OrthodoxWiki - User contributions [en]

OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza

2007-02-19T10:46:47Z

Mircea Romania:

In a monastery, a '''[[refectory|trapeza]]''' (or ''refectory''), is the dining hall where monks and pilgrims gather for food and conversation. The OrthodoxWiki trapeza serves as the main discussion point for our website. Please feel free to join in - ask anything, suggest an idea, make a comment. We're glad to have you here. For other, more specifically designated discussion pages, check out the [[OrthodoxWiki:Community Portal|Community Portal]]. [[Category:OrthodoxWiki]]

* [[OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza/Archive 1|Archive 1]], Feb - Dec 2005 (formerly the [http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=OrthodoxWiki:Anything_Goes&oldid=22917 Anything Goes] page)
* [[OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza/Archive 2|Archive 2]], Feb 2005 - Aug 2006 (formerly the [http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=OrthodoxWiki:Questions&oldid=37973 Questions] page)
* [[OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza/Archive 2|Archive 3]], Oct 2005 - Aug 2006 (moved from [http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=37962 Talk:Main Page])

<center>
{| style="border: solid 1px #aaaaaa"
|'''[http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza&action=edit&section=new Add new post]'''
|}
</center>

== Orthodox Dictionary ==

English - Russian - Greek - Romanian - Finnish - Swedish
-> http://www.ortodoksi.net/dict/search.php
[[User:HAP|HAP]] 00:47, January 5, 2007 (PST)

==Barnstar==
'''Asserted:''' We need to have an OrthodoxWiki [[w:Wikipedia:Barnstars|barnstar]]. —[[User:ASDamick|Dcn. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] 20:06, August 16, 2006 (CDT)
:Go for it! — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

==Project Ideas==
Check out the discussion of project ideas at [[OrthodoxWiki:Project Ideas]].

==The Real Presence==

How about a discussion of the real Presence according to Orthodoxy? It is hard to find good articles on this important topic online, and [[Eucharist]] is too brief in this regard. [[User:Willibald|Willibald]] 23:59, August 23, 2006 (CDT)

==Interwiki==
Hello, I would like to request someone to put in [[MediaWiki:Recentchangestext]] the relevant interwiki '''<nowiki>[[bg:Специални:Recentchanges]]</nowiki>''' to the bulgarian recent changes special page. Thanks.
:P.S. And... I would like to make a proposal: [[:metawikipedia:DPLforum|this extension]] acts like a forum inside the wiki and is better for discussions. [[User:Gregg|Gregg]] 17:38, August 26, 2006 (CDT)
:I've added the interwiki link and installed the forum extension. Haven't tested it out, but let's try it and see how it works. There's a sample forum [http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Index here]. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])
::More help about the forum can be found [http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Forums here]. --[[User:Gregg|Gregg]] 00:59, August 31, 2006 (CDT)
[[Category:OrthodoxWiki]]
[[bg:Project:Трапеза]]

== Language Boxes ==

Anyone interested in porting over some of the language templates (the boxes that indicate user proficiency) from Wikipedia? It might be helpful in identifying people re: the various localizations. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

:I have started to do just that. Here is my personal [[User:Hellenica/Babel|"Babel project"]] with some of the work I've been attempting. I suppose recent changes and my user contributions would also provide a similar look. I hope the progress is satisfactory. [[User:Hellenica|Hellenica]] 21:46, November 30, 2006 (PST)

::I'm definitely liking these wikipedia imports, Hellenica. The language boxes are extremely useful (Spanish, anyone?), and the personal user ones are just fun.[[User:Gabriela|Gabriela]] 20:49, December 1, 2006 (PST)

== Cathedral of St. Petersburg, Russia ==

I've looked throughout the interweb and I simply can't find any place that says what the main cathedral of St. Petersburg is. Is it the Transfiguration? Kazan? I would think St. Isaac's would be "it" but non confirmation. Any help?

~N

*This may not be true today, but in the late Soviet days (1988, when I visited the city) when the present Partriarch Alexei was the diocesan bishop in, then, Leningrad he held services in Trinity Cathedral (the one recently damaged by fire) in the Alexander Nevesky Monastery, Lavra. Then, the Kazan Cathedral was a museum and St Issac's was closed. [[User:Wsk|Wsk]] 12:16, December 3, 2006 (PST)

*It appears to be Kazansky cathedral, re-open in 1998: http://www.kazansky-spb.ru

*Yes, the St. Petersburg Cathedral in honor of the Kazan' icon of the Mother God is the diocesan cathedral according to the Russian "Orthodox Encyclopedia" (http://ezh.sedmitza.ru/index.html?did=64, data up to 2004, with updates since then). The same is listed at the diocesan page on the "Drevo" online encyclopedia (http://drevo.pravbeseda.ru/index.php?id=607).

==Romanian speakers: pls help ro.orthodoxwiki.org project==
If you speak Romanian, please help also [http://ro.orthodoxwiki.org/ ro.orthodoxwiki.org] - Fr.Julian

Dacă vorbiţi româneşte, nu ezitaţi să daţi o mână de ajutor şi proiectului ro: [http://ro.orthodoxwiki.org/ ro.orthodoxwiki.org] - p.iulian [[User:Inistea|Inistea]] 14:30, December 7, 2006 (PST)

== WikEd editing tool ==

I've recently been using the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cacycle/wikEd WikEd tool] on Wikipedia, with success. The author says it should work on other wikis running the latest WikiMedia software, which I know we do. Can someone with more technical knowledge than I take a gander at the page and let me know if the tool would work here? Thanks. --[[User:Cholmes75|cholmes75]] 08:13, December 20, 2006 (PST)

: I just installed it (using the instructions on the page linked above), and it works just fine. For now, just paste the entire code into your User:username/monobook.js page. I don't see any reason why we can't make a template, as they have on en.wikipedia, but someone with more Wiki experience (and probably more authorization, possibly [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]]) needs to make that happen. --[[User:Basil|Basil]] 06:37, January 5, 2007 (PST)

== Orthodox Understanding of the the date of the Last Supper ==

I understnad that most Orthodox theologians, as do I, follow the Gospel of John and do not consider the Last Supper a Passover Meal. If I understand correctly, one of the consequences of this understanding is the fact that leavened bread is used in the Eucharist in the Orthodox church. Are there other consequences, results, etc. of this understanding? It seems to me that the Synoptics agree with John, but have been misinterpreted.

I am writing an article on the date of the Last Supper, i.e., was it the Passover Meal (night beginning Nisan 15)or was it the night before (night beginning Nisan 14)? Apart from, or maybe along with, textual consideradions, the way the early Greek-speaking church understood the Supper must, it seems to me, be taken into consideration.

Not using unleavened bread points in that direction. Are there other things? I would be interested in orientation in this general area.

Note: I am 81, Ph.D. from Vanderbilt in 1963 in Biblical Studies, and speak English, Spanish and French. I would appreciate knowing about any relevant articles in any of these languages.

Thanks for any help. James M. Beaty

Hows does one use the talk page to reply to another user? Thanks.

== Uncategorized Images ==

Hello,
I was wondering why in the uncategorized picture section of OrthodoxWiki there is pictures of the Pope? He does not relate to the studies or teaching of Orthodoxy ( At least not to my knowledge ). I know that there have been talks to try and create a greater friendship with the catholics and the Pope. But I still do not think there should be a picture of him on a Orthodox site. I am only 18 and I'm still trying to understand my religion more and I think people might get the wrong impression if they see the Pope on the OrthodoxWiki site. Am I wrong to ask this? Because on a earlier post I noticed that Dcn. Andrew said "OrthodoxWiki is dedicated to Orthodox Christianity." Thanks.

P.S.
This is a great website and I learn allot from it.

== When does a hierarch begin his tenure? ==

According to the canons of the Orthodox Church, at which point does a hierarch ascend his cathedra? That is, if he is elected by the flock of his diocese/metropolia/autonomous Church (where such elections are provided for) is he already considered to occupy his see? Or, will he assume his post only after his election is confirmed by the hierarchal superiors? Or esle, will he do so only after the enthronement ceremony (where such is provided for)? In different lists of hierarchs I have seen different dates marking the beginning of their tenure.

I thank You for Your attention and ask, if possible, to advise Church texts to confirm this point.

== terminology ==

The term "Oriental Orthodox" is problematic, since it seems like a euphemism designed to avoid the term "Monophysite." The word "Oriental" really means "Eastern" so the term does not really distinguish the two sides of the debate. Also, the use of the word "Orthodox" implies an acceptance of the Orthodoxy of the non-Chalcedonians, which has still not been agreed upon by a consensus within the (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Church. I know that the term "Monophysite" is considered offensive by the non-Chalcedonians. Unfortunately the term "Miaphysite," coined by some to replace it, is a neologism that just doesn't work in the original Greek (would "miagamous" do as a replacement for "monogamous"?) and, in my opinion, serves to obscure the real ground of difference that still seems to separate the two sides. Since OrthodoxWiki is supposed to have a "mainstream Chalcedonian bias," wouldn't the terms "Chalcedonian" and "non-Chalcedonian" or "anti-Chalcedonian" be more appropriate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Mariner|Mariner]] ([[User talk:Mariner|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mariner|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.

:Hi [[User:Mariner|Mariner]], please sign you posts with three tildes, so we can know who is talking - thanks.
:In my understanding, the term "monophysite" is not just offensive, it's inaccurate."Anti-Chalcedonian" may be correct as a historical reference, but perhaps not as a theological descriptor. "Non-Chalcedonian" would probably be the preferred term in my mind. "Oriental Orthodox" is generally understood, and does not, I think, cause much confusion. It also seems to be the preferred self-designation of the non-Chalcedonian groups. I don't have a problem granting them that name here. I do not think we need to go heresy hunting. Let us set forth our Chalcedonian understanding of Christology. If they can accept what we mean by this (and WHOM we mean by this), I think we are well on the way towards reunion. We may grant that language issues and imperial politics had a role to play in the division.
:If you could document statements by non-Chalcedonian bishops and theologians who would consider Chalcedonian Christology heretical, I think we'd have more to go on in our conversation (and perhaps some of the non-Chalcedonian folks would like to chime in too). — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

==Why I am Orthodox==
I made a page when anyone can write some phrases to show why he is Orthodox (what is for he more atractive in Orthodoxy), why he haven't chosen an other belief (what aspects that he didn't like it has and it is absent in our religion), or, simply, some beautiful thought from his soul, concerning the Orthodoxy.

The advantage of this page is that '''there is not needing to wait a special state to write an article. Becouse each of us have such thought in mind and we have only to insert them here. This requires only a few minutes''' (If we have more complex thought, we are creating our new page!)

So, the page could become an '''ode to Orthodoxy''', poem in which anyone can contribute and find something good for his soul.

At the end of page there are useful links that points to sites that promotes the Orthodoxy values.

The page is named [[Why I am Orthodox... And not Protestant, Catholic, Budist, etc. Live Apologetics]]

[[User:Mircea Romania|Mircea Romania]] 02:46, February 19, 2007 (PST)

OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza

2007-02-19T10:45:02Z

Mircea Romania:

In a monastery, a '''[[refectory|trapeza]]''' (or ''refectory''), is the dining hall where monks and pilgrims gather for food and conversation. The OrthodoxWiki trapeza serves as the main discussion point for our website. Please feel free to join in - ask anything, suggest an idea, make a comment. We're glad to have you here. For other, more specifically designated discussion pages, check out the [[OrthodoxWiki:Community Portal|Community Portal]]. [[Category:OrthodoxWiki]]

* [[OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza/Archive 1|Archive 1]], Feb - Dec 2005 (formerly the [http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=OrthodoxWiki:Anything_Goes&oldid=22917 Anything Goes] page)
* [[OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza/Archive 2|Archive 2]], Feb 2005 - Aug 2006 (formerly the [http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=OrthodoxWiki:Questions&oldid=37973 Questions] page)
* [[OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza/Archive 2|Archive 3]], Oct 2005 - Aug 2006 (moved from [http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=37962 Talk:Main Page])

<center>
{| style="border: solid 1px #aaaaaa"
|'''[http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza&action=edit&section=new Add new post]'''
|}
</center>

== Orthodox Dictionary ==

English - Russian - Greek - Romanian - Finnish - Swedish
-> http://www.ortodoksi.net/dict/search.php
[[User:HAP|HAP]] 00:47, January 5, 2007 (PST)

==Barnstar==
'''Asserted:''' We need to have an OrthodoxWiki [[w:Wikipedia:Barnstars|barnstar]]. —[[User:ASDamick|Dcn. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] 20:06, August 16, 2006 (CDT)
:Go for it! — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

==Project Ideas==
Check out the discussion of project ideas at [[OrthodoxWiki:Project Ideas]].

==The Real Presence==

How about a discussion of the real Presence according to Orthodoxy? It is hard to find good articles on this important topic online, and [[Eucharist]] is too brief in this regard. [[User:Willibald|Willibald]] 23:59, August 23, 2006 (CDT)

==Interwiki==
Hello, I would like to request someone to put in [[MediaWiki:Recentchangestext]] the relevant interwiki '''<nowiki>[[bg:Специални:Recentchanges]]</nowiki>''' to the bulgarian recent changes special page. Thanks.
:P.S. And... I would like to make a proposal: [[:metawikipedia:DPLforum|this extension]] acts like a forum inside the wiki and is better for discussions. [[User:Gregg|Gregg]] 17:38, August 26, 2006 (CDT)
:I've added the interwiki link and installed the forum extension. Haven't tested it out, but let's try it and see how it works. There's a sample forum [http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Index here]. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])
::More help about the forum can be found [http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Forums here]. --[[User:Gregg|Gregg]] 00:59, August 31, 2006 (CDT)
[[Category:OrthodoxWiki]]
[[bg:Project:Трапеза]]

== Language Boxes ==

Anyone interested in porting over some of the language templates (the boxes that indicate user proficiency) from Wikipedia? It might be helpful in identifying people re: the various localizations. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

:I have started to do just that. Here is my personal [[User:Hellenica/Babel|"Babel project"]] with some of the work I've been attempting. I suppose recent changes and my user contributions would also provide a similar look. I hope the progress is satisfactory. [[User:Hellenica|Hellenica]] 21:46, November 30, 2006 (PST)

::I'm definitely liking these wikipedia imports, Hellenica. The language boxes are extremely useful (Spanish, anyone?), and the personal user ones are just fun.[[User:Gabriela|Gabriela]] 20:49, December 1, 2006 (PST)

== Cathedral of St. Petersburg, Russia ==

I've looked throughout the interweb and I simply can't find any place that says what the main cathedral of St. Petersburg is. Is it the Transfiguration? Kazan? I would think St. Isaac's would be "it" but non confirmation. Any help?

~N

*This may not be true today, but in the late Soviet days (1988, when I visited the city) when the present Partriarch Alexei was the diocesan bishop in, then, Leningrad he held services in Trinity Cathedral (the one recently damaged by fire) in the Alexander Nevesky Monastery, Lavra. Then, the Kazan Cathedral was a museum and St Issac's was closed. [[User:Wsk|Wsk]] 12:16, December 3, 2006 (PST)

*It appears to be Kazansky cathedral, re-open in 1998: http://www.kazansky-spb.ru

*Yes, the St. Petersburg Cathedral in honor of the Kazan' icon of the Mother God is the diocesan cathedral according to the Russian "Orthodox Encyclopedia" (http://ezh.sedmitza.ru/index.html?did=64, data up to 2004, with updates since then). The same is listed at the diocesan page on the "Drevo" online encyclopedia (http://drevo.pravbeseda.ru/index.php?id=607).

==Romanian speakers: pls help ro.orthodoxwiki.org project==
If you speak Romanian, please help also [http://ro.orthodoxwiki.org/ ro.orthodoxwiki.org] - Fr.Julian

Dacă vorbiţi româneşte, nu ezitaţi să daţi o mână de ajutor şi proiectului ro: [http://ro.orthodoxwiki.org/ ro.orthodoxwiki.org] - p.iulian [[User:Inistea|Inistea]] 14:30, December 7, 2006 (PST)

== WikEd editing tool ==

I've recently been using the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cacycle/wikEd WikEd tool] on Wikipedia, with success. The author says it should work on other wikis running the latest WikiMedia software, which I know we do. Can someone with more technical knowledge than I take a gander at the page and let me know if the tool would work here? Thanks. --[[User:Cholmes75|cholmes75]] 08:13, December 20, 2006 (PST)

: I just installed it (using the instructions on the page linked above), and it works just fine. For now, just paste the entire code into your User:username/monobook.js page. I don't see any reason why we can't make a template, as they have on en.wikipedia, but someone with more Wiki experience (and probably more authorization, possibly [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]]) needs to make that happen. --[[User:Basil|Basil]] 06:37, January 5, 2007 (PST)

== Orthodox Understanding of the the date of the Last Supper ==

I understnad that most Orthodox theologians, as do I, follow the Gospel of John and do not consider the Last Supper a Passover Meal. If I understand correctly, one of the consequences of this understanding is the fact that leavened bread is used in the Eucharist in the Orthodox church. Are there other consequences, results, etc. of this understanding? It seems to me that the Synoptics agree with John, but have been misinterpreted.

I am writing an article on the date of the Last Supper, i.e., was it the Passover Meal (night beginning Nisan 15)or was it the night before (night beginning Nisan 14)? Apart from, or maybe along with, textual consideradions, the way the early Greek-speaking church understood the Supper must, it seems to me, be taken into consideration.

Not using unleavened bread points in that direction. Are there other things? I would be interested in orientation in this general area.

Note: I am 81, Ph.D. from Vanderbilt in 1963 in Biblical Studies, and speak English, Spanish and French. I would appreciate knowing about any relevant articles in any of these languages.

Thanks for any help. James M. Beaty

Hows does one use the talk page to reply to another user? Thanks.

== Uncategorized Images ==

Hello,
I was wondering why in the uncategorized picture section of OrthodoxWiki there is pictures of the Pope? He does not relate to the studies or teaching of Orthodoxy ( At least not to my knowledge ). I know that there have been talks to try and create a greater friendship with the catholics and the Pope. But I still do not think there should be a picture of him on a Orthodox site. I am only 18 and I'm still trying to understand my religion more and I think people might get the wrong impression if they see the Pope on the OrthodoxWiki site. Am I wrong to ask this? Because on a earlier post I noticed that Dcn. Andrew said "OrthodoxWiki is dedicated to Orthodox Christianity." Thanks.

P.S.
This is a great website and I learn allot from it.

== When does a hierarch begin his tenure? ==

According to the canons of the Orthodox Church, at which point does a hierarch ascend his cathedra? That is, if he is elected by the flock of his diocese/metropolia/autonomous Church (where such elections are provided for) is he already considered to occupy his see? Or, will he assume his post only after his election is confirmed by the hierarchal superiors? Or esle, will he do so only after the enthronement ceremony (where such is provided for)? In different lists of hierarchs I have seen different dates marking the beginning of their tenure.

I thank You for Your attention and ask, if possible, to advise Church texts to confirm this point.

== terminology ==

The term "Oriental Orthodox" is problematic, since it seems like a euphemism designed to avoid the term "Monophysite." The word "Oriental" really means "Eastern" so the term does not really distinguish the two sides of the debate. Also, the use of the word "Orthodox" implies an acceptance of the Orthodoxy of the non-Chalcedonians, which has still not been agreed upon by a consensus within the (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Church. I know that the term "Monophysite" is considered offensive by the non-Chalcedonians. Unfortunately the term "Miaphysite," coined by some to replace it, is a neologism that just doesn't work in the original Greek (would "miagamous" do as a replacement for "monogamous"?) and, in my opinion, serves to obscure the real ground of difference that still seems to separate the two sides. Since OrthodoxWiki is supposed to have a "mainstream Chalcedonian bias," wouldn't the terms "Chalcedonian" and "non-Chalcedonian" or "anti-Chalcedonian" be more appropriate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Mariner|Mariner]] ([[User talk:Mariner|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mariner|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.

