peter the Great's day. My sisterinlaw's church were "Melkite" who were Byzantine Liturgy, but "belonged to Rome." In Ohio, when a Pope died, the altar was draped in black. Everyone wanted to know why. When told that the Pope had died, they all said, "What's that to us; we are not Catholic." They also didn't consider themselves to be Orthodox, as "those" were all Greeks, and not Poles.

What needs to happen, is this. Rome can be the "first among equals." But each part is "autocephalis." (Has their own head.) There can ge bureacracies -- which the world always needs. But it is ONLY the LOCAL Bishop/Pastor who runs the worship of the Church. Not a central head. The Roman's Thomistic theory of the Trinity being based on a Monad of divine attributes and Necessary Being (eather than Personal origins from the Father, sharing yet unique and united) is at play in this.

What will happen... I don't know.


• I might have a few more questions but this should be enough for now. In the meantime I'll continue reading to discover more what I can of the Eastern tradition that seems to be a integral part of your faith. I am truly sincere in my reflective questions to you and would very much appreciate your response.


Al: Thanks.

quote:

---

Does that help?

---