:Hi [[User:Mariner|Mariner]], please sign you posts with three tildes, so we can know who is talking - thanks.
:In my understanding, the term "monophysite" is not just offensive, it's inaccurate."Anti-Chalcedonian" may be correct as a historical reference, but perhaps not as a theological descriptor. "Non-Chalcedonian" would probably be the preferred term in my mind. "Oriental Orthodox" is generally understood, and does not, I think, cause much confusion. It also seems to be the preferred self-designation of the non-Chalcedonian groups. I don't have a problem granting them that name here. I do not think we need to go heresy hunting. Let us set forth our Chalcedonian understanding of Christology. If they can accept what we mean by this (and WHOM we mean by this), I think we are well on the way towards reunion. We may grant that language issues and imperial politics had a role to play in the division.
:If you could document statements by non-Chalcedonian bishops and theologians who would consider Chalcedonian Christology heretical, I think we'd have more to go on in our conversation (and perhaps some of the non-Chalcedonian folks would like to chime in too). — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

==Why I am Orthodox==
I made a page when anyone can write some phrases to show why he is Orthodox (what is for he more atractive in Orthodoxy), why he haven't chosen an other belief (what aspects that he didn't like it has and it is absent in our religion), or, simply, some beautiful thought from his soul, concerning the Orthodoxy.

The advantage of this page is that '''there is not needing to wait a special state to write an article. Becouse each of us have such thought in mind and we have only to insert them here. This require only a few minutes''' (If we have more complex thought, we are creating our new page!)

So, the page could become an '''ode to Orthodoxy''', poem in which anyone can contribute and find something good for his soul.

At the end of page there are useful links that points to sites that promotes the Orthodoxy values.

The page is named [[Why I am Orthodox... And not Protestant, Catholic, Budist, etc. Live Apologetics]]

[[User:Mircea Romania|Mircea Romania]] 02:45, February 19, 2007 (PST)

OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza

2007-02-19T10:43:37Z

Mircea Romania:

In a monastery, a '''[[refectory|trapeza]]''' (or ''refectory''), is the dining hall where monks and pilgrims gather for food and conversation. The OrthodoxWiki trapeza serves as the main discussion point for our website. Please feel free to join in - ask anything, suggest an idea, make a comment. We're glad to have you here. For other, more specifically designated discussion pages, check out the [[OrthodoxWiki:Community Portal|Community Portal]]. [[Category:OrthodoxWiki]]

* [[OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza/Archive 1|Archive 1]], Feb - Dec 2005 (formerly the [http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=OrthodoxWiki:Anything_Goes&oldid=22917 Anything Goes] page)
* [[OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza/Archive 2|Archive 2]], Feb 2005 - Aug 2006 (formerly the [http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=OrthodoxWiki:Questions&oldid=37973 Questions] page)
* [[OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza/Archive 2|Archive 3]], Oct 2005 - Aug 2006 (moved from [http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=37962 Talk:Main Page])

<center>
{| style="border: solid 1px #aaaaaa"
|'''[http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza&action=edit&section=new Add new post]'''
|}
</center>

== Orthodox Dictionary ==

English - Russian - Greek - Romanian - Finnish - Swedish
-> http://www.ortodoksi.net/dict/search.php
[[User:HAP|HAP]] 00:47, January 5, 2007 (PST)

==Barnstar==
'''Asserted:''' We need to have an OrthodoxWiki [[w:Wikipedia:Barnstars|barnstar]]. —[[User:ASDamick|Dcn. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] 20:06, August 16, 2006 (CDT)
:Go for it! — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

==Project Ideas==
Check out the discussion of project ideas at [[OrthodoxWiki:Project Ideas]].

==The Real Presence==

How about a discussion of the real Presence according to Orthodoxy? It is hard to find good articles on this important topic online, and [[Eucharist]] is too brief in this regard. [[User:Willibald|Willibald]] 23:59, August 23, 2006 (CDT)

==Interwiki==
Hello, I would like to request someone to put in [[MediaWiki:Recentchangestext]] the relevant interwiki '''<nowiki>[[bg:Специални:Recentchanges]]</nowiki>''' to the bulgarian recent changes special page. Thanks.
:P.S. And... I would like to make a proposal: [[:metawikipedia:DPLforum|this extension]] acts like a forum inside the wiki and is better for discussions. [[User:Gregg|Gregg]] 17:38, August 26, 2006 (CDT)
:I've added the interwiki link and installed the forum extension. Haven't tested it out, but let's try it and see how it works. There's a sample forum [http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Index here]. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])
::More help about the forum can be found [http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Forums here]. --[[User:Gregg|Gregg]] 00:59, August 31, 2006 (CDT)
[[Category:OrthodoxWiki]]
[[bg:Project:Трапеза]]

== Language Boxes ==

Anyone interested in porting over some of the language templates (the boxes that indicate user proficiency) from Wikipedia? It might be helpful in identifying people re: the various localizations. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

:I have started to do just that. Here is my personal [[User:Hellenica/Babel|"Babel project"]] with some of the work I've been attempting. I suppose recent changes and my user contributions would also provide a similar look. I hope the progress is satisfactory. [[User:Hellenica|Hellenica]] 21:46, November 30, 2006 (PST)

::I'm definitely liking these wikipedia imports, Hellenica. The language boxes are extremely useful (Spanish, anyone?), and the personal user ones are just fun.[[User:Gabriela|Gabriela]] 20:49, December 1, 2006 (PST)

== Cathedral of St. Petersburg, Russia ==

I've looked throughout the interweb and I simply can't find any place that says what the main cathedral of St. Petersburg is. Is it the Transfiguration? Kazan? I would think St. Isaac's would be "it" but non confirmation. Any help?

~N

*This may not be true today, but in the late Soviet days (1988, when I visited the city) when the present Partriarch Alexei was the diocesan bishop in, then, Leningrad he held services in Trinity Cathedral (the one recently damaged by fire) in the Alexander Nevesky Monastery, Lavra. Then, the Kazan Cathedral was a museum and St Issac's was closed. [[User:Wsk|Wsk]] 12:16, December 3, 2006 (PST)

*It appears to be Kazansky cathedral, re-open in 1998: http://www.kazansky-spb.ru

*Yes, the St. Petersburg Cathedral in honor of the Kazan' icon of the Mother God is the diocesan cathedral according to the Russian "Orthodox Encyclopedia" (http://ezh.sedmitza.ru/index.html?did=64, data up to 2004, with updates since then). The same is listed at the diocesan page on the "Drevo" online encyclopedia (http://drevo.pravbeseda.ru/index.php?id=607).

==Romanian speakers: pls help ro.orthodoxwiki.org project==
If you speak Romanian, please help also [http://ro.orthodoxwiki.org/ ro.orthodoxwiki.org] - Fr.Julian

Dacă vorbiţi româneşte, nu ezitaţi să daţi o mână de ajutor şi proiectului ro: [http://ro.orthodoxwiki.org/ ro.orthodoxwiki.org] - p.iulian [[User:Inistea|Inistea]] 14:30, December 7, 2006 (PST)

== WikEd editing tool ==

I've recently been using the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cacycle/wikEd WikEd tool] on Wikipedia, with success. The author says it should work on other wikis running the latest WikiMedia software, which I know we do. Can someone with more technical knowledge than I take a gander at the page and let me know if the tool would work here? Thanks. --[[User:Cholmes75|cholmes75]] 08:13, December 20, 2006 (PST)

: I just installed it (using the instructions on the page linked above), and it works just fine. For now, just paste the entire code into your User:username/monobook.js page. I don't see any reason why we can't make a template, as they have on en.wikipedia, but someone with more Wiki experience (and probably more authorization, possibly [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]]) needs to make that happen. --[[User:Basil|Basil]] 06:37, January 5, 2007 (PST)

== Orthodox Understanding of the the date of the Last Supper ==

I understnad that most Orthodox theologians, as do I, follow the Gospel of John and do not consider the Last Supper a Passover Meal. If I understand correctly, one of the consequences of this understanding is the fact that leavened bread is used in the Eucharist in the Orthodox church. Are there other consequences, results, etc. of this understanding? It seems to me that the Synoptics agree with John, but have been misinterpreted.

I am writing an article on the date of the Last Supper, i.e., was it the Passover Meal (night beginning Nisan 15)or was it the night before (night beginning Nisan 14)? Apart from, or maybe along with, textual consideradions, the way the early Greek-speaking church understood the Supper must, it seems to me, be taken into consideration.

Not using unleavened bread points in that direction. Are there other things? I would be interested in orientation in this general area.

Note: I am 81, Ph.D. from Vanderbilt in 1963 in Biblical Studies, and speak English, Spanish and French. I would appreciate knowing about any relevant articles in any of these languages.

Thanks for any help. James M. Beaty

Hows does one use the talk page to reply to another user? Thanks.

== Uncategorized Images ==

Hello,
I was wondering why in the uncategorized picture section of OrthodoxWiki there is pictures of the Pope? He does not relate to the studies or teaching of Orthodoxy ( At least not to my knowledge ). I know that there have been talks to try and create a greater friendship with the catholics and the Pope. But I still do not think there should be a picture of him on a Orthodox site. I am only 18 and I'm still trying to understand my religion more and I think people might get the wrong impression if they see the Pope on the OrthodoxWiki site. Am I wrong to ask this? Because on a earlier post I noticed that Dcn. Andrew said "OrthodoxWiki is dedicated to Orthodox Christianity." Thanks.

P.S.
This is a great website and I learn allot from it.

== When does a hierarch begin his tenure? ==

According to the canons of the Orthodox Church, at which point does a hierarch ascend his cathedra? That is, if he is elected by the flock of his diocese/metropolia/autonomous Church (where such elections are provided for) is he already considered to occupy his see? Or, will he assume his post only after his election is confirmed by the hierarchal superiors? Or esle, will he do so only after the enthronement ceremony (where such is provided for)? In different lists of hierarchs I have seen different dates marking the beginning of their tenure.

I thank You for Your attention and ask, if possible, to advise Church texts to confirm this point.

== terminology ==

The term "Oriental Orthodox" is problematic, since it seems like a euphemism designed to avoid the term "Monophysite." The word "Oriental" really means "Eastern" so the term does not really distinguish the two sides of the debate. Also, the use of the word "Orthodox" implies an acceptance of the Orthodoxy of the non-Chalcedonians, which has still not been agreed upon by a consensus within the (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Church. I know that the term "Monophysite" is considered offensive by the non-Chalcedonians. Unfortunately the term "Miaphysite," coined by some to replace it, is a neologism that just doesn't work in the original Greek (would "miagamous" do as a replacement for "monogamous"?) and, in my opinion, serves to obscure the real ground of difference that still seems to separate the two sides. Since OrthodoxWiki is supposed to have a "mainstream Chalcedonian bias," wouldn't the terms "Chalcedonian" and "non-Chalcedonian" or "anti-Chalcedonian" be more appropriate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Mariner|Mariner]] ([[User talk:Mariner|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mariner|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.

:Hi [[User:Mariner|Mariner]], please sign you posts with three tildes, so we can know who is talking - thanks.
:In my understanding, the term "monophysite" is not just offensive, it's inaccurate."Anti-Chalcedonian" may be correct as a historical reference, but perhaps not as a theological descriptor. "Non-Chalcedonian" would probably be the preferred term in my mind. "Oriental Orthodox" is generally understood, and does not, I think, cause much confusion. It also seems to be the preferred self-designation of the non-Chalcedonian groups. I don't have a problem granting them that name here. I do not think we need to go heresy hunting. Let us set forth our Chalcedonian understanding of Christology. If they can accept what we mean by this (and WHOM we mean by this), I think we are well on the way towards reunion. We may grant that language issues and imperial politics had a role to play in the division.
:If you could document statements by non-Chalcedonian bishops and theologians who would consider Chalcedonian Christology heretical, I think we'd have more to go on in our conversation (and perhaps some of the non-Chalcedonian folks would like to chime in too). — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

==Why I am Orthodox==
I made a page when anyone can write some phrases to show why he is Orthodox (what is for he more atractive in Orthodoxy), why he haven't chosen an other belief (what aspects that he didn't like it has and it is absent in our religion), or, simply, some beautiful thought from his soul, concerning the Orthodoxy.

The advantage of this page is that '''there is not needing to wait a special state to write an article. Becouse each of us have such thought in mind and we have only to insert them here. This require only a few minutes''' (If ww have more complex thought, we are creating our new page!)

So, the page could become an '''ode to Orthodoxy''', poem in which anyone can contribute and find something good for his soul.

At the end of page there are useful links that points to sites that promotes the Orthodoxy values.

The page is named [[Why I am Orthodox... And not Protestant, Catholic, Budist, etc. Live Apologetics]]

[[User:Mircea Romania|Mircea Romania]] 02:43, February 19, 2007 (PST)

User:Mircea Romania/Why I am Orthodox... And not Protestant, Catholic, Budist, etc. Live Apologetics

2007-02-19T10:05:14Z

Mircea Romania:

This page whishes to be a hightly interactive collective page in which anyone is invited to add more observations '''in wich he shows briefly and clearly why he is Orthodox (what he finds the most motivant for he), why he has not an other belief (what unwanted aspects other religions have, but we haven't) or, simply, a few beautiful thoughts of his soul, concerning the Orthodoxy
At the end of this page there are inserted '''links that point to sites that promote the Orthodoxy's values''': authors's original papers (of those who publish in this page) or that was written by others, sites dedicated to great theologians, Orthodox sites, online Orthodox libraries.
==I am Orthodox Becouse:==
* The God at Who the Christians and the Jews pray thereselfs doesn't appear in a preexistent Universe, there are no laws before or out of He. He is above the time and He created all that exists.
* The morality and all that relies to the goodness are valueless phrases if He would not exist. Only God makes sense to morality.
* He is the Love Itself. And His existence shows this truth in an beautiful manner becouse there are three Persons among it is love - That is becouse the Love needs at least two persons...
* To obtain the Redemption we need to make efforts. But only God decides if this happens or not. The Salvations can not be buyed with money.
* The daily life shows us amazing facts that surpass in a strong manner our knowledge and our hope.
* All things ar linked among they in such a wonderful way! It must exist above us Someone who do all these to move!
* In almost all the religions the god(s) is/are an strong force in front of Which we need to be terrified. Only in the New Testament God shows you that He loves us, He descend at our level and give us also the liberty to decide what to do. (The fact is also happen, partially, in the Old Testament).
* When I am entering in an Orthodox Church, I am feeling peace and warmness, I am at home.
* When I enter in a Catholic Church, I feel majesty and silence. But a could silence.
* If the Protestants organize a Conference, all is perfectly made. I am feeling as I am at a products presentations. Nothing is forgotten. It lacks only ... God.
* Wisdom. Once, the wisdom of the Ten Commandments. Next, the wisdom to replace them with only two: with love for God and with love man. Becouse when you love, we also accomplish, automatically, the above ten ones.
* The Orthodoc Church isn't involved in politics. Politics could mean many not-Christians things, compromises, lie, to impel people to satisfy earthly interests, not the spiritual ones. A priest that does politics has a little time for God, He is catched between the need to help human interests and to defend the God's word. The great teologians of the last centuries are Orthodox.
* The Orthodox Churches are full of Holy Grace, of people and of wonderful light.
* There is no excessive tend to "modernize" the Church. We must not forget that the science evolves all the time and, so, what today it is deemed to be a modern thinking or thing, tomorrow may be only something old and untrue. Could us to impose to Church to follow a leaf that is carried as the wind blow? I do not want to criticize the science, I observe only that the science come to the infinitum that God had created. The merit of the science is that it seeks the truth, but the whole truth is God. Not only God should not follow the science, but the true science is like a flower that turns itself in the direction where He is the Truth.
* I have gone to Church with my grandfather.
* Iisus had been taught us what to do to gain the redemption 2,000 years ago and, from those times, He didn't arrive to teach us an other thing. So, we must follow that message. The Orthodox Church is the Church that kept in the most unchanged manner the teaching that the God gave us.

==Original articles==
* [[Protestantism and Ecumenism. Or why to be an Orthodox|Protestantism and Ecumenism. Or why to be an Orthodox]]
==Articles that Have Written by Others==
==E-BOOKS==
* [http://www.myriobiblos.gr/ www.myriobiblos.gr]
* [http://www.sfaturiortodoxe.ro/ SfaturiOrtodoxe.ro - Orthodox articles and books]
* [http://www.crestinortodox.ro/ CrestinOrtodox.ro - Orthodox articles]
==Great Teologians's Sites==
==Orthodox Sites==
* [http://www.patriarhia.ro/ Romanian Patriarchat site]
* [http://www.ec-patr.gr/en/links.htm Links to Orthodox Patriarchates.
* {[http://xxc.ru/english/ The Moscow Patriarchate. Somethiong doesn't work, we hope that the problem will be resolved shortly]
* [http://www.indianorthodoxchurch.com/ Indian Orthodox Church]
* [http://www.crestinism-ortodox.ro/ Crestinism-Ortodox.ro - Teachings, history, etc.]
* [http://www.credo.ro/ Credo.ro - Orthodox site]
* [http://www.ortodoxmedia.com/ OrtodoxMedia.com - REcorded conferences, predici, songs]
* [http://www.ortodox.as.ro/ www.ortodox.as.ro]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Churches Eastern Orthodox Churches]

User:Mircea Romania/Why I am Orthodox... And not Protestant, Catholic, Budist, etc. Live Apologetics

2007-02-19T09:59:17Z

Mircea Romania: Start

This page whishes to be a hightly interactive collective page in which anyone is invited to add more observations '''in wich he shows briefly and clearly why he is Orthodox (what he finds the most motivant for he), why he has not an other belief (what unwanted aspects other religions have, but we haven't) or, simply, a few beautiful thoughts of his soul, concerning the Orthodoxy
At the end of this page there are inserted '''links that point to sites that promote the Orthodoxy's values''': authors's original papers (of those who publish in this page) or that was written by others, sites dedicated to great theologians, Orthodox sites, online Orthodox libraries.
==I am Orthodox Becouse:==
* The God at Who the Christians and the Jews pray thereselfs doesn't appear in a preexistent Universe, there are no laws before or out of He. He is above the time and He created all that exists.
* The morality and all that relies to the goodness are valueless phrases if He would not exist. Only God makes sense to morality.
* He is the Love Itself. And His existence shows this truth in an beautiful manner becouse there are three Persons among it is love - That is becouse the Love needs at least two persons...
* To obtain the Redemption we need to make efforts. But only God decides if this happens or not. The Salvations can not be buyed with money.
* The daily life shows us amazing facts that surpass in a strong manner our knowledge and our hope.
* All things ar linked among they in such a wonderful way! It must exist above us Someone who do all these to move!
* In almost all the religions the god(s) is/are an strong force in front of Which we need to be terrified. Only in the New Testament God shows you that He loves us, He descend at our level and give us also the liberty to decide what to do. (The fact is also happen, partially, in the Old Testament).
* When I am entering in an Orthodox Church, I am feeling peace and warmness, I am at home.
* When I enter in a Catholic Church, I feel majesty and silence. But a could silence.
* If the Protestants organize a Conference, all is perfectly made. I am feeling as I am at a products presentations. Nothing is forgotten. It lacks only ... God.
* Wisdom. Once, the wisdom of the Ten Commandments. Next, the wisdom to replace them with only two: with love for God and with love man. Becouse when you love, we also accomplish, automatically, the above ten ones.
* The Orthodoc Church isn't involved in politics. Politics could mean many not-Christians things, compromises, lie, to impel people to satisfy earthly interests, not the spiritual ones. A priest that does politics has a little time for God, He is catched between the need to help human interests and to defend the God's word. The great teologians of the last centuries are Orthodox.
* The Orthodox Churches are full of Holy Grace, of people and of wonderful light.
* There is no excessive tend to "modernize" the Church. We must not forget that the science evolves all the time and, so, what today it is deemed to be a modern thinking or thing, tomorrow may be only something old and untrue. Could us to impose to Church to follow a leaf that is carried as the wind blow? I do not want to criticize the science, I observe only that the science come to the infinitum that God had created. The merit of the science is that it seeks the truth, but the whole truth is God. Not only God should not follow the science, but the true science is like a flower that turns itself in the direction where He is the Truth.
* I have gone to Church with my grandfather.
* Iisus had been taught us what to do to gain the redemption 2,000 years ago and, from those times, He didn't arrive to teach us an other thing. So, we must follow that message. The Orthodox Church is the Church that kept in the most unchanged manner the teaching that the God gave us.

==Original articles==
* [[/Protestantism and Ecumenism. Or why to be an Orthodox|Protestantism and Ecumenism. Or why to be an Orthodox]]==Articles that Have Written by Others==
==E-BOOKS==
* [http://www.myriobiblos.gr/ www.myriobiblos.gr]
* [http://www.sfaturiortodoxe.ro/ SfaturiOrtodoxe.ro - Orthodox articles and books]
* [http://www.crestinortodox.ro/ CrestinOrtodox.ro - Orthodox articles]
==Great Teologians's Sites==
==Orthodox Sites==
* [http://www.patriarhia.ro/ Romanian Patriarchat site]
* [http://www.ec-patr.gr/en/links.htm Links to Orthodox Patriarchates.
* {[http://xxc.ru/english/ The Moscow Patriarchate. Somethiong doesn't work, we hope that the problem will be resolved shortly]
* [http://www.indianorthodoxchurch.com/ Indian Orthodox Church]
* [http://www.crestinism-ortodox.ro/ Crestinism-Ortodox.ro - Teachings, history, etc.]
* [http://www.credo.ro/ Credo.ro - Orthodox site]
* [http://www.ortodoxmedia.com/ OrtodoxMedia.com - REcorded conferences, predici, songs]
* [http://www.ortodox.as.ro/ www.ortodox.as.ro]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Churches Eastern Orthodox Churches]

User:Mircea Romania/Protestantism and Ecumenism. Or why to be an Orthodox

2007-02-16T12:10:11Z

Mircea Romania:

This article deals with a new view concerning the Protestantism and of one of the movements that it sustains, the ecumenism.

:We must note that the ecumenism had existed from the Christianity beginnings and is also manifesting in the Orthodox Church, but its meaning is different from those that it was promoted by Protestantism.

But, in this paragraph, we are dealing with something else. We stress that in the Christian Church history there is a fact that has the greatest importance: the days when the Father’s Son descended at the man’s level. Then, Saviour arrived among us as simple man. His words and His personal example, showed to man the way that he must follow to achieve the redemption. His message was received not only by apostle, but also by His learners and by the other men who met Him, many of those men having the chance to tell, to hear and to see Him.

But there are more that 2,000 years from those times and He neither came again among us, nor sent us a new message that could change in any mode His teachings that founded the Christianity. So, we have no reason to follow any else teachings because He gave us only the above one, we must follow His only message.

Sure, it is not an easy work to understand His teachings and there are more subtle aspects which agitated the Christians’s soul and mind because different people have been understanding dissimilar meanings. The Church has solving those problems with the Sacred Spirit’s help, Holy Person who had also called at the Seven Ecumenical Synods to teach man the right way. But there are other aspects that would not must to follow at different understandings because in those cases the messages were very clear. The Protestantism, for example, introduced the „Sola fide” concept, teaching people that the belief alone is enough for someone who wants to achieve the redemption, the good deed having no importance. An objective analysis reveals that their conception is true partially. However, there are also strong arguments against it, but we will not present them here because the target of this article is different. We are noticing only that the Saviour Himself stresses that the redemption needs good deeds. And, - once that the condition that must be passed to achieve the salvation depends exclusively by God - the result is clarly: any thought (however deeply it could seem to be to someone) could follow to fewer good results as it could someone get if he does what God wants.

=== A New View About How the Protestantism Appeared, How it Spread and What It is It ===
The Protestantism appeared when it took place the New World conquest. In those times the Catholic Church was full of strength and it imposed its power in all the aspects of the life, beginning with the religious and the moral ones.

As it is known, the new lands „civilization” really meant the destruction of more advanced civilizations and the killing of tens of millions of indigenous. At this fact it must be added that the Europeans that gone to the New World had not was selected to do a real civilization, but even they were the least civilized people: convicts, men with a poor morality, adventurers. They made Anti-Christian deeds: murders, thefts, and so on. When they had driven away, they not only were out of the Church teachings, but also they were impelled to do more wrong deeds. And they did do those.

When they returned to Europe with a lot of wealth for the kings and other people, they also retained some for they and so they became rich men. Of course, they didn’t change their wrong religious and moral visions, but, because they had brought services to the kings and because the kings expected to send them again in expeditions to the New World to become richer, it could be supposed that the kings defeated them when they had problems. As kings’s protected men, as rich people and with a conquering hero’s halo it may be presumed that they acquired a great influence in the society. This implies that a segment of the society began to admire and to follow their visions and their behaviour. So, if until there Inquisition had repressed (very) drastically any departure relative to the Catholic teachings, beginning with the apparition of those people, there was installed…”the exception”: for those men there were other rules, namely the population saw that it could live also without the need to follow the Catholic Church teachings…
In fact, those vanquishers of the New World were a knot of influent people that exhibited Non-Catholic views and behaviours. Otherwise, caught between the Not-Christian deeds that they have did in expeditions and the opulence that they might show when they returned in Europe, it could be assumed that they didn’t have much time to teach, to know and to follow the Catholic Church’s requirements.

In those conditions the Protestantism was a way for Christianity to keep that people under his wings. How? We are showing that in sequel.

At it is known, the Protestantism lacks an important aspect that most of the religions of the world have: a real or supposed divine will (a god that revealed himself to someone and taught him what the people have to do, a god that showed himself to the people, etc.). The Protestants can’t affirm that the God teaches they what to do. In their case only the reason of some people decided what is good and what is wrong, how to be interpreted the Saviour's message.
Interesting, in overall the Protestantism has limited itself to ignore some of the Catholic Church teachings. In other words, it has throwing values that it has considering as inutile: The Holy Tradition, The Holy Sacraments, the canon laws, etc. It doesn’t bring new dogmatic elements that the Catholic Church hasn’t and whose applications could lead in a better manner to the resurrection. It affirms that it knows alone the resurrection path, but its way is restricted itself to disrespect some of the Catholic Church teachings.

:Of course, it could be noted that some teachings and acts of the Catholic Church (for which there is difficult to find a basis in Bible, as the Pope’s power to save someone for money or the teachings about the purgatory) have played an important role in the birth of the protestant movement. But, event these facts may be considered as separations from the God’s teachings, it must to be not forgotten that they represent only a little part of what the Catholic Church teaches. The most important part of it acts is founded on Bible and the teachings that traveled from those times. Therefore when the Protestantism taken position against those aspects, it would been a good choice to limit its position only against these and to not reject the good part that the Catholic Church promoted. As the protestant movement had thrown too much, he reached a state in which it lacks a big part of the good part of the Catholic Church doctrine and life and hears only the earthly human reason and interests. The fact that the human reason can fail is proven by the fact that the Protestants didn’t thrown only the wrong aspects and by the situation in which they ignore the need to do good deeds, as the Saviour asked us (we refer to the protestant doctrine, not to the protestant believer who tries to do good deeds).

:Interesting, the Orthodox Church rejects – mostly – those teachings, too. Therefore the Orthodox Church doesn’t talk about purgatory and it considers that all the money of the world cn’t buy the salvation of someone, that man must try to understand, to respect and to follow the God’s teachings, bun only He decides if somebody is saved or not. But, in the same time, the Orthodox Church is all the time concerned itself to maintain in the best condition the God’s teachings, in such a manner as no items that could help to the man’s salvation to be lost.

:The well known fact that the Protestantism does not recognize more of the Catholic Church teachings is frequently used to argue his separation. At a glance, it could be shown that the differences do not need to lead to a complete break with the Catholicism. As an example, if a catholic believes that the salvation can’t be achieved with money, he does not need to be revolted and to separate himself from his church. Simply, it can ignore the Pope’s feature (he is not obliged to use them!), to study carefully the Christian teachings and to make the deeds that he consider that the God loves. Sure, the Pope’s offer could tempt the rich people, that can then waive to do good deeds and, more, to change their Christian conceptions because they thinks that, in any case, they can buy their redemption with money. From this point of view the feature can be considered harmful because it allows to somebody (but, we repeat, it not oblige them!) to fight for their salvation and, so, to discover to late that they hadn’t taken oil in their candles, as in the ten virgin girls parable. But, as we shown, anybody has the freedom to seek the salvation by the mean of faith, prayers, good deeds and love for God and man.

:In the same time, it is also true that a teaching that promotes thea idea that the salvation could be bought with money can determine many people to follow wrong ways, therefore the Catholic Church must be informed about such a situation. But what could happen if the Catholic Church has restraints to recognize that it fails in some cases? I those conditions, the apparition of the protestant movement could be thought as a desperate reaction that claims to analyse with responsibility the facts.

:Of course, there is very important for the believer to know what he must do to gain the salvation. As only God knows what He loves and what He wants to ask from us to do, it appears to be evident that we must fight to understand and to do as well as we can what He asks to us. The problem is not to do something what we like, important and useful is to do what God wants. The Protestants, angry with the Catholic Church, had rejected more of its teachings. When they decided what is wrong and what is good, they appealed exclusively to their reason and interests. They didn’t invoked God, as the Uniqueness that knows what is good, what is the Way, Truth and Life. They wanted to throw the tares, but they thrown also the wheat that the God had sowed. Who wants to be saved must to return and to gather carefully the Jesus’s words that He had give to us 2,000 years ago. And not only the words, but also their meanings and the first Christians’s state, in other words the Holy Tradition and that life inside the Church.’s liturgy. Could someone who don’t know to read the scores to learn to sing using them, even he have read a lot of explications? Isn’t necessary to hear also the notes and, so, to make the suitable links between the auditive impression and the symbols that there have written on the scores? The writing, as good as it could be done, can’t substitute the sounds, the sensations that someone feels when he dance, the taste of food. In a similar way, the words of the Bible can’t replace the state that the believers had experimented in these times. Other problem is that, in time, the meanings of some words had lost or had changed. More, in these times the Jew’s spoken The Hebraic and the Aramaic, languages in which the same word had more interpretations. Only the people that had lived in these times could do the correct selection in all the situations. And, very important, Jesus Christ, as man, hadn’t left us any written word! To ignore anything that hadn’t been written in Bible could mean to ignore and to forget all the other deeds that the Saviour did as man. We must not to forgot that the New Testament include only a small amount of all what the Lord had taught and had spoken, of what had did the Jesus’s Apostles and apprentices. Do you agree that a more complete knowledge of these elements could help us to a better understanding of the Jesus’s message of salvation? For this reason there is needed the Holy Tradition and a revival of those apostolic times, fact that it is happening during each Eucharist.

:The sad side is that the Protestant’s disagreements with the Catholic Church had evolved from some problems that could be discussed inside the Catholic Church to a new movement in which the protest is a main key. Dispute, contestation and disruption – not unity and love in Christ. And – very gravely – the Protestants waived to understand the Church’s teachings inside it and to recognize the authority of the Divine Grace and of the priests that drive the flock that love God. (There could be useful to remark that the Divine Grace is differently perceived in the Western Churches and in the Eastern ones. According to the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace], “In Eastern Christianity, grace is an energy of God, or a description of how God acts in forgiving and spiritually healing others. The sacraments are seen as a <<means of grace>> because '''God works through his Church''', not just because specific legalistic rules are followed; and '''Grace is the working of God Himself'''. not a created substance of any kind that can be treated like a commodity”). The Protestants observed that the priests, or even the Pope, make mistakes, too. But this is a normal thing and the Orthodox Church recognizes this fact: any man is under the mistakes, including the deacons, the priests and the bishops. Only God – who is the Truth Itself – is without sin. Even the Saint Apostle Peter denies the Lord when He was shut… More important that the fact that the clergy could fail is that in it the Divine Grace is working and so '''the Church as a whole follows the Bridegroom’s teachings, the Good Shepherd’s Way, who is Christ Itself'''. And this is true even they are not as good as we would to be. And the true question is not if the priests fails (this is, mainly, their personal problem), but how we can satisfy the God’s demands. As the Divine Grace and the priesthood help us to maintain a link with God, we must use this feature. The Protestants broke this link… They had put ahead only their reason, interest and conceit. The Protestants can be firmly moved ahead in the social life with these items, but they could be of little importance if they want to be saved and they waved to hear what the God wants from they.

:Unfortunately, it seems that the people who considered very important to be resolved some supossed errors of the Catholic Church didn’t know the Orthodox Church teachings… This is becouse some of the problems that the Protestants observed (with the aid of their reason), the Orthodox Church teaches from the beginnings – but as an expression of the Divine Grace that is manifesting Itself inside the Church. '''Becouse the Orthodoxy is the Way to reamain inside the Church that was founded by the Saviour Itself'''.

As a paranthesis, it could be observed that someone who acknwledges the catholic requirements will also do what the Protestants ask, whereas the acknowledgement of only the Protestantism’s needings implies the emergency that some arbitrary rejected Catholic demandes to don’t be accomplished.

In other words, even if (strictly hypothetic and … „rational”) some of the demandes at what the Protestants waived – exaggeratedly – couldn’t be necessary for the salvation, their realization is at most inutile, but not harmful, whereas if, even it exist only one needed for the resurrection requirement that was rejected, the man who do so puts himself in the emergency to loose its own salvation.

In conclusion, the '''Protestantism seems to be only an extreme simplification of the Catholic Church teachings'''.

Very interesting, even this simplification leads to his power. Because it allows even to a person that in reality has almost no belief in God - as thoughts or deeds – to name itself as Christian.
:We refer at those Protestants that participated in a direct and violent manner to the New World conquest, men that it could be supposed that had a very weak link with the Christian dogma, teachings, conceptions, deeds and behaviour, not to those that founded the first protestant movements, who was interested in religion. We can observe that, from its beginnings, the was two kind of Protestants: with a weak link with Christianity, and with a deep interest in religion, but with a strong conceit, too.

:The polarization persists in our days. We can see Protestants that are strong involved in the religious life, but there are also Protestants that – in conceptions, deeds or professions – are far from the Christianity, men who after they speak about God, at a short time, plan wars, do disruptions, invent and manufacture new weapons or blast this wonderful Earth that the Creator gave us and we must to take care about its good state.

If we refer at those first Protestants, they had been acquainted with the fact that God exists, but they had almost nothing to do to prove their membership. They believed and that was all, their behaviour and thoughts were nearly unchanged, they can do anything. Minimal requirements, maximal vows, this was an much more tempting offer as the Catholic Church could do. Warning! The promises were great because form God originates, whereas the requirements were low because they came from man. And if the man passes over the God words, if he didn’t make what God asked he, then could be he doubtless that God will … give he the payment that he wish?

The Protestantism’s sunny side was and is that it has allowed to man to doesn’t make a completelly break between he and God, to mantain a link (even weakly) with the Creator.
But there is also a dark side because it affirms that only it can conduce the man to resurrection. Because it rejected some of the God’s requirements it is difficult to believe that. It is harmful because it tries to inveigle Christians that are members of other confessions to it, namely it teaches them to waive also to hear the God’s Will concerning some aspects. In other words – by the extreme simplification of the Christian teachings that it brings – it is like a child that, after he learned that 1 + 1 = 2, then it tries to convince the PhD in mathematics Professor that all the mathematics is what he knows.

So, the Protestantism promises much (even it hasn’t arguments to prove that it really can do what it says) and asks very few. Nearby this aspect it exhibits elements that make it attractively for many men. For example, it involves the people in many social actions as to sing together, to bring new members, to deliver newspapers, to revard the best members, etc. In reality it is like something as “the instrumentalists’s batch” or “the walking friends”, so it is a place when the youths can spend their energy and can challenge for a better rank in the group and the olds can avoid to feel themselves alone. But the most important is to do the God’s Will. It could be of interest that every Protestant to check how much count in his participation at the Protestant groups the social needs and what is the part that is in reality for God. The money and the material goods are also elements of attraction for someone. There is no secret that some people have been becoming Protestants because on this way they can emigrate easier or to have a house. Could be named Christian belief this pass to the Protestants that depends of money, and is not founded in love for God? And this is important more when it could be seen that by this way there are men who lost their Christian deeds and beliefs and arrive to ignore some of the Good’s words. Let us don’t forget the Saviour teachings and life and how the first Christians had lived.
Really, are the Protestantism not a movement in which the man remains in the state in which he do like to be, only speaking about God and trying to bring God at his rational level and its interests?

===And the Ecumenism Came into View…===
The Protestantism has the good aspect that each of its members studies carefully the Gospel. Even there are more wrong interpretations, even they don’t recognize the importance of the Holy Spirit for a correct understanding of the God’s word, however their reason and effort help them to understand some teachings.

In these conditions, around 1910, the Protestantism gave birth to a new and strong movement: the (protestant) ecumenism, an attempt to unify the Christian Churches.
The initiative seems to be laudable because we, all the Christians, must confess the same God and we have to hike on the same narrow and straight way that carries to salvation.
Of course, the ecumenism may be understood as a protestant technique to attract all the Christian under its wings, too.

But it may signify an awakening. Namely, “my family and my friends are Protestants and I myself have learning since my very early days that the Protestantism is the unique way to salvation, but…. Some things seem to don’t go well. But, it seems that other confessions act more correct as us do. But, why the Protestants ignore some of the Saviour's words? I don’t have the courage to think more because I am afraid that I will be regarded as heretic and because my family and my friends could avert from me, but…”

In other words, the ecumenism may be also an expression of the fact that some Protestants feel that the way is wrong. As a direct recognition could have disagreeable personal consequences, a more acceptable path seems to be the realization of a tendency toward the change of the protestant concepts themselves. The direction can be only one, toward a reapproch toward the Saviour’s teachings.

As this implies to recognize that other confessions had a more correct behaviour, this thing can be interpreted as a defeat and so the conceit and the concern about how the Protestantism could be judged by other confessions begin to intervene. There are human concerns, but very important for someone who feels that he made mistakes and feels fear concerning how the others will react…
In these conditions it seems to be necessary that the others waive from some of their concepts, too. If this will happen, the others can’t judge your defeat and so your “honor” will remains unchanged.

So, the ecumenism could signify both that the Protestantism did make faults, but also it could be seen as a technique that avoids the Protestantism judgement by other confessions by persuading them to waive also to some of their concepts.

[[Image: The Protestantism and the Ecumenism in a Graphic.png|thumb|500px|This graphic proves that a "mean path” could lead away from the Saviour's Way. The Path on which Iisus have taught us to go is narrow!]]
===What to do?===
There is no astonishment that the Protestantism was who proposed the ecumenism (in the shape about which we are dealing in this article). This is because the protestant movement has made the biggest changes to the Catholic Church teachings and, so, it has done the most important waiver at the Jesus Christ’s words and example. The outcome was that the errors are becoming more evidently.

Because the truth is this: the Christian teachings were made 2,000 years ago and those we have to follow! The Protestantism bases involved some conceit that required to Protestants to exhibit an individual way, apart from the Saviour teachings. So, it ignores some fundamental Christian aspects. Even more, at the beginning of the third millenium, the Protestantism didn’t return yet to the Jesus Christ’s path that leads to redemption because of the same conceit: how could it cede to other confessions?

But the most important aspect is not to cede or not to cede, but to know and to go after the teachings that were given us 2,000 years ago, to live inside the Church body in which – at each Eucharist – there is lived again the life in Christ that the first Christians had practiced, when the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity Itself, help us – by the aid of the Holy Grace that reveals Itself in Church – to progress on the Salvation Way.

==Note. Read it First!==
The paragraphs with identation correspond to footnotes in the initial article.

'''For this article, copyright 2007, Mircea Romania. All rights reserved.'''
::The copyright clause was introduced only to keep the article message. Feel you free to copy the article as you need. If you quoute some items, please mention a link to a place where there is the full article.

User:Mircea Romania/Protestantism and Ecumenism. Or why to be an Orthodox

2007-02-16T11:56:18Z

Mircea Romania:

This article deals with a new view concerning the Protestantism and of one of the movements that it sustains, the ecumenism.

:We must note that the ecumenism had existed from the Christianity beginnings and is also manifesting in the Orthodox Church, but its meaning is different from those that it was promoted by Protestantism.

But, in this paragraph, we are dealing with something else. We stress that in the Christian Church history there is a fact that has the greatest importance: the days when the Father’s Son descended at the man’s level. Then, Saviour arrived among us as simple man. His words and His personal example, showed to man the way that he must follow to achieve the redemption. His message was received not only by apostle, but also by His learners and by the other men who met Him, many of those men having the chance to tell, to hear and to see Him.

But there are more that 2,000 years from those times and He neither came again among us, nor sent us a new message that could change in any mode His teachings that founded the Christianity. So, we have no reason to follow any else teachings because He gave us only the above one, we must follow His only message.

Sure, it is not an easy work to understand His teachings and there are more subtle aspects which agitated the Christians’s soul and mind because different people have been understanding dissimilar meanings. The Church has solving those problems with the Sacred Spirit’s help, Holy Person who had also called at the Seven Ecumenical Synods to teach man the right way. But there are other aspects that would not must to follow at different understandings because in those cases the messages were very clear. The Protestantism, for example, introduced the „Sola fide” concept, teaching people that the belief alone is enough for someone who wants to achieve the redemption, the good deed having no importance. An objective analysis reveals that their conception is true partially. However, there are also strong arguments against it, but we will not present them here because the target of this article is different. We are noticing only that the Saviour Himself stresses that the redemption needs good deeds. And, - once that the condition that must be passed to achieve the salvation depends exclusively by God - the result is clarly: any thought (however deeply it could seem to be to someone) could follow to fewer good results as it could someone get if he does what God wants.

=== A New View About How the Protestantism Appeared, How it Spread and What It is It ===
The Protestantism appeared when it took place the New World conquest. In those times the Catholic Church was full of strength and it imposed its power in all the aspects of the life, beginning with the religious and the moral ones.

As it is known, the new lands „civilization” really meant the destruction of more advanced civilizations and the killing of tens of millions of indigenous. At this fact it must be added that the Europeans that gone to the New World had not was selected to do a real civilization, but even they were the least civilized people: convicts, men with a poor morality, adventurers. They made Anti-Christian deeds: murders, thefts, and so on. When they had driven away, they not only were out of the Church teachings, but also they were impelled to do more wrong deeds. And they did do those.

When they returned to Europe with a lot of wealth for the kings and other people, they also retained some for they and so they became rich men. Of course, they didn’t change their wrong religious and moral visions, but, because they had brought services to the kings and because the kings expected to send them again in expeditions to the New World to become richer, it could be supposed that the kings defeated them when they had problems. As kings’s protected men, as rich people and with a conquering hero’s halo it may be presumed that they acquired a great influence in the society. This implies that a segment of the society began to admire and to follow their visions and their behaviour. So, if until there Inquisition had repressed (very) drastically any departure relative to the Catholic teachings, beginning with the apparition of those people, there was installed…”the exception”: for those men there were other rules, namely the population saw that it could live also without the need to follow the Catholic Church teachings…
In fact, those vanquishers of the New World were a knot of influent people that exhibited Non-Catholic views and behaviours. Otherwise, caught between the Not-Christian deeds that they have did in expeditions and the opulence that they might show when they returned in Europe, it could be assumed that they didn’t have much time to teach, to know and to follow the Catholic Church’s requirements.

In those conditions the Protestantism was a way for Christianity to keep that people under his wings. How? We are showing that in sequel.

At it is known, the Protestantism lacks an important aspect that most of the religions of the world have: a real or supposed divine will (a god that revealed himself to someone and taught him what the people have to do, a god that showed himself to the people, etc.). The Protestants can’t affirm that the God teaches they what to do. In their case only the reason of some people decided what is good and what is wrong, how to be interpreted the Saviour's message.
Interesting, in overall the Protestantism has limited itself to ignore some of the Catholic Church teachings. In other words, it has throwing values that it has considering as inutile: The Holy Tradition, The Holy Sacraments, the canon laws, etc. It doesn’t bring new dogmatic elements that the Catholic Church hasn’t and whose applications could lead in a better manner to the resurrection. It affirms that it knows alone the resurrection path, but its way is restricted itself to disrespect some of the Catholic Church teachings.

:Of course, it could be noted that some teachings and acts of the Catholic Church (for which there is difficult to find a basis in Bible, as the Pope’s power to save someone for money or the teachings about the purgatory) have played an important role in the birth of the protestant movement. But, event these facts may be considered as separations from the God’s teachings, it must to be not forgotten that they represent only a little part of what the Catholic Church teaches. The most important part of it acts is founded on Bible and the teachings that traveled from those times. Therefore when the Protestantism taken position against those aspects, it would been a good choice to limit its position only against these and to not reject the good part that the Catholic Church promoted. As the protestant movement had thrown too much, he reached a state in which it lacks a big part of the good part of the Catholic Church doctrine and life and hears only the earthly human reason and interests. The fact that the human reason can fail is proven by the fact that the Protestants didn’t thrown only the wrong aspects and by the situation in which they ignore the need to do good deeds, as the Saviour asked us (we refer to the protestant doctrine, not to the protestant believer who tries to do good deeds).

:Interesting, the Orthodox Church rejects – mostly – those teachings, too. Therefore the Orthodox Church doesn’t talk about purgatory and it considers that all the money of the world cn’t buy the salvation of someone, that man must try to understand, to respect and to follow the God’s teachings, bun only He decides if somebody is saved or not. But, in the same time, the Orthodox Church is all the time concerned itself to maintain in the best condition the God’s teachings, in such a manner as no items that could help to the man’s salvation to be lost.

:The well known fact that the Protestantism does not recognize more of the Catholic Church teachings is frequently used to argue his separation. At a glance, it could be shown that the differences do not need to lead to a complete break with the Catholicism. As an example, if a catholic believes that the salvation can’t be achieved with money, he does not need to be revolted and to separate himself from his church. Simply, it can ignore the Pope’s feature (he is not obliged to use them!), to study carefully the Christian teachings and to make the deeds that he consider that the God loves. Sure, the Pope’s offer could tempt the rich people, that can then waive to do good deeds and, more, to change their Christian conceptions because they thinks that, in any case, they can buy their redemption with money. From this point of view the feature can be considered harmful because it allows to somebody (but, we repeat, it not oblige them!) to fight for their salvation and, so, to discover to late that they hadn’t taken oil in their candles, as in the ten virgin girls parable. But, as we shown, anybody has the freedom to seek the salvation by the mean of faith, prayers, good deeds and love for God and man.

:In the same time, it is also true that a teaching that promotes thea idea that the salvation could be bought with money can determine many people to follow wrong ways, therefore the Catholic Church must be informed about such a situation. But what could happen if the Catholic Church has restraints to recognize that it fails in some cases? I those conditions, the apparition of the protestant movement could be thought as a desperate reaction that claims to analyse with responsibility the facts.

:Of course, there is very important for the believer to know what he must do to gain the salvation. As only God knows what He loves and what He wants to ask from us to do, it appears to be evident that we must fight to understand and to do as well as we can what He asks to us. The problem is not to do something what we like, important and useful is to do what God wants. The Protestants, angry with the Catholic Church, had rejected more of its teachings. When they decided what is wrong and what is good, they appealed exclusively to their reason and interests. They didn’t invoked God, as the Uniqueness that knows what is good, what is the Way, Truth and Life. They wanted to throw the tares, but they thrown also the wheat that the God had sowed. Who wants to be saved must to return and to gather carefully the Jesus’s words that He had give to us 2,000 years ago. And not only the words, but also their meanings and the first Christians’s state, in other words the Holy Tradition and that life inside the Church.’s liturgy. Could someone who don’t know to read the scores to learn to sing using them, even he have read a lot of explications? Isn’t necessary to hear also the notes and, so, to make the suitable links between the auditive impression and the symbols that there have written on the scores? The writing, as good as it could be done, can’t substitute the sounds, the sensations that someone feels when he dance, the taste of food. In a similar way, the words of the Bible can’t replace the state that the believers had experimented in these times. Other problem is that, in time, the meanings of some words had lost or had changed. More, in these times the Jew’s spoken The Hebraic and the Aramaic, languages in which the same word had more interpretations. Only the people that had lived in these times could do the correct selection in all the situations. And, very important, Jesus Christ, as man, hadn’t left us any written word! To ignore anything that hadn’t been written in Bible could mean to ignore and to forget all the other deeds that the Saviour did as man. We must not to forgot that the New Testament include only a small amount of all what the Lord had taught and had spoken, of what had did the Jesus’s Apostles and apprentices. Do you agree that a more complete knowledge of these elements could help us to a better understanding of the Jesus’s message of salvation? For this reason there is needed the Holy Tradition and a revival of those apostolic times, fact that it is happening during each Eucharist.

:The sad side is that the Protestant’s disagreements with the Catholic Church had evolved from some problems that could be discussed inside the Catholic Church to a new movement in which the protest is a main key. Dispute, contestation and disruption – not unity and love in Christ. And – very gravely – the Protestants waived to understand the Church’s teachings inside it and to recognize the authority of the Divine Grace and of the priests that drive the flock that love God. (There could be useful to remark that the Divine Grace is differently perceived in the Western Churches and in the Eastern ones. According to the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace], “In Eastern Christianity, grace is an energy of God, or a description of how God acts in forgiving and spiritually healing others. The sacraments are seen as a <<means of grace>> because '''God works through his Church''', not just because specific legalistic rules are followed; and '''Grace is the working of God Himself'''. not a created substance of any kind that can be treated like a commodity”). The Protestants observed that the priests, or even the Pope, make mistakes, too. But this is a normal thing and the Orthodox Church recognizes this fact: any man is under the mistakes, including the deacons, the priests and the bishops. Only God – who is the Truth Itself – is without sin. Even the Saint Apostle Peter denies the Lord when He was shut… More important that the fact that the clergy could fail is that in it the Divine Grace is working and so '''the Church as a whole follows the Bridegroom’s teachings, the Good Shepherd’s Way, who is Christ Itself'''. And this is true even they are not as good as we would to be. And the true question is not if the priests fails (this is, mainly, their personal problem), but how we can satisfy the God’s demands. As the Divine Grace and the priesthood help us to maintain a link with God, we must use this feature. The Protestants broke this link… They had put ahead only their reason, interest and conceit. The Protestants can be firmly moved ahead in the social life with these items, but they could be of little importance if they want to be saved and they waved to hear what the God wants from they.

:Unfortunately, it seems that the people who considered very important to be resolved some supossed errors of the Catholic Church didn’t know the Orthodox Church teachings… This is becouse some of the problems that the Protestants observed (with the aid of their reason), the Orthodox Church teaches from the beginnings – but as an expression of the Divine Grace that is manifesting Itself inside the Church. '''Becouse the Orthodoxy is the Way to reamain inside the Church that was founded by the Saviour Itself'''.

As a paranthesis, it could be observed that someone who acknwledges the catholic requirements will also do what the Protestants ask, whereas the acknowledgement of only the Protestantism’s needings implies the emergency that some arbitrary rejected Catholic demandes to don’t be accomplished.

In other words, even if (strictly hypothetic and … „rational”) some of the demandes at what the Protestants waived – exaggeratedly – couldn’t be necessary for the salvation, their realization is at most inutile, but not harmful, whereas if, even it exist only one needed for the resurrection requirement that was rejected, the man who do so puts himself in the emergency to loose its own salvation.

In conclusion, the '''Protestantism seems to be only an extreme simplification of the Catholic Church teachings'''.

Very interesting, even this simplification leads to his power. Because it allows even to a person that in reality has almost no belief in God - as thoughts or deeds – to name itself as Christian.
:We refer at those Protestants that participated in a direct and violent manner to the New World conquest, men that it could be supposed that had a very weak link with the Christian dogma, teachings, conceptions, deeds and behaviour, not to those that founded the first protestant movements, who was interested in religion. We can observe that, from its beginnings, the was two kind of Protestants: with a weak link with Christianity, and with a deep interest in religion, but with a strong conceit, too.

:The polarization persists in our days. We can see Protestants that are strong involved in the religious life, but there are also Protestants that – in conceptions, deeds or professions – are far from the Christianity, men who after they speak about God, at a short time, plan wars, do disruptions, invent and manufacture new weapons or blast this wonderful Earth that the Creator gave us and we must to take care about its good state.

If we refer at those first Protestants, they had been acquainted with the fact that God exists, but they had almost nothing to do to prove their membership. They believed and that was all, their behaviour and thoughts were nearly unchanged, they can do anything. Minimal requirements, maximal vows, this was an much more tempting offer as the Catholic Church could do. Warning! The promises were great because form God originates, whereas the requirements were low because they came from man. And if the man passes over the God words, if he didn’t make what God asked he, then could be he doubtless that God will … give he the payment that he wish?

The Protestantism’s sunny side was and is that it has allowed to man to doesn’t make a completelly break between he and God, to mantain a link (even weakly) with the Creator.
But there is also a dark side because it affirms that only it can conduce the man to resurrection. Because it rejected some of the God’s requirements it is difficult to believe that. It is harmful because it tries to inveigle Christians that are members of other confessions to it, namely it teaches them to waive also to hear the God’s Will concerning some aspects. In other words – by the extreme simplification of the Christian teachings that it brings – it is like a child that, after he learned that 1 + 1 = 2, then it tries to convince the PhD in mathematics Professor that all the mathematics is what he knows.

So, the Protestantism promises much (even it hasn’t arguments to prove that it really can do what it says) and asks very few. Nearby this aspect it exhibits elements that make it attractively for many men. For example, it involves the people in many social actions as to sing together, to bring new members, to deliver newspapers, to revard the best members, etc. In reality it is like something as “the instrumentalists’s batch” or “the walking friends”, so it is a place when the youths can spend their energy and can challenge for a better rank in the group and the olds can avoid to feel themselves alone. But the most important is to do the God’s Will. It could be of interest that every Protestant to check how much count in his participation at the Protestant groups the social needs and what is the part that is in reality for God. The money and the material goods are also elements of attraction for someone. There is no secret that some people have been becoming Protestants because on this way they can emigrate easier or to have a house. Could be named Christian belief this pass to the Protestants that depends of money, and is not founded in love for God? And this is important more when it could be seen that by this way there are men who lost their Christian deeds and beliefs and arrive to ignore some of the Good’s words. Let us don’t forget the Saviour teachings and life and how the first Christians had lived.
Really, are the Protestantism not a movement in which the man remains in the state in which he do like to be, only speaking about God and trying to bring God at his rational level and its interests?

===And the Ecumenism Came into View…===
The Protestantism has the good aspect that each of its members studies carefully the Gospel. Even there are more wrong interpretations, even they don’t recognize the importance of the Holy Spirit for a correct understanding of the God’s word, however their reason and effort help them to understand some teachings.

In these conditions, around 1910, the Protestantism gave birth to a new and strong movement: the (protestant) ecumenism, an attempt to unify the Christian Churches.
The initiative seems to be laudable because we, all the Christians, must confess the same God and we have to hike on the same narrow and straight way that carries to salvation.
Of course, the ecumenism may be understood as a protestant technique to attract all the Christian under its wings, too.

But it may signify an awakening. Namely, “my family and my friends are Protestants and I myself have learning since my very early days that the Protestantism is the unique way to salvation, but…. Some things seem to don’t go well. But, it seems that other confessions act more correct as us do. But, why the Protestants ignore some of the Saviour's words? I don’t have the courage to think more because I am afraid that I will be regarded as heretic and because my family and my friends could avert from me, but…”

In other words, the ecumenism may be also an expression of the fact that some Protestants feel that the way is wrong. As a direct recognition could have disagreeable personal consequences, a more acceptable path seems to be the realization of a tendency toward the change of the protestant concepts themselves. The direction can be only one, toward a reapproch toward the Saviour’s teachings.

As this implies to recognize that other confessions had a more correct behaviour, this thing can be interpreted as a defeat and so the conceit and the concern about how the Protestantism could be judged by other confessions begin to intervene. There are human concerns, but very important for someone who feels that he made mistakes and feels fear concerning how the others will react…
In these conditions it seems to be necessary that the others waive from some of their concepts, too. If this will happen, the others can’t judge your defeat and so your “honor” will remains unchanged.

So, the ecumenism could signify both that the Protestantism did make faults, but also it could be seen as a technique that avoids the Protestantism judgement by other confessions by persuading them to waive also to some of their concepts.

[[Image: The Protestantism and the Ecumenism in a Graphic.png|thumb|500px|This graphic proves that "a mean path” could lead away from the Saviour's Way]]
===What to do?===
There is no astonishment that the Protestantism was who proposed the ecumenism (in the shape about which we are dealing in this article). This is because the protestant movement has made the biggest changes to the Catholic Church teachings and, so, it has done the most important waiver at the Jesus Christ’s words and example. The outcome was that the errors are becoming more evidently.

Because the truth is this: the Christian teachings were made 2,000 years ago and those we have to follow! The Protestantism bases involved some conceit that required to Protestants to exhibit an individual way, apart from the Saviour teachings. So, it ignores some fundamental Christian aspects. Even more, at the beginning of the third millenium, the Protestantism didn’t return yet to the Jesus Christ’s path that leads to redemption because of the same conceit: how could it cede to other confessions?

But the most important aspect is not to cede or not to cede, but to know and to go after the teachings that were given us 2,000 years ago, to live inside the Church body in which – at each Eucharist – there is lived again the life in Christ that the first Christians had practiced, when the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity Itself, help us – by the aid of the Holy Grace that reveals Itself in Church – to progress on the Salvation Way.

==Note. Read it First!==
The paragraphs with identation correspond to footnotes in the initial article.

'''For this article, copyright 2007, Mircea Romania. All rights reserved.'''
::The copyright clause was introduced only to keep the article message. Feel you free to copy the article as you need. If you quoute some items, please mention a link to a place where there is the full article.

User:Mircea Romania/Protestantism and Ecumenism. Or why to be an Orthodox

2007-02-16T11:42:59Z

Mircea Romania: Graphic

This article deals with a new view concerning the Protestantism and of one of the movements that it sustains, the ecumenism.

:We must note that the ecumenism had existed from the Christianity beginnings and is also manifesting in the Orthodox Church, but its meaning is different from those that it was promoted by Protestantism.

But, in this paragraph, we are dealing with something else. We stress that in the Christian Church history there is a fact that has the greatest importance: the days when the Father’s Son descended at the man’s level. Then, Saviour arrived among us as simple man. His words and His personal example, showed to man the way that he must follow to achieve the redemption. His message was received not only by apostle, but also by His learners and by the other men who met Him, many of those men having the chance to tell, to hear and to see Him.

But there are more that 2,000 years from those times and He neither came again among us, nor sent us a new message that could change in any mode His teachings that founded the Christianity. So, we have no reason to follow any else teachings because He gave us only the above one, we must follow His only message.

Sure, it is not an easy work to understand His teachings and there are more subtle aspects which agitated the Christians’s soul and mind because different people have been understanding dissimilar meanings. The Church has solving those problems with the Sacred Spirit’s help, Holy Person who had also called at the Seven Ecumenical Synods to teach man the right way. But there are other aspects that would not must to follow at different understandings because in those cases the messages were very clear. The Protestantism, for example, introduced the „Sola fide” concept, teaching people that the belief alone is enough for someone who wants to achieve the redemption, the good deed having no importance. An objective analysis reveals that their conception is true partially. However, there are also strong arguments against it, but we will not present them here because the target of this article is different. We are noticing only that the Saviour Himself stresses that the redemption needs good deeds. And, - once that the condition that must be passed to achieve the salvation depends exclusively by God - the result is clarly: any thought (however deeply it could seem to be to someone) could follow to fewer good results as it could someone get if he does what God wants.

=== A New View About How the Protestantism Appeared, How it Spread and What It is It ===
The Protestantism appeared when it took place the New World conquest. In those times the Catholic Church was full of strength and it imposed its power in all the aspects of the life, beginning with the religious and the moral ones.

As it is known, the new lands „civilization” really meant the destruction of more advanced civilizations and the killing of tens of millions of indigenous. At this fact it must be added that the Europeans that gone to the New World had not was selected to do a real civilization, but even they were the least civilized people: convicts, men with a poor morality, adventurers. They made Anti-Christian deeds: murders, thefts, and so on. When they had driven away, they not only were out of the Church teachings, but also they were impelled to do more wrong deeds. And they did do those.

When they returned to Europe with a lot of wealth for the kings and other people, they also retained some for they and so they became rich men. Of course, they didn’t change their wrong religious and moral visions, but, because they had brought services to the kings and because the kings expected to send them again in expeditions to the New World to become richer, it could be supposed that the kings defeated them when they had problems. As kings’s protected men, as rich people and with a conquering hero’s halo it may be presumed that they acquired a great influence in the society. This implies that a segment of the society began to admire and to follow their visions and their behaviour. So, if until there Inquisition had repressed (very) drastically any departure relative to the Catholic teachings, beginning with the apparition of those people, there was installed…”the exception”: for those men there were other rules, namely the population saw that it could live also without the need to follow the Catholic Church teachings…
In fact, those vanquishers of the New World were a knot of influent people that exhibited Non-Catholic views and behaviours. Otherwise, caught between the Not-Christian deeds that they have did in expeditions and the opulence that they might show when they returned in Europe, it could be assumed that they didn’t have much time to teach, to know and to follow the Catholic Church’s requirements.

In those conditions the Protestantism was a way for Christianity to keep that people under his wings. How? We are showing that in sequel.

At it is known, the Protestantism lacks an important aspect that most of the religions of the world have: a real or supposed divine will (a god that revealed himself to someone and taught him what the people have to do, a god that showed himself to the people, etc.). The Protestants can’t affirm that the God teaches they what to do. In their case only the reason of some people decided what is good and what is wrong, how to be interpreted the Saviour's message.
Interesting, in overall the Protestantism has limited itself to ignore some of the Catholic Church teachings. In other words, it has throwing values that it has considering as inutile: The Holy Tradition, The Holy Sacraments, the canon laws, etc. It doesn’t bring new dogmatic elements that the Catholic Church hasn’t and whose applications could lead in a better manner to the resurrection. It affirms that it knows alone the resurrection path, but its way is restricted itself to disrespect some of the Catholic Church teachings.

:Of course, it could be noted that some teachings and acts of the Catholic Church (for which there is difficult to find a basis in Bible, as the Pope’s power to save someone for money or the teachings about the purgatory) have played an important role in the birth of the protestant movement. But, event these facts may be considered as separations from the God’s teachings, it must to be not forgotten that they represent only a little part of what the Catholic Church teaches. The most important part of it acts is founded on Bible and the teachings that traveled from those times. Therefore when the Protestantism taken position against those aspects, it would been a good choice to limit its position only against these and to not reject the good part that the Catholic Church promoted. As the protestant movement had thrown too much, he reached a state in which it lacks a big part of the good part of the Catholic Church doctrine and life and hears only the earthly human reason and interests. The fact that the human reason can fail is proven by the fact that the Protestants didn’t thrown only the wrong aspects and by the situation in which they ignore the need to do good deeds, as the Saviour asked us (we refer to the protestant doctrine, not to the protestant believer who tries to do good deeds).

:Interesting, the Orthodox Church rejects – mostly – those teachings, too. Therefore the Orthodox Church doesn’t talk about purgatory and it considers that all the money of the world cn’t buy the salvation of someone, that man must try to understand, to respect and to follow the God’s teachings, bun only He decides if somebody is saved or not. But, in the same time, the Orthodox Church is all the time concerned itself to maintain in the best condition the God’s teachings, in such a manner as no items that could help to the man’s salvation to be lost.

:The well known fact that the Protestantism does not recognize more of the Catholic Church teachings is frequently used to argue his separation. At a glance, it could be shown that the differences do not need to lead to a complete break with the Catholicism. As an example, if a catholic believes that the salvation can’t be achieved with money, he does not need to be revolted and to separate himself from his church. Simply, it can ignore the Pope’s feature (he is not obliged to use them!), to study carefully the Christian teachings and to make the deeds that he consider that the God loves. Sure, the Pope’s offer could tempt the rich people, that can then waive to do good deeds and, more, to change their Christian conceptions because they thinks that, in any case, they can buy their redemption with money. From this point of view the feature can be considered harmful because it allows to somebody (but, we repeat, it not oblige them!) to fight for their salvation and, so, to discover to late that they hadn’t taken oil in their candles, as in the ten virgin girls parable. But, as we shown, anybody has the freedom to seek the salvation by the mean of faith, prayers, good deeds and love for God and man.

:In the same time, it is also true that a teaching that promotes thea idea that the salvation could be bought with money can determine many people to follow wrong ways, therefore the Catholic Church must be informed about such a situation. But what could happen if the Catholic Church has restraints to recognize that it fails in some cases? I those conditions, the apparition of the protestant movement could be thought as a desperate reaction that claims to analyse with responsibility the facts.

:Of course, there is very important for the believer to know what he must do to gain the salvation. As only God knows what He loves and what He wants to ask from us to do, it appears to be evident that we must fight to understand and to do as well as we can what He asks to us. The problem is not to do something what we like, important and useful is to do what God wants. The Protestants, angry with the Catholic Church, had rejected more of its teachings. When they decided what is wrong and what is good, they appealed exclusively to their reason and interests. They didn’t invoked God, as the Uniqueness that knows what is good, what is the Way, Truth and Life. They wanted to throw the tares, but they thrown also the wheat that the God had sowed. Who wants to be saved must to return and to gather carefully the Jesus’s words that He had give to us 2,000 years ago. And not only the words, but also their meanings and the first Christians’s state, in other words the Holy Tradition and that life inside the Church.’s liturgy. Could someone who don’t know to read the scores to learn to sing using them, even he have read a lot of explications? Isn’t necessary to hear also the notes and, so, to make the suitable links between the auditive impression and the symbols that there have written on the scores? The writing, as good as it could be done, can’t substitute the sounds, the sensations that someone feels when he dance, the taste of food. In a similar way, the words of the Bible can’t replace the state that the believers had experimented in these times. Other problem is that, in time, the meanings of some words had lost or had changed. More, in these times the Jew’s spoken The Hebraic and the Aramaic, languages in which the same word had more interpretations. Only the people that had lived in these times could do the correct selection in all the situations. And, very important, Jesus Christ, as man, hadn’t left us any written word! To ignore anything that hadn’t been written in Bible could mean to ignore and to forget all the other deeds that the Saviour did as man. We must not to forgot that the New Testament include only a small amount of all what the Lord had taught and had spoken, of what had did the Jesus’s Apostles and apprentices. Do you agree that a more complete knowledge of these elements could help us to a better understanding of the Jesus’s message of salvation? For this reason there is needed the Holy Tradition and a revival of those apostolic times, fact that it is happening during each Eucharist.

:The sad side is that the Protestant’s disagreements with the Catholic Church had evolved from some problems that could be discussed inside the Catholic Church to a new movement in which the protest is a main key. Dispute, contestation and disruption – not unity and love in Christ. And – very gravely – the Protestants waived to understand the Church’s teachings inside it and to recognize the authority of the Divine Grace and of the priests that drive the flock that love God. (There could be useful to remark that the Divine Grace is differently perceived in the Western Churches and in the Eastern ones. According to the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace], “In Eastern Christianity, grace is an energy of God, or a description of how God acts in forgiving and spiritually healing others. The sacraments are seen as a <<means of grace>> because '''God works through his Church''', not just because specific legalistic rules are followed; and '''Grace is the working of God Himself'''. not a created substance of any kind that can be treated like a commodity”). The Protestants observed that the priests, or even the Pope, make mistakes, too. But this is a normal thing and the Orthodox Church recognizes this fact: any man is under the mistakes, including the deacons, the priests and the bishops. Only God – who is the Truth Itself – is without sin. Even the Saint Apostle Peter denies the Lord when He was shut… More important that the fact that the clergy could fail is that in it the Divine Grace is working and so '''the Church as a whole follows the Bridegroom’s teachings, the Good Shepherd’s Way, who is Christ Itself'''. And this is true even they are not as good as we would to be. And the true question is not if the priests fails (this is, mainly, their personal problem), but how we can satisfy the God’s demands. As the Divine Grace and the priesthood help us to maintain a link with God, we must use this feature. The Protestants broke this link… They had put ahead only their reason, interest and conceit. The Protestants can be firmly moved ahead in the social life with these items, but they could be of little importance if they want to be saved and they waved to hear what the God wants from they.

:Unfortunately, it seems that the people who considered very important to be resolved some supossed errors of the Catholic Church didn’t know the Orthodox Church teachings… This is becouse some of the problems that the Protestants observed (with the aid of their reason), the Orthodox Church teaches from the beginnings – but as an expression of the Divine Grace that is manifesting Itself inside the Church. '''Becouse the Orthodoxy is the Way to reamain inside the Church that was founded by the Saviour Itself'''.

As a paranthesis, it could be observed that someone who acknwledges the catholic requirements will also do what the Protestants ask, whereas the acknowledgement of only the Protestantism’s needings implies the emergency that some arbitrary rejected Catholic demandes to don’t be accomplished.

In other words, even if (strictly hypothetic and … „rational”) some of the demandes at what the Protestants waived – exaggeratedly – couldn’t be necessary for the salvation, their realization is at most inutile, but not harmful, whereas if, even it exist only one needed for the resurrection requirement that was rejected, the man who do so puts himself in the emergency to loose its own salvation.

In conclusion, the '''Protestantism seems to be only an extreme simplification of the Catholic Church teachings'''.

Very interesting, even this simplification leads to his power. Because it allows even to a person that in reality has almost no belief in God - as thoughts or deeds – to name itself as Christian.
:We refer at those Protestants that participated in a direct and violent manner to the New World conquest, men that it could be supposed that had a very weak link with the Christian dogma, teachings, conceptions, deeds and behaviour, not to those that founded the first protestant movements, who was interested in religion. We can observe that, from its beginnings, the was two kind of Protestants: with a weak link with Christianity, and with a deep interest in religion, but with a strong conceit, too.

:The polarization persists in our days. We can see Protestants that are strong involved in the religious life, but there are also Protestants that – in conceptions, deeds or professions – are far from the Christianity, men who after they speak about God, at a short time, plan wars, do disruptions, invent and manufacture new weapons or blast this wonderful Earth that the Creator gave us and we must to take care about its good state.

If we refer at those first Protestants, they had been acquainted with the fact that God exists, but they had almost nothing to do to prove their membership. They believed and that was all, their behaviour and thoughts were nearly unchanged, they can do anything. Minimal requirements, maximal vows, this was an much more tempting offer as the Catholic Church could do. Warning! The promises were great because form God originates, whereas the requirements were low because they came from man. And if the man passes over the God words, if he didn’t make what God asked he, then could be he doubtless that God will … give he the payment that he wish?

The Protestantism’s sunny side was and is that it has allowed to man to doesn’t make a completelly break between he and God, to mantain a link (even weakly) with the Creator.
But there is also a dark side because it affirms that only it can conduce the man to resurrection. Because it rejected some of the God’s requirements it is difficult to believe that. It is harmful because it tries to inveigle Christians that are members of other confessions to it, namely it teaches them to waive also to hear the God’s Will concerning some aspects. In other words – by the extreme simplification of the Christian teachings that it brings – it is like a child that, after he learned that 1 + 1 = 2, then it tries to convince the PhD in mathematics Professor that all the mathematics is what he knows.

So, the Protestantism promises much (even it hasn’t arguments to prove that it really can do what it says) and asks very few. Nearby this aspect it exhibits elements that make it attractively for many men. For example, it involves the people in many social actions as to sing together, to bring new members, to deliver newspapers, to revard the best members, etc. In reality it is like something as “the instrumentalists’s batch” or “the walking friends”, so it is a place when the youths can spend their energy and can challenge for a better rank in the group and the olds can avoid to feel themselves alone. But the most important is to do the God’s Will. It could be of interest that every Protestant to check how much count in his participation at the Protestant groups the social needs and what is the part that is in reality for God. The money and the material goods are also elements of attraction for someone. There is no secret that some people have been becoming Protestants because on this way they can emigrate easier or to have a house. Could be named Christian belief this pass to the Protestants that depends of money, and is not founded in love for God? And this is important more when it could be seen that by this way there are men who lost their Christian deeds and beliefs and arrive to ignore some of the Good’s words. Let us don’t forget the Saviour teachings and life and how the first Christians had lived.
Really, are the Protestantism not a movement in which the man remains in the state in which he do like to be, only speaking about God and trying to bring God at his rational level and its interests?

===And the Ecumenism Came into View…===
The Protestantism has the good aspect that each of its members studies carefully the Gospel. Even there are more wrong interpretations, even they don’t recognize the importance of the Holy Spirit for a correct understanding of the God’s word, however their reason and effort help them to understand some teachings.

In these conditions, around 1910, the Protestantism gave birth to a new and strong movement: the (protestant) ecumenism, an attempt to unify the Christian Churches.
The initiative seems to be laudable because we, all the Christians, must confess the same God and we have to hike on the same narrow and straight way that carries to salvation.
Of course, the ecumenism may be understood as a protestant technique to attract all the Christian under its wings, too.

But it may signify an awakening. Namely, “my family and my friends are Protestants and I myself have learning since my very early days that the Protestantism is the unique way to salvation, but…. Some things seem to don’t go well. But, it seems that other confessions act more correct as us do. But, why the Protestants ignore some of the Saviour's words? I don’t have the courage to think more because I am afraid that I will be regarded as heretic and because my family and my friends could avert from me, but…”

In other words, the ecumenism may be also an expression of the fact that some Protestants feel that the way is wrong. As a direct recognition could have disagreeable personal consequences, a more acceptable path seems to be the realization of a tendency toward the change of the protestant concepts themselves. The direction can be only one, toward a reapproch toward the Saviour’s teachings.

As this implies to recognize that other confessions had a more correct behaviour, this thing can be interpreted as a defeat and so the conceit and the concern about how the Protestantism could be judged by other confessions begin to intervene. There are human concerns, but very important for someone who feels that he made mistakes and feels fear concerning how the others will react…
In these conditions it seems to be necessary that the others waive from some of their concepts, too. If this will happen, the others can’t judge your defeat and so your “honor” will remains unchanged.

So, the ecumenism could signify both that the Protestantism did make faults, but also it could be seen as a technique that avoids the Protestantism judgement by other confessions by persuading them to waive also to some of their concepts.

[[Image: The Protestantism and the Ecumenism in a Graphic.png|This graphic proves that "a mean path” could lead away from the Saviour's Way]]
===What to do?===
There is no astonishment that the Protestantism was who proposed the ecumenism (in the shape about which we are dealing in this article). This is because the protestant movement has made the biggest changes to the Catholic Church teachings and, so, it has done the most important waiver at the Jesus Christ’s words and example. The outcome was that the errors are becoming more evidently.

Because the truth is this: the Christian teachings were made 2,000 years ago and those we have to follow! The Protestantism bases involved some conceit that required to Protestants to exhibit an individual way, apart from the Saviour teachings. So, it ignores some fundamental Christian aspects. Even more, at the beginning of the third millenium, the Protestantism didn’t return yet to the Jesus Christ’s path that leads to redemption because of the same conceit: how could it cede to other confessions?

But the most important aspect is not to cede or not to cede, but to know and to go after the teachings that were given us 2,000 years ago, to live inside the Church body in which – at each Eucharist – there is lived again the life in Christ that the first Christians had practiced, when the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity Itself, help us – by the aid of the Holy Grace that reveals Itself in Church – to progress on the Salvation Way.

==Note. Read it First!==
The paragraphs with identation correspond to footnotes in the initial article.

'''For this article, copyright 2007, Mircea Romania. All rights reserved.'''
::The copyright clause was introduced only to keep the article message. Feel you free to copy the article as you need. If you quoute some items, please mention a link to a place where there is the full article.

User:Mircea Romania/Protestantism and Ecumenism. Or why to be an Orthodox

2007-02-16T11:37:01Z

Mircea Romania:

This article deals with a new view concerning the Protestantism and of one of the movements that it sustains, the ecumenism.

:We must note that the ecumenism had existed from the Christianity beginnings and is also manifesting in the Orthodox Church, but its meaning is different from those that it was promoted by Protestantism.

But, in this paragraph, we are dealing with something else. We stress that in the Christian Church history there is a fact that has the greatest importance: the days when the Father’s Son descended at the man’s level. Then, Saviour arrived among us as simple man. His words and His personal example, showed to man the way that he must follow to achieve the redemption. His message was received not only by apostle, but also by His learners and by the other men who met Him, many of those men having the chance to tell, to hear and to see Him.

But there are more that 2,000 years from those times and He neither came again among us, nor sent us a new message that could change in any mode His teachings that founded the Christianity. So, we have no reason to follow any else teachings because He gave us only the above one, we must follow His only message.

Sure, it is not an easy work to understand His teachings and there are more subtle aspects which agitated the Christians’s soul and mind because different people have been understanding dissimilar meanings. The Church has solving those problems with the Sacred Spirit’s help, Holy Person who had also called at the Seven Ecumenical Synods to teach man the right way. But there are other aspects that would not must to follow at different understandings because in those cases the messages were very clear. The Protestantism, for example, introduced the „Sola fide” concept, teaching people that the belief alone is enough for someone who wants to achieve the redemption, the good deed having no importance. An objective analysis reveals that their conception is true partially. However, there are also strong arguments against it, but we will not present them here because the target of this article is different. We are noticing only that the Saviour Himself stresses that the redemption needs good deeds. And, - once that the condition that must be passed to achieve the salvation depends exclusively by God - the result is clarly: any thought (however deeply it could seem to be to someone) could follow to fewer good results as it could someone get if he does what God wants.

=== A New View About How the Protestantism Appeared, How it Spread and What It is It ===
The Protestantism appeared when it took place the New World conquest. In those times the Catholic Church was full of strength and it imposed its power in all the aspects of the life, beginning with the religious and the moral ones.

As it is known, the new lands „civilization” really meant the destruction of more advanced civilizations and the killing of tens of millions of indigenous. At this fact it must be added that the Europeans that gone to the New World had not was selected to do a real civilization, but even they were the least civilized people: convicts, men with a poor morality, adventurers. They made Anti-Christian deeds: murders, thefts, and so on. When they had driven away, they not only were out of the Church teachings, but also they were impelled to do more wrong deeds. And they did do those.

When they returned to Europe with a lot of wealth for the kings and other people, they also retained some for they and so they became rich men. Of course, they didn’t change their wrong religious and moral visions, but, because they had brought services to the kings and because the kings expected to send them again in expeditions to the New World to become richer, it could be supposed that the kings defeated them when they had problems. As kings’s protected men, as rich people and with a conquering hero’s halo it may be presumed that they acquired a great influence in the society. This implies that a segment of the society began to admire and to follow their visions and their behaviour. So, if until there Inquisition had repressed (very) drastically any departure relative to the Catholic teachings, beginning with the apparition of those people, there was installed…”the exception”: for those men there were other rules, namely the population saw that it could live also without the need to follow the Catholic Church teachings…
In fact, those vanquishers of the New World were a knot of influent people that exhibited Non-Catholic views and behaviours. Otherwise, caught between the Not-Christian deeds that they have did in expeditions and the opulence that they might show when they returned in Europe, it could be assumed that they didn’t have much time to teach, to know and to follow the Catholic Church’s requirements.

In those conditions the Protestantism was a way for Christianity to keep that people under his wings. How? We are showing that in sequel.

At it is known, the Protestantism lacks an important aspect that most of the religions of the world have: a real or supposed divine will (a god that revealed himself to someone and taught him what the people have to do, a god that showed himself to the people, etc.). The Protestants can’t affirm that the God teaches they what to do. In their case only the reason of some people decided what is good and what is wrong, how to be interpreted the Saviour's message.
Interesting, in overall the Protestantism has limited itself to ignore some of the Catholic Church teachings. In other words, it has throwing values that it has considering as inutile: The Holy Tradition, The Holy Sacraments, the canon laws, etc. It doesn’t bring new dogmatic elements that the Catholic Church hasn’t and whose applications could lead in a better manner to the resurrection. It affirms that it knows alone the resurrection path, but its way is restricted itself to disrespect some of the Catholic Church teachings.

:Of course, it could be noted that some teachings and acts of the Catholic Church (for which there is difficult to find a basis in Bible, as the Pope’s power to save someone for money or the teachings about the purgatory) have played an important role in the birth of the protestant movement. But, event these facts may be considered as separations from the God’s teachings, it must to be not forgotten that they represent only a little part of what the Catholic Church teaches. The most important part of it acts is founded on Bible and the teachings that traveled from those times. Therefore when the Protestantism taken position against those aspects, it would been a good choice to limit its position only against these and to not reject the good part that the Catholic Church promoted. As the protestant movement had thrown too much, he reached a state in which it lacks a big part of the good part of the Catholic Church doctrine and life and hears only the earthly human reason and interests. The fact that the human reason can fail is proven by the fact that the Protestants didn’t thrown only the wrong aspects and by the situation in which they ignore the need to do good deeds, as the Saviour asked us (we refer to the protestant doctrine, not to the protestant believer who tries to do good deeds).

:Interesting, the Orthodox Church rejects – mostly – those teachings, too. Therefore the Orthodox Church doesn’t talk about purgatory and it considers that all the money of the world cn’t buy the salvation of someone, that man must try to understand, to respect and to follow the God’s teachings, bun only He decides if somebody is saved or not. But, in the same time, the Orthodox Church is all the time concerned itself to maintain in the best condition the God’s teachings, in such a manner as no items that could help to the man’s salvation to be lost.

:The well known fact that the Protestantism does not recognize more of the Catholic Church teachings is frequently used to argue his separation. At a glance, it could be shown that the differences do not need to lead to a complete break with the Catholicism. As an example, if a catholic believes that the salvation can’t be achieved with money, he does not need to be revolted and to separate himself from his church. Simply, it can ignore the Pope’s feature (he is not obliged to use them!), to study carefully the Christian teachings and to make the deeds that he consider that the God loves. Sure, the Pope’s offer could tempt the rich people, that can then waive to do good deeds and, more, to change their Christian conceptions because they thinks that, in any case, they can buy their redemption with money. From this point of view the feature can be considered harmful because it allows to somebody (but, we repeat, it not oblige them!) to fight for their salvation and, so, to discover to late that they hadn’t taken oil in their candles, as in the ten virgin girls parable. But, as we shown, anybody has the freedom to seek the salvation by the mean of faith, prayers, good deeds and love for God and man.

:In the same time, it is also true that a teaching that promotes thea idea that the salvation could be bought with money can determine many people to follow wrong ways, therefore the Catholic Church must be informed about such a situation. But what could happen if the Catholic Church has restraints to recognize that it fails in some cases? I those conditions, the apparition of the protestant movement could be thought as a desperate reaction that claims to analyse with responsibility the facts.

:Of course, there is very important for the believer to know what he must do to gain the salvation. As only God knows what He loves and what He wants to ask from us to do, it appears to be evident that we must fight to understand and to do as well as we can what He asks to us. The problem is not to do something what we like, important and useful is to do what God wants. The Protestants, angry with the Catholic Church, had rejected more of its teachings. When they decided what is wrong and what is good, they appealed exclusively to their reason and interests. They didn’t invoked God, as the Uniqueness that knows what is good, what is the Way, Truth and Life. They wanted to throw the tares, but they thrown also the wheat that the God had sowed. Who wants to be saved must to return and to gather carefully the Jesus’s words that He had give to us 2,000 years ago. And not only the words, but also their meanings and the first Christians’s state, in other words the Holy Tradition and that life inside the Church.’s liturgy. Could someone who don’t know to read the scores to learn to sing using them, even he have read a lot of explications? Isn’t necessary to hear also the notes and, so, to make the suitable links between the auditive impression and the symbols that there have written on the scores? The writing, as good as it could be done, can’t substitute the sounds, the sensations that someone feels when he dance, the taste of food. In a similar way, the words of the Bible can’t replace the state that the believers had experimented in these times. Other problem is that, in time, the meanings of some words had lost or had changed. More, in these times the Jew’s spoken The Hebraic and the Aramaic, languages in which the same word had more interpretations. Only the people that had lived in these times could do the correct selection in all the situations. And, very important, Jesus Christ, as man, hadn’t left us any written word! To ignore anything that hadn’t been written in Bible could mean to ignore and to forget all the other deeds that the Saviour did as man. We must not to forgot that the New Testament include only a small amount of all what the Lord had taught and had spoken, of what had did the Jesus’s Apostles and apprentices. Do you agree that a more complete knowledge of these elements could help us to a better understanding of the Jesus’s message of salvation? For this reason there is needed the Holy Tradition and a revival of those apostolic times, fact that it is happening during each Eucharist.

:The sad side is that the Protestant’s disagreements with the Catholic Church had evolved from some problems that could be discussed inside the Catholic Church to a new movement in which the protest is a main key. Dispute, contestation and disruption – not unity and love in Christ. And – very gravely – the Protestants waived to understand the Church’s teachings inside it and to recognize the authority of the Divine Grace and of the priests that drive the flock that love God. (There could be useful to remark that the Divine Grace is differently perceived in the Western Churches and in the Eastern ones. According to the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace], “In Eastern Christianity, grace is an energy of God, or a description of how God acts in forgiving and spiritually healing others. The sacraments are seen as a <<means of grace>> because '''God works through his Church''', not just because specific legalistic rules are followed; and '''Grace is the working of God Himself'''. not a created substance of any kind that can be treated like a commodity”). The Protestants observed that the priests, or even the Pope, make mistakes, too. But this is a normal thing and the Orthodox Church recognizes this fact: any man is under the mistakes, including the deacons, the priests and the bishops. Only God – who is the Truth Itself – is without sin. Even the Saint Apostle Peter denies the Lord when He was shut… More important that the fact that the clergy could fail is that in it the Divine Grace is working and so '''the Church as a whole follows the Bridegroom’s teachings, the Good Shepherd’s Way, who is Christ Itself'''. And this is true even they are not as good as we would to be. And the true question is not if the priests fails (this is, mainly, their personal problem), but how we can satisfy the God’s demands. As the Divine Grace and the priesthood help us to maintain a link with God, we must use this feature. The Protestants broke this link… They had put ahead only their reason, interest and conceit. The Protestants can be firmly moved ahead in the social life with these items, but they could be of little importance if they want to be saved and they waved to hear what the God wants from they.

:Unfortunately, it seems that the people who considered very important to be resolved some supossed errors of the Catholic Church didn’t know the Orthodox Church teachings… This is becouse some of the problems that the Protestants observed (with the aid of their reason), the Orthodox Church teaches from the beginnings – but as an expression of the Divine Grace that is manifesting Itself inside the Church. '''Becouse the Orthodoxy is the Way to reamain inside the Church that was founded by the Saviour Itself'''.

As a paranthesis, it could be observed that someone who acknwledges the catholic requirements will also do what the Protestants ask, whereas the acknowledgement of only the Protestantism’s needings implies the emergency that some arbitrary rejected Catholic demandes to don’t be accomplished.

In other words, even if (strictly hypothetic and … „rational”) some of the demandes at what the Protestants waived – exaggeratedly – couldn’t be necessary for the salvation, their realization is at most inutile, but not harmful, whereas if, even it exist only one needed for the resurrection requirement that was rejected, the man who do so puts himself in the emergency to loose its own salvation.

In conclusion, the '''Protestantism seems to be only an extreme simplification of the Catholic Church teachings'''.

Very interesting, even this simplification leads to his power. Because it allows even to a person that in reality has almost no belief in God - as thoughts or deeds – to name itself as Christian.
:We refer at those Protestants that participated in a direct and violent manner to the New World conquest, men that it could be supposed that had a very weak link with the Christian dogma, teachings, conceptions, deeds and behaviour, not to those that founded the first protestant movements, who was interested in religion. We can observe that, from its beginnings, the was two kind of Protestants: with a weak link with Christianity, and with a deep interest in religion, but with a strong conceit, too.

:The polarization persists in our days. We can see Protestants that are strong involved in the religious life, but there are also Protestants that – in conceptions, deeds or professions – are far from the Christianity, men who after they speak about God, at a short time, plan wars, do disruptions, invent and manufacture new weapons or blast this wonderful Earth that the Creator gave us and we must to take care about its good state.

If we refer at those first Protestants, they had been acquainted with the fact that God exists, but they had almost nothing to do to prove their membership. They believed and that was all, their behaviour and thoughts were nearly unchanged, they can do anything. Minimal requirements, maximal vows, this was an much more tempting offer as the Catholic Church could do. Warning! The promises were great because form God originates, whereas the requirements were low because they came from man. And if the man passes over the God words, if he didn’t make what God asked he, then could be he doubtless that God will … give he the payment that he wish?

The Protestantism’s sunny side was and is that it has allowed to man to doesn’t make a completelly break between he and God, to mantain a link (even weakly) with the Creator.
But there is also a dark side because it affirms that only it can conduce the man to resurrection. Because it rejected some of the God’s requirements it is difficult to believe that. It is harmful because it tries to inveigle Christians that are members of other confessions to it, namely it teaches them to waive also to hear the God’s Will concerning some aspects. In other words – by the extreme simplification of the Christian teachings that it brings – it is like a child that, after he learned that 1 + 1 = 2, then it tries to convince the PhD in mathematics Professor that all the mathematics is what he knows.

So, the Protestantism promises much (even it hasn’t arguments to prove that it really can do what it says) and asks very few. Nearby this aspect it exhibits elements that make it attractively for many men. For example, it involves the people in many social actions as to sing together, to bring new members, to deliver newspapers, to revard the best members, etc. In reality it is like something as “the instrumentalists’s batch” or “the walking friends”, so it is a place when the youths can spend their energy and can challenge for a better rank in the group and the olds can avoid to feel themselves alone. But the most important is to do the God’s Will. It could be of interest that every Protestant to check how much count in his participation at the Protestant groups the social needs and what is the part that is in reality for God. The money and the material goods are also elements of attraction for someone. There is no secret that some people have been becoming Protestants because on this way they can emigrate easier or to have a house. Could be named Christian belief this pass to the Protestants that depends of money, and is not founded in love for God? And this is important more when it could be seen that by this way there are men who lost their Christian deeds and beliefs and arrive to ignore some of the Good’s words. Let us don’t forget the Saviour teachings and life and how the first Christians had lived.
Really, are the Protestantism not a movement in which the man remains in the state in which he do like to be, only speaking about God and trying to bring God at his rational level and its interests?

===And the Ecumenism Came into View…===
The Protestantism has the good aspect that each of its members studies carefully the Gospel. Even there are more wrong interpretations, even they don’t recognize the importance of the Holy Spirit for a correct understanding of the God’s word, however their reason and effort help them to understand some teachings.

In these conditions, around 1910, the Protestantism gave birth to a new and strong movement: the (protestant) ecumenism, an attempt to unify the Christian Churches.
The initiative seems to be laudable because we, all the Christians, must confess the same God and we have to hike on the same narrow and straight way that carries to salvation.
Of course, the ecumenism may be understood as a protestant technique to attract all the Christian under its wings, too.

But it may signify an awakening. Namely, “my family and my friends are Protestants and I myself have learning since my very early days that the Protestantism is the unique way to salvation, but…. Some things seem to don’t go well. But, it seems that other confessions act more correct as us do. But, why the Protestants ignore some of the Saviour's words? I don’t have the courage to think more because I am afraid that I will be regarded as heretic and because my family and my friends could avert from me, but…”

In other words, the ecumenism may be also an expression of the fact that some Protestants feel that the way is wrong. As a direct recognition could have disagreeable personal consequences, a more acceptable path seems to be the realization of a tendency toward the change of the protestant concepts themselves. The direction can be only one, toward a reapproch toward the Saviour’s teachings.

As this implies to recognize that other confessions had a more correct behaviour, this thing can be interpreted as a defeat and so the conceit and the concern about how the Protestantism could be judged by other confessions begin to intervene. There are human concerns, but very important for someone who feels that he made mistakes and feels fear concerning how the others will react…
In these conditions it seems to be necessary that the others waive from some of their concepts, too. If this will happen, the others can’t judge your defeat and so your “honor” will remains unchanged.

So, the ecumenism could signify both that the Protestantism did make faults, but also it could be seen as a technique that avoids the Protestantism judgement by other confessions by persuading them to waive also to some of their concepts.

===What to do?===
There is no astonishment that the Protestantism was who proposed the ecumenism (in the shape about which we are dealing in this article). This is because the protestant movement has made the biggest changes to the Catholic Church teachings and, so, it has done the most important waiver at the Jesus Christ’s words and example. The outcome was that the errors are becoming more evidently.

Because the truth is this: the Christian teachings were made 2,000 years ago and those we have to follow! The Protestantism bases involved some conceit that required to Protestants to exhibit an individual way, apart from the Saviour teachings. So, it ignores some fundamental Christian aspects. Even more, at the beginning of the third millenium, the Protestantism didn’t return yet to the Jesus Christ’s path that leads to redemption because of the same conceit: how could it cede to other confessions?

But the most important aspect is not to cede or not to cede, but to know and to go after the teachings that were given us 2,000 years ago, to live inside the Church body in which – at each Eucharist – there is lived again the life in Christ that the first Christians had practiced, when the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity Itself, help us – by the aid of the Holy Grace that reveals Itself in Church – to progress on the Salvation Way.

==Note. Read it First!==
The paragraphs with identation correspond to footnotes in the initial article.

'''For this article, copyright 2007, Mircea Romania. All rights reserved.'''
::The copyright clause was introduced only to keep the article message. Feel you free to copy the article as you need. If you quoute some items, please mention a link to a place where there is the full article.

User:Mircea Romania/Protestantism and Ecumenism. Or why to be an Orthodox

2007-02-16T11:33:47Z

Mircea Romania:

This article deals with a new view concerning the Protestantism and of one of the movements that it sustains, the ecumenism.
:We must note that the ecumenism had existed from the Christianity beginnings and is also manifesting in the Orthodox Church, but its meaning is different from those that it was promoted by Protestantism.

But, in this paragraph, we are dealing with something else. We stress that in the Christian Church history there is a fact that has the greatest importance: the days when the Father’s Son descended at the man’s level. Then, Saviour arrived among us as simple man. His words and His personal example, showed to man the way that he must follow to achieve the redemption. His message was received not only by apostle, but also by His learners and by the other men who met Him, many of those men having the chance to tell, to hear and to see Him.
But there are more that 2,000 years from those times and He neither came again among us, nor sent us a new message that could change in any mode His teachings that founded the Christianity. So, we have no reason to follow any else teachings because He gave us only the above one, we must follow His only message.
Sure, it is not an easy work to understand His teachings and there are more subtle aspects which agitated the Christians’s soul and mind because different people have been understanding dissimilar meanings. The Church has solving those problems with the Sacred Spirit’s help, Holy Person who had also called at the Seven Ecumenical Synods to teach man the right way. But there are other aspects that would not must to follow at different understandings because in those cases the messages were very clear. The Protestantism, for example, introduced the „Sola fide” concept, teaching people that the belief alone is enough for someone who wants to achieve the redemption, the good deed having no importance. An objective analysis reveals that their conception is true partially. However, there are also strong arguments against it, but we will not present them here because the target of this article is different. We are noticing only that the Saviour Himself stresses that the redemption needs good deeds. And, - once that the condition that must be passed to achieve the salvation depends exclusively by God - the result is clarly: any thought (however deeply it could seem to be to someone) could follow to fewer good results as it could someone get if he does what God wants.
=== A New View About How the Protestantism Appeared, How it Spread and What It is It ===
The Protestantism appeared when it took place the New World conquest. In those times the Catholic Church was full of strength and it imposed its power in all the aspects of the life, beginning with the religious and the moral ones.
As it is known, the new lands „civilization” really meant the destruction of more advanced civilizations and the killing of tens of millions of indigenous. At this fact it must be added that the Europeans that gone to the New World had not was selected to do a real civilization, but even they were the least civilized people: convicts, men with a poor morality, adventurers. They made Anti-Christian deeds: murders, thefts, and so on. When they had driven away, they not only were out of the Church teachings, but also they were impelled to do more wrong deeds. And they did do those.
When they returned to Europe with a lot of wealth for the kings and other people, they also retained some for they and so they became rich men. Of course, they didn’t change their wrong religious and moral visions, but, because they had brought services to the kings and because the kings expected to send them again in expeditions to the New World to become richer, it could be supposed that the kings defeated them when they had problems. As kings’s protected men, as rich people and with a conquering hero’s halo it may be presumed that they acquired a great influence in the society. This implies that a segment of the society began to admire and to follow their visions and their behaviour. So, if until there Inquisition had repressed (very) drastically any departure relative to the Catholic teachings, beginning with the apparition of those people, there was installed…”the exception”: for those men there were other rules, namely the population saw that it could live also without the need to follow the Catholic Church teachings…
In fact, those vanquishers of the New World were a knot of influent people that exhibited Non-Catholic views and behaviours. Otherwise, caught between the Not-Christian deeds that they have did in expeditions and the opulence that they might show when they returned in Europe, it could be assumed that they didn’t have much time to teach, to know and to follow the Catholic Church’s requirements.
In those conditions the Protestantism was a way for Christianity to keep that people under his wings. How? We are showing that in sequel.
At it is known, the Protestantism lacks an important aspect that most of the religions of the world have: a real or supposed divine will (a god that revealed himself to someone and taught him what the people have to do, a god that showed himself to the people, etc.). The Protestants can’t affirm that the God teaches they what to do. In their case only the reason of some people decided what is good and what is wrong, how to be interpreted the Saviour's message.
Interesting, in overall the Protestantism has limited itself to ignore some of the Catholic Church teachings. In other words, it has throwing values that it has considering as inutile: The Holy Tradition, The Holy Sacraments, the canon laws, etc. It doesn’t bring new dogmatic elements that the Catholic Church hasn’t and whose applications could lead in a better manner to the resurrection. It affirms that it knows alone the resurrection path, but its way is restricted itself to disrespect some of the Catholic Church teachings.
:Of course, it could be noted that some teachings and acts of the Catholic Church (for which there is difficult to find a basis in Bible, as the Pope’s power to save someone for money or the teachings about the purgatory) have played an important role in the birth of the protestant movement. But, event these facts may be considered as separations from the God’s teachings, it must to be not forgotten that they represent only a little part of what the Catholic Church teaches. The most important part of it acts is founded on Bible and the teachings that traveled from those times. Therefore when the Protestantism taken position against those aspects, it would been a good choice to limit its position only against these and to not reject the good part that the Catholic Church promoted. As the protestant movement had thrown too much, he reached a state in which it lacks a big part of the good part of the Catholic Church doctrine and life and hears only the earthly human reason and interests. The fact that the human reason can fail is proven by the fact that the Protestants didn’t thrown only the wrong aspects and by the situation in which they ignore the need to do good deeds, as the Saviour asked us (we refer to the protestant doctrine, not to the protestant believer who tries to do good deeds).
:Interesting, the Orthodox Church rejects – mostly – those teachings, too. Therefore the Orthodox Church doesn’t talk about purgatory and it considers that all the money of the world cn’t buy the salvation of someone, that man must try to understand, to respect and to follow the God’s teachings, bun only He decides if somebody is saved or not. But, in the same time, the Orthodox Church is all the time concerned itself to maintain in the best condition the God’s teachings, in such a manner as no items that could help to the man’s salvation to be lost.
:The well known fact that the Protestantism does not recognize more of the Catholic Church teachings is frequently used to argue his separation. At a glance, it could be shown that the differences do not need to lead to a complete break with the Catholicism. As an example, if a catholic believes that the salvation can’t be achieved with money, he does not need to be revolted and to separate himself from his church. Simply, it can ignore the Pope’s feature (he is not obliged to use them!), to study carefully the Christian teachings and to make the deeds that he consider that the God loves. Sure, the Pope’s offer could tempt the rich people, that can then waive to do good deeds and, more, to change their Christian conceptions because they thinks that, in any case, they can buy their redemption with money. From this point of view the feature can be considered harmful because it allows to somebody (but, we repeat, it not oblige them!) to fight for their salvation and, so, to discover to late that they hadn’t taken oil in their candles, as in the ten virgin girls parable. But, as we shown, anybody has the freedom to seek the salvation by the mean of faith, prayers, good deeds and love for God and man.
:In the same time, it is also true that a teaching that promotes thea idea that the salvation could be bought with money can determine many people to follow wrong ways, therefore the Catholic Church must be informed about such a situation. But what could happen if the Catholic Church has restraints to recognize that it fails in some cases? I those conditions, the apparition of the protestant movement could be thought as a desperate reaction that claims to analyse with responsibility the facts.
:Of course, there is very important for the believer to know what he must do to gain the salvation. As only God knows what He loves and what He wants to ask from us to do, it appears to be evident that we must fight to understand and to do as well as we can what He asks to us. The problem is not to do something what we like, important and useful is to do what God wants. The Protestants, angry with the Catholic Church, had rejected more of its teachings. When they decided what is wrong and what is good, they appealed exclusively to their reason and interests. They didn’t invoked God, as the Uniqueness that knows what is good, what is the Way, Truth and Life. They wanted to throw the tares, but they thrown also the wheat that the God had sowed. Who wants to be saved must to return and to gather carefully the Jesus’s words that He had give to us 2,000 years ago. And not only the words, but also their meanings and the first Christians’s state, in other words the Holy Tradition and that life inside the Church.’s liturgy. Could someone who don’t know to read the scores to learn to sing using them, even he have read a lot of explications? Isn’t necessary to hear also the notes and, so, to make the suitable links between the auditive impression and the symbols that there have written on the scores? The writing, as good as it could be done, can’t substitute the sounds, the sensations that someone feels when he dance, the taste of food. In a similar way, the words of the Bible can’t replace the state that the believers had experimented in these times. Other problem is that, in time, the meanings of some words had lost or had changed. More, in these times the Jew’s spoken The Hebraic and the Aramaic, languages in which the same word had more interpretations. Only the people that had lived in these times could do the correct selection in all the situations. And, very important, Jesus Christ, as man, hadn’t left us any written word! To ignore anything that hadn’t been written in Bible could mean to ignore and to forget all the other deeds that the Saviour did as man. We must not to forgot that the New Testament include only a small amount of all what the Lord had taught and had spoken, of what had did the Jesus’s Apostles and apprentices. Do you agree that a more complete knowledge of these elements could help us to a better understanding of the Jesus’s message of salvation? For this reason there is needed the Holy Tradition and a revival of those apostolic times, fact that it is happening during each Eucharist.
:The sad side is that the Protestant’s disagreements with the Catholic Church had evolved from some problems that could be discussed inside the Catholic Church to a new movement in which the protest is a main key. Dispute, contestation and disruption – not unity and love in Christ. And – very gravely – the Protestants waived to understand the Church’s teachings inside it and to recognize the authority of the Divine Grace and of the priests that drive the flock that love God. (There could be useful to remark that the Divine Grace is differently perceived in the Western Churches and in the Eastern ones. According to the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace], “In Eastern Christianity, grace is an energy of God, or a description of how God acts in forgiving and spiritually healing others. The sacraments are seen as a <<means of grace>> because '''God works through his Church''', not just because specific legalistic rules are followed; and '''Grace is the working of God Himself'''. not a created substance of any kind that can be treated like a commodity”). The Protestants observed that the priests, or even the Pope, make mistakes, too. But this is a normal thing and the Orthodox Church recognizes this fact: any man is under the mistakes, including the deacons, the priests and the bishops. Only God – who is the Truth Itself – is without sin. Even the Saint Apostle Peter denies the Lord when He was shut… More important that the fact that the clergy could fail is that in it the Divine Grace is working and so '''the Church as a whole follows the Bridegroom’s teachings, the Good Shepherd’s Way, who is Christ Itself'''. And this is true even they are not as good as we would to be. And the true question is not if the priests fails (this is, mainly, their personal problem), but how we can satisfy the God’s demands. As the Divine Grace and the priesthood help us to maintain a link with God, we must use this feature. The Protestants broke this link… They had put ahead only their reason, interest and conceit. The Protestants can be firmly moved ahead in the social life with these items, but they could be of little importance if they want to be saved and they waved to hear what the God wants from they.
:Unfortunately, it seems that the people who considered very important to be resolved some supossed errors of the Catholic Church didn’t know the Orthodox Church teachings… This is becouse some of the problems that the Protestants observed (with the aid of their reason), the Orthodox Church teaches from the beginnings – but as an expression of the Divine Grace that is manifesting Itself inside the Church. '''Becouse the Orthodoxy is the Way to reamain inside the Church that was founded by the Saviour Itself'''.
As a paranthesis, it could be observed that someone who acknwledges the catholic requirements will also do what the Protestants ask, whereas the acknowledgement of only the Protestantism’s needings implies the emergency that some arbitrary rejected Catholic demandes to don’t be accomplished.
In other words, even if (strictly hypothetic and … „rational”) some of the demandes at what the Protestants waived – exaggeratedly – couldn’t be necessary for the salvation, their realization is at most inutile, but not harmful, whereas if, even it exist only one needed for the resurrection requirement that was rejected, the man who do so puts himself in the emergency to loose its own salvation.
In conclusion, the '''Protestantism seems to be only an extreme simplification of the Catholic Church teachings'''.
Very interesting, even this simplification leads to his power. Because it allows even to a person that in reality has almost no belief in God - as thoughts or deeds – to name itself as Christian.
:We refer at those Protestants that participated in a direct and violent manner to the New World conquest, men that it could be supposed that had a very weak link with the Christian dogma, teachings, conceptions, deeds and behaviour, not to those that founded the first protestant movements, who was interested in religion. We can observe that, from its beginnings, the was two kind of Protestants: with a weak link with Christianity, and with a deep interest in religion, but with a strong conceit, too.
:The polarization persists in our days. We can see Protestants that are strong involved in the religious life, but there are also Protestants that – in conceptions, deeds or professions – are far from the Christianity, men who after they speak about God, at a short time, plan wars, do disruptions, invent and manufacture new weapons or blast this wonderful Earth that the Creator gave us and we must to take care about its good state.
If we refer at those first Protestants, they had been acquainted with the fact that God exists, but they had almost nothing to do to prove their membership. They believed and that was all, their behaviour and thoughts were nearly unchanged, they can do anything. Minimal requirements, maximal vows, this was an much more tempting offer as the Catholic Church could do. Warning! The promises were great because form God originates, whereas the requirements were low because they came from man. And if the man passes over the God words, if he didn’t make what God asked he, then could be he doubtless that God will … give he the payment that he wish?
The Protestantism’s sunny side was and is that it has allowed to man to doesn’t make a completelly break between he and God, to mantain a link (even weakly) with the Creator.
But there is also a dark side because it affirms that only it can conduce the man to resurrection. Because it rejected some of the God’s requirements it is difficult to believe that. It is harmful because it tries to inveigle Christians that are members of other confessions to it, namely it teaches them to waive also to hear the God’s Will concerning some aspects. In other words – by the extreme simplification of the Christian teachings that it brings – it is like a child that, after he learned that 1 + 1 = 2, then it tries to convince the PhD in mathematics Professor that all the mathematics is what he knows.
So, the Protestantism promises much (even it hasn’t arguments to prove that it really can do what it says) and asks very few. Nearby this aspect it exhibits elements that make it attractively for many men. For example, it involves the people in many social actions as to sing together, to bring new members, to deliver newspapers, to revard the best members, etc. In reality it is like something as “the instrumentalists’s batch” or “the walking friends”, so it is a place when the youths can spend their energy and can challenge for a better rank in the group and the olds can avoid to feel themselves alone. But the most important is to do the God’s Will. It could be of interest that every Protestant to check how much count in his participation at the Protestant groups the social needs and what is the part that is in reality for God. The money and the material goods are also elements of attraction for someone. There is no secret that some people have been becoming Protestants because on this way they can emigrate easier or to have a house. Could be named Christian belief this pass to the Protestants that depends of money, and is not founded in love for God? And this is important more when it could be seen that by this way there are men who lost their Christian deeds and beliefs and arrive to ignore some of the Good’s words. Let us don’t forget the Saviour teachings and life and how the first Christians had lived.
Really, are the Protestantism not a movement in which the man remains in the state in which he do like to be, only speaking about God and trying to bring God at his rational level and its interests?
===And the Ecumenism Came into View…===
The Protestantism has the good aspect that each of its members studies carefully the Gospel. Even there are more wrong interpretations, even they don’t recognize the importance of the Holy Spirit for a correct understanding of the God’s word, however their reason and effort help them to understand some teachings.
In these conditions, around 1910, the Protestantism gave birth to a new and strong movement: the (protestant) ecumenism, an attempt to unify the Christian Churches.
The initiative seems to be laudable because we, all the Christians, must confess the same God and we have to hike on the same narrow and straight way that carries to salvation.
Of course, the ecumenism may be understood as a protestant technique to attract all the Christian under its wings, too.
But it may signify an awakening. Namely, “my family and my friends are Protestants and I myself have learning since my very early days that the Protestantism is the unique way to salvation, but…. Some things seem to don’t go well. But, it seems that other confessions act more correct as us do. But, why the Protestants ignore some of the Saviour's words? I don’t have the courage to think more because I am afraid that I will be regarded as heretic and because my family and my friends could avert from me, but…”
In other words, the ecumenism may be also an expression of the fact that some Protestants feel that the way is wrong. As a direct recognition could have disagreeable personal consequences, a more acceptable path seems to be the realization of a tendency toward the change of the protestant concepts themselves. The direction can be only one, toward a reapproch toward the Saviour’s teachings.
As this implies to recognize that other confessions had a more correct behaviour, this thing can be interpreted as a defeat and so the conceit and the concern about how the Protestantism could be judged by other confessions begin to intervene. There are human concerns, but very important for someone who feels that he made mistakes and feels fear concerning how the others will react…
In these conditions it seems to be necessary that the others waive from some of their concepts, too. If this will happen, the others can’t judge your defeat and so your “honor” will remains unchanged.
So, the ecumenism could signify both that the Protestantism did make faults, but also it could be seen as a technique that avoids the Protestantism judgement by other confessions by persuading them to waive also to some of their concepts.
===What to do?===
There is no astonishment that the Protestantism was who proposed the ecumenism (in the shape about which we are dealing in this article). This is because the protestant movement has made the biggest changes to the Catholic Church teachings and, so, it has done the most important waiver at the Jesus Christ’s words and example. The outcome was that the errors are becoming more evidently.
Because the truth is this: the Christian teachings were made 2,000 years ago and those we have to follow! The Protestantism bases involved some conceit that required to Protestants to exhibit an individual way, apart from the Saviour teachings. So, it ignores some fundamental Christian aspects. Even more, at the beginning of the third millenium, the Protestantism didn’t return yet to the Jesus Christ’s path that leads to redemption because of the same conceit: how could it cede to other confessions?
But the most important aspect is not to cede or not to cede, but to know and to go after the teachings that were given us 2,000 years ago, to live inside the Church body in which – at each Eucharist – there is lived again the life in Christ that the first Christians had practiced, when the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity Itself, help us – by the aid of the Holy Grace that reveals Itself in Church – to progress on the Salvation Way.

==Note. Read it First!==
The paragraphs with identation correspond to footnotes in the initial article.

'''For this article, copyright 2007, Mircea Romania. All rights reserved.'''
::The copyright clause was introduced only to keep the article message. Feel you free to copy the article as you need. If you quoute some items, please mention a link to a place where there is the full article.

User:Mircea Romania/Protestantism and Ecumenism. Or why to be an Orthodox

2007-02-15T19:58:16Z

Mircea Romania: I included a graphic

This article deals with a new view concerning the '''Protestantism''' and of one of the movements that it sustains, the '''Ecumenism'''.

:We must note that the ecumenism had existed from the Christianity beginnings and is also manifesting in the Orthodox Church, but its meaning is different from those that it was promoted by Protestantism.

But, in this paragraph, we are dealing with something else. We stress that in the Christian Church history there is a fact that has the greatest importance: the days when the Father’s Son descended at the man’s level. Then, Saviour arrived among us as simple man. His words and His personal example, showed to man the way that he must follow to achieve the redemption. His message was received not only by apostoles, but also by His learners and by the other men who met Him, many of those men having the chance to tell, to hear and to see Him.

But there are more that 2,000 years from those times and He neither came again amoung us, nor sended us a new message that could change in any mode His teachings that founded the Christianity. So, we have no reason to follow any else teachings because He gave us only the above one, we must follow His only message.

Sure, it is not an an easy work to understand His teachings and there are more subtle aspects which agitated the Christians’s soul and mind because different people has understood dissimilar meanings. The Church has solving those problems with the Sacred Spirit’s help, Holy Person who had also called at the Seven Ecumenical Synodes to teach man the right way. But there are other aspects that would not must to follow at different understndings because in those cases the messages were very clear. The Protestantism, for example, introduced the „Sola fide” concept, teaching people that the belief alone is enough for someone who wants to achieve the redemption, the good deed having no importance. An objective analysis reveals that their conception is true partially. However, there are also strong arguments against it, but we will not present them here because the target of this article is different. We are noticing only that the Saviour Himself stresses that the redemption needs good deeds. And, - once that the condition that must be passed to achieve the salvation depends exclusively by God - the result is clarly: any thought (however deeply it could seem to be to someone) could follow to fewer good results as it could someone get if he does what God wants.

===A New View About How the Proterstantism Appeared, How it Spreaded and What It is It===
The Protestantism appeared when it took place the New World conquest. In those times the Catholic Church was full of strength and it imposed its power in all the aspects of the life, beginning with the religious and the moral ones.

As it is hnown, the new lands „civilization” really meant the destruction of more advanced civilizations and the killing of tens of millions of indigenous. At this fact it must be added that the Europeans that gone to the New World had not was selected to do a real civilization, but even they were the leasted civilizate people: convicts, men with a poor morality, adventurers. They made Anti-Christian deeds: murders, thefts, and so on. When they had driven away, they not only were out of the Church teachings, but also they were impeled to do more wrong deeds. And they did do those.

When they returned to Europa with a lot of wealth for the kings and other people, they also retained some for they and so they became rich men. Of course, they didn’t change their wrong religious and moral visions, but, because they had brought services to the kings and because the kings expected to send them again in expeditions to the New World to become richer, it could be supposed that the kings defeated them when they had problems. As kings’s protected men, as rich people and with an conquering hero’s halo it may be presumed that they acquired a great influence in the society. This implies that a segment of the society began to admire and to follow their visions and their behaviour. So, if until there Inquisition had repressed (very) drastically any departure rellative to the Catholic teachings, beginning with the apparition of those people, there was installed…”the exception”: for those men there were other rules, namely the population saw that it could live also without the need to follow the Catholic Church teachings…

In fact, those vaquisher of the New World were a knot of influent people that exhibited Non-Catholic Views and behaviours. Otherwise, caught between the Not-Christian deeds that they have did in expeditions and the opulence that they might show when they returned in Europe, it could be assumed that they didn’t have much time to teach, to know and to follow the Catholic Church’s requirements.

In those conditions the Protestantism was a way for Christianity to keep that people under his wings. How? We are showing that in sequel.

At it is known, the Protestantism lacks an important aspect that most of the religions of the world have: a real or supossed divine will (a god that revealed himself to someone and taught him what the people have to do, a god that showed himself to the people, etc.). The Protestants can’t affirm that the God teaches they what to do. In their case only the reason of some people decided what is good and what is wrong, how to be interpreted the Saviour's message.

Interesting, in overall the Protestantism has limited itself to ignore some of the Catholic Church teachings. In other words, it has throwing values that it has considering as inutile: The Holy Tradition, The Holy Sacraments, the canon laws, etc. It doesn’t bring new dogmatic elements that the Catholic Church haven’t and whose applications could lead in a better manner to the resurection. It affirms that it knows alone the resurection path, but its way is restricted itself to disrespect some of of the Catholic Church teachings.

:Of course, it could be noted that some teachings and acts of the Catholic Church (for which there is difficult to find a basis in Bible, as the Pope’s power to save someone for money or the teachings about the purgatory) have played an important role in the birth of the protestant movement. But, event these facts may be considered as separations from the God’s teachings, it must to be not forgotten that they represent only a little part of what the Catholic Church teaches. The most important part of it acts is founded on Bible and the teachings that traveled from those times. Therefore when the Protestantism taken position against those aspects, it would been a good choice to limit its position only against these and to not reject the good part that the Catholic Church promoted. As the protestant movement had thrown too much, he reached a state in which it lacks a big part of the good part of the Catholic Church doctrine and life and hears only the earthly human reason and interests. The fact that the human reason can fail is proven by the fact that the Protestants didn’t thrown only the wrong aspects and by the situation in which they ignore the need to do good deeds, as the Saviour asked us (we refer to the protestant doctrine, not to the protestant believer who tries to do good deeds).

:Interesting, the Orthodox Church rejects – mostly – those teachings, too. Therefore the Orthodox Church doesn’t talk about purgatory and it considers that all the money of the world cn’t buy the salvation of someone, that man must try to understand, to respect and to follow the God’s teachings, bun only He decides if somebody is saved or not. But, in the same time, the Orthodox Church is all the time concerned itself to maintain in the best condition the God’s teachings, in such a manner as no items that could help to the man’s salvation to be lost.

:The well known fact that the Protestantism does not recognize more of the Catholic Church teachings is frequently used to argue his separation. At a glance, it could be shown that the differences do not need to lead to a complete break with the Catholicism. As an example, if a catholic believes that the salvation can’t be achieved with money, he does not need to be revolted and to separate himself from his church. Simply, it can ignore the Pope’s feature (he is not obliged to use them!), to study carefully the Christian teachings and to make the deeds that he consider that the God loves. Sure, the Pope’s offer could tempt the rich people, that can then waive to do good deeds and, more, to change their Christian conceptions because they thinks that, in any case, they can buy their redemption with money. From this point of view the feature can be considered harmful because it allows to somebody (but, we repeat, it not oblige them!) to fight for their salvation and, so, to discover to late that they hadn’t taken oil in their candles, as in the ten virgin girls parable. But, as we shown, anybody has the freedom to seek the salvation by the mean of faith, prayers, good deeds and love for God and man.

:In the same time, it is also true that a teaching that promotes thea idea that the salvation could be bought with money can determine many people to follow wrong ways, therefore the Catholic Church must be informed about such a situation. But what could happen if the Catholic Church has restraints to recognize that it fails in some cases? I those conditions, the apparition of the protestant movement could be thought as a desperate reaction that claims to analyse with responsibility the facts.

:Of course, there is very important for the believer to know what he must do to gain the salvation. As only God knows what He loves and what He wants to ask from us to do, it appears to be evident that we must fight to understand and to do as well as we can what He asks to us. The problem is not to do something what we like, important and useful is to do what God wants. The Protestants, angry with the Catholic Church, had rejected more of its teachings. When they decided what is wrong and what is good, they appealed exclusively to their reason and interests. They didn’t invoked God, as the Uniqueness that knows what is good, what is the Way, Truth and Life. They wanted to throw the tares, but they thrown also the wheat that the God had sowed. Who wants to be saved must to return and to gather carefully the Jesus’s words that He had give to us 2,000 years ago. And not only the words, but also their meanings and the first Christians’s state, in other words the Holy Tradition and that life inside the Church.’s liturgy. Could someone who don’t know to read the scores to learn to sing using them, even he have read a lot of explications? Isn’t necessary to hear also the notes and, so, to make the suitable links between the auditive impression and the symbols that there have written on the scores? The writing, as good as it could be done, can’t substitute the sounds, the sensations that someone feels when he dance, the taste of food. In a similar way, the words of the Bible can’t replace the state that the believers had experimented in these times. Other problem is that, in time, the meanings of some words had lost or had changed. More, in these times the Jew’s spoken The Hebraic and the Aramaic, languages in which the same word had more interpretations. Only the people that had lived in these times could do the correct selection in all the situations. And, very important, Jesus Christ, as man, hadn’t left us any written word! To ignore anything that hadn’t been written in Bible could mean to ignore and to forge t all the other deeds that the Saviour did as man. We must not to forgot that the New Testament include only a small amount of all what the Lord had taught and had spoken, of what had did the Jesus’s Apostles and apprentices. Do you agree that a more complete knowledge of these elements could help us to a better understanding of the Jesus’s message of salvation? For this reason there is needed the Holy Tradition and a revival of those apostolic times, fact that it is happening during each Eucharist.

:The sad side is that the Protestant’s disagreements with the Catholic Church had evolved from some problems that could be discussed inside the Catholic Church to a new movement in which the protest is a main key. Dispute, contestation and disruption – not unity and love in Christ. And – very gravely – the Protestants waived to understand the Church’s teachings inside it and to recognize the authority of the Divine Grace and of the priests that drive the flock that love God. (There could be useful to remark that the Divine Grace is differently perceived in the Western Churches and in the Eastern ones. According to the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace], “In Eastern Christianity, grace is an energy of God, or a description of how God acts in forgiving and spiritually healing others. The sacraments are seen as a <<means of grace>> because '''God works through his Church''', not just because specific legalistic rules are followed; and '''Grace is the working of God Himself'''. not a created substance of any kind that can be treated like a commodity”). The Protestants observed that the priests, or even the Pope, make mistakes, too. But this is a normal thing and the Orthodox Church recognizes this fact: any man is under the mistakes, including the deacons, the priests and the bishops. Only God – who is the Truth Itself – is without sin. Even the Saint Apostle Peter denies the Lord when He was shut… More important that the fact that the clergy could fail is that in it the Divine Grace is working and so '''the Church as a whole follows the Bridegroom’s teachings, the Good Shepherd’s Way, who is Christ Itself'''. And this is true even they are not as good as we would to be. And the true question is not if the priests fails (this is, mainly, their personal problem), but how we can satisfy the God’s demands. As the Divine Grace and the priesthood help us to maintain a link with God, we must use this feature. The Protestants broke this link… They had put ahead only their reason, interest and conceit. The Protestants can be firmly moved ahead in the social life with these items, but they could be of little importance if they want to be saved and they waved to hear what the God wants from they.

:Unfortunately, it seems that the people who considered very important to be resolved some supossed errors of the Catholic Church didn’t know the Orthodox Church teachings… This is becouse some of the problems that the Protestants observed (with the aid of their reason), the Orthodox Church teaches from the beginnings – but as an expression of the Divine Grace that is manifesting Itself inside the Church. '''Becouse the Orthodoxy is the Way to reamain inside the Church that was founded by the Saviour Itself'''.

As a paranthesis, it could be observed that someone who acknwledges the catholic requirements will also do what the Protestants ask, whereas the acknowledgement of the Protestantism’s needings alone implies the emergency that some arbitrary rejected Catholic demendes to don’t be acomplished.

In other words, even if (strictly hypoteticaly and … „rational”) some of the demandes at what the Protestants waived – exaggeratedly – couldn’t be necessary for the salvation, their realization is at most inutile, but not harmful, whereas if, even it exist only one needed for the resurection demend that was rejected, the man who do so puts himself in the emergency to loose its own salvation.

In conclusion, the '''Protestantism seems to be only an extreme simplification of the Catholic Church teachings'''.

Very interesting, even this simplification leads to his power. Because it allows even to a person that in reality has almost no belief in God - as thoughts or deeds – to name itself as Christian.
:We refer at those Protestants that participated in a direct and violent manner to the New World conquest, men that it could be supposed that had a very weak link with the Christian dogma, teachings, conceptions, deeds and behaviour, not to those that founded the first protestant movements, who was interested in religion. We can observe that, from its beginnings, the was two kind of Protestants: with a weak link with Christianity, and with a deep interest in religion, but with a strong conceit, too.

:The polarization persists in our days. We can see Protestants that are strong involved in the religious life, but there are also Protestants that – in conceptions, deeds or professions – are far from the Christianity, men who after they speak about God, at a short time, plan wars, do disruptions, invent and manufacture new weapons or blast this wonderful Earth that the Creator gave us and we must to take care about its good state.

If we refer at those first Protestants, they had been acquainted with the fact that God exists, but they had almost nothing to do to prove their membership. They believed and that was all, their behaviour and thoughts were nearly unchanged, they can do anything. Minimal requirements, maximal vows, this was an much more tempting offer as the Catholic Church could do. Warning! The promises were great because form God originates, whereas the requirements were low because they came from man. And if the man passes over the God words, if he didn’t make what God asked he, then could be he doubtless that God will … give he the payment that he wish?

The Protestantism’s sunny side was and is that it has allowed to man to doesn’t make a completelly break between he and God, to mantain a link (even weakly) with the Creator.
But there is also a dark side because it affirms that only it can conduce the man to resurection. Because it rejected some of the God’s requirements it is difficult to believe that. It is harmful because it tries to inveigle Christians that are members of other confessions to it, namely it teaches them to waive also to hear the God’s will. In other words – by the extreme simplification of the Christian teachings that it brings – it is like a child that, after he learned that 1 + 1 = 2, then it tries to convince the PhD in mathematics Professor that all the mathematics is what he knows.

So, the Protestantism promises much (even it hasn’t arguments to prove that it really can do what it says) and asks very few. Nearby this aspect it exhibits elements that makes it attractively for many men. For example, it involves the people in many social actions as to sing together, to bring new members, to deliver jurnals, to revard the best members, etc. In reality it is like something as “the instrumentalists’s batch” or “the walking friends”, so it is a place when the youths can spend their energy and can challenge for a better rank in the group and the olds can avoid to feel themselves alone. But the most important is to do the God’s Will. It could be of interest that every Protestant to check how much counts in his participation at the Protestant groups the social needs and what is the part that is in reality for God. The money and the material goods are also elements of attraction for someone. There is no secret that some people becames Protestants because on this way they can emigrate easier or to have a house. Could be named Christian belief this pass to the Protestants that depends of money, and is not founded in love for God? And this is important more when it could be seen that by this way there are men who lost their Christian deeds and beliefs and arrive to ignore some of the Good’s words. Let us don’t forget the Saviour teachings and life and how the first Christians had lived.

Really, are the Protestantism not a movement in which the man remains in the state in which he do like to be, only speaking about God and trying to bring God at his rational level and its interests?

===And the Ecumenism Came into View…===
The Protestantism has the good aspect that each of its members studies carefully the Gospel. Even there are more wrong interpretations, even they don’t recognize the importance of the Holy Spirit for a correct understanding of the God’s word, however their reason and effort help them to understand some teachings.

In these conditions, around 1910, the Protestantism gave birth to a new and strong movement: the (protestant) ecumenism, an attempt to unify the Christian Churches.
The initiative seems to be laudable because we, all the Christians, must confess the same God and we have to hike on the same narrow and straight way that carries to salvation.
Of course, the ecumenism may be understood as a protestant technique to attract all the Christian under its wings, too.

But it may signify an awakening. Namely, “my family and my friends are Protestants and I myself have learning since my very early days that the Protestantism is the unique way to salvation, but…. Some things seem to don’t go well. But, it seems that other confessions act more correct as us do. But, why the Protestants ignore some of the Saviour's words? I don’t have the courage to think more because I am afraid that I will be regarded as heretic and because my family and my friends could avert from me, but…”

In other words, the ecumenism may be also an expression of the fact that some Protestants feel that the way is wrong. As a direct recognition could have disagreeable personal consequences, a more acceptable path seems to be the realization of a tendency toward the change of the protestant concepts themselves. The direction can be only one, toward a reapproch toward the Saviour’s teachings.

As this implies to recognize that other confessions had a more correct behaviour, this thing can be interpreted as a defeat and so the conceit and the concern about how the Protestantism could be judged by other confessions begin to intervene. There are human concerns, but very important for someone who feels that he made mistakes and feels fear concerning how the others will react…
In these conditions it seems to be necessary that the others waive from some of their concepts, too. If this will happen, the others can’t judge your defeat and so your “honor” will remains unchanged.

So, the ecumenism could signify both that the Protestantism did make faults, but also it could be seen as a technique that avoids the Protestantism judgement by other confessions by persuading them to waive also to some of their concepts.

[[Image:The Protestantism and the Ecumenism in a Graphic.png|This graphic shows that to follow the "mean path" is a great hazard for anyone who wish to gain the Salvation]]

===What to do?===
There is no astonishment that the Protestantism was who proposed the ecumenism (in the shape about which we are dealing in this article). This is because the protestant movement has made the biggest changes to the Catholic Church teachings and, so, it has done the most important waiver at the Jesus Christ’s words and example. The outcome was that the errors are becoming more evidently.

Because the truth is this: the Christian teachings were made 2,000 years ago and those we have to follow! The Protestantism bases involved some conceit that required to Protestants to exhibit an individual way, apart from the Saviour teachings. So, it ignores some fundamental Christian aspects. Even more, at the beginning of the third millenium, the Protestantism didn’t return yet to the Jesus Christ’s path that leads to redemption because of the same conceit: how could it cede to other confessions?

But the most important aspect is not to cede or not to cede, but to become again duteous of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity that, only He, can save us.
It matters only one thing: that to do to gain the salvation. If the Protestants waive only a little and follow an average direction, it is very probable that they remain out of the narrow and straight path that leads to the redemption.

The unique option, that is good also for the Protestants, is to follow the way that Jesus Christ Himself had showed us and the Orthodox Church has followed from the beginnings.

==Note. Read it First!==
The paragraphs with identation correspond to footnotes in the initial article.

'''For this article, copyright 2007, Mircea Romania. All rights reserved.'''
::The copyright clause was introduced only to keep the article message. Feel you free to copy the article as you need. If you quoute some items, please mention a link to a place where there is the full article.

User:Mircea Romania/Protestantism and Ecumenism. Or why to be an Orthodox

2007-02-15T19:07:51Z

Mircea Romania: This is the start.

This article deals with a new view concerning the '''Protestantism''' and of one of the movements that it sustains, the '''Ecumenism'''.

:We must note that the ecumenism had existed from the Christianity beginnings and is also manifesting in the Orthodox Church, but its meaning is different from those that it was promoted by Protestantism.

But, in this paragraph, we are dealing with something else. We stress that in the Christian Church history there is a fact that has the greatest importance: the days when the Father’s Son descended at the man’s level. Then, Saviour arrived among us as simple man. His words and His personal example, showed to man the way that he must follow to achieve the redemption. His message was received not only by apostoles, but also by His learners and by the other men who met Him, many of those men having the chance to tell, to hear and to see Him.

But there are more that 2,000 years from those times and He neither came again amoung us, nor sended us a new message that could change in any mode His teachings that founded the Christianity. So, we have no reason to follow any else teachings because He gave us only the above one, we must follow His only message.

Sure, it is not an an easy work to understand His teachings and there are more subtle aspects which agitated the Christians’s soul and mind because different people has understood dissimilar meanings. The Church has solving those problems with the Sacred Spirit’s help, Holy Person who had also called at the Seven Ecumenical Synodes to teach man the right way. But there are other aspects that would not must to follow at different understndings because in those cases the messages were very clear. The Protestantism, for example, introduced the „Sola fide” concept, teaching people that the belief alone is enough for someone who wants to achieve the redemption, the good deed having no importance. An objective analysis reveals that their conception is true partially. However, there are also strong arguments against it, but we will not present them here because the target of this article is different. We are noticing only that the Saviour Himself stresses that the redemption needs good deeds. And, - once that the condition that must be passed to achieve the salvation depends exclusively by God - the result is clarly: any thought (however deeply it could seem to be to someone) could follow to fewer good results as it could someone get if he does what God wants.

===A New View About How the Proterstantism Appeared, How it Spreaded and What It is It===
The Protestantism appeared when it took place the New World conquest. In those times the Catholic Church was full of strength and it imposed its power in all the aspects of the life, beginning with the religious and the moral ones.

As it is hnown, the new lands „civilization” really meant the destruction of more advanced civilizations and the killing of tens of millions of indigenous. At this fact it must be added that the Europeans that gone to the New World had not was selected to do a real civilization, but even they were the leasted civilizate people: convicts, men with a poor morality, adventurers. They made Anti-Christian deeds: murders, thefts, and so on. When they had driven away, they not only were out of the Church teachings, but also they were impeled to do more wrong deeds. And they did do those.

When they returned to Europa with a lot of wealth for the kings and other people, they also retained some for they and so they became rich men. Of course, they didn’t change their wrong religious and moral visions, but, because they had brought services to the kings and because the kings expected to send them again in expeditions to the New World to become richer, it could be supposed that the kings defeated them when they had problems. As kings’s protected men, as rich people and with an conquering hero’s halo it may be presumed that they acquired a great influence in the society. This implies that a segment of the society began to admire and to follow their visions and their behaviour. So, if until there Inquisition had repressed (very) drastically any departure rellative to the Catholic teachings, beginning with the apparition of those people, there was installed…”the exception”: for those men there were other rules, namely the population saw that it could live also without the need to follow the Catholic Church teachings…

In fact, those vaquisher of the New World were a knot of influent people that exhibited Non-Catholic Views and behaviours. Otherwise, caught between the Not-Christian deeds that they have did in expeditions and the opulence that they might show when they returned in Europe, it could be assumed that they didn’t have much time to teach, to know and to follow the Catholic Church’s requirements.

In those conditions the Protestantism was a way for Christianity to keep that people under his wings. How? We are showing that in sequel.

At it is known, the Protestantism lacks an important aspect that most of the religions of the world have: a real or supossed divine will (a god that revealed himself to someone and taught him what the people have to do, a god that showed himself to the people, etc.). The Protestants can’t affirm that the God teaches they what to do. In their case only the reason of some people decided what is good and what is wrong, how to be interpreted the Saviour's message.

Interesting, in overall the Protestantism has limited itself to ignore some of the Catholic Church teachings. In other words, it has throwing values that it has considering as inutile: The Holy Tradition, The Holy Sacraments, the canon laws, etc. It doesn’t bring new dogmatic elements that the Catholic Church haven’t and whose applications could lead in a better manner to the resurection. It affirms that it knows alone the resurection path, but its way is restricted itself to disrespect some of of the Catholic Church teachings.

:Of course, it could be noted that some teachings and acts of the Catholic Church (for which there is difficult to find a basis in Bible, as the Pope’s power to save someone for money or the teachings about the purgatory) have played an important role in the birth of the protestant movement. But, event these facts may be considered as separations from the God’s teachings, it must to be not forgotten that they represent only a little part of what the Catholic Church teaches. The most important part of it acts is founded on Bible and the teachings that traveled from those times. Therefore when the Protestantism taken position against those aspects, it would been a good choice to limit its position only against these and to not reject the good part that the Catholic Church promoted. As the protestant movement had thrown too much, he reached a state in which it lacks a big part of the good part of the Catholic Church doctrine and life and hears only the earthly human reason and interests. The fact that the human reason can fail is proven by the fact that the Protestants didn’t thrown only the wrong aspects and by the situation in which they ignore the need to do good deeds, as the Saviour asked us (we refer to the protestant doctrine, not to the protestant believer who tries to do good deeds).

:Interesting, the Orthodox Church rejects – mostly – those teachings, too. Therefore the Orthodox Church doesn’t talk about purgatory and it considers that all the money of the world cn’t buy the salvation of someone, that man must try to understand, to respect and to follow the God’s teachings, bun only He decides if somebody is saved or not. But, in the same time, the Orthodox Church is all the time concerned itself to maintain in the best condition the God’s teachings, in such a manner as no items that could help to the man’s salvation to be lost.

:The well known fact that the Protestantism does not recognize more of the Catholic Church teachings is frequently used to argue his separation. At a glance, it could be shown that the differences do not need to lead to a complete break with the Catholicism. As an example, if a catholic believes that the salvation can’t be achieved with money, he does not need to be revolted and to separate himself from his church. Simply, it can ignore the Pope’s feature (he is not obliged to use them!), to study carefully the Christian teachings and to make the deeds that he consider that the God loves. Sure, the Pope’s offer could tempt the rich people, that can then waive to do good deeds and, more, to change their Christian conceptions because they thinks that, in any case, they can buy their redemption with money. From this point of view the feature can be considered harmful because it allows to somebody (but, we repeat, it not oblige them!) to fight for their salvation and, so, to discover to late that they hadn’t taken oil in their candles, as in the ten virgin girls parable. But, as we shown, anybody has the freedom to seek the salvation by the mean of faith, prayers, good deeds and love for God and man.

:In the same time, it is also true that a teaching that promotes thea idea that the salvation could be bought with money can determine many people to follow wrong ways, therefore the Catholic Church must be informed about such a situation. But what could happen if the Catholic Church has restraints to recognize that it fails in some cases? I those conditions, the apparition of the protestant movement could be thought as a desperate reaction that claims to analyse with responsibility the facts.

:Of course, there is very important for the believer to know what he must do to gain the salvation. As only God knows what He loves and what He wants to ask from us to do, it appears to be evident that we must fight to understand and to do as well as we can what He asks to us. The problem is not to do something what we like, important and useful is to do what God wants. The Protestants, angry with the Catholic Church, had rejected more of its teachings. When they decided what is wrong and what is good, they appealed exclusively to their reason and interests. They didn’t invoked God, as the Uniqueness that knows what is good, what is the Way, Truth and Life. They wanted to throw the tares, but they thrown also the wheat that the God had sowed. Who wants to be saved must to return and to gather carefully the Jesus’s words that He had give to us 2,000 years ago. And not only the words, but also their meanings and the first Christians’s state, in other words the Holy Tradition and that life inside the Church.’s liturgy. Could someone who don’t know to read the scores to learn to sing using them, even he have read a lot of explications? Isn’t necessary to hear also the notes and, so, to make the suitable links between the auditive impression and the symbols that there have written on the scores? The writing, as good as it could be done, can’t substitute the sounds, the sensations that someone feels when he dance, the taste of food. In a similar way, the words of the Bible can’t replace the state that the believers had experimented in these times. Other problem is that, in time, the meanings of some words had lost or had changed. More, in these times the Jew’s spoken The Hebraic and the Aramaic, languages in which the same word had more interpretations. Only the people that had lived in these times could do the correct selection in all the situations. And, very important, Jesus Christ, as man, hadn’t left us any written word! To ignore anything that hadn’t been written in Bible could mean to ignore and to forge t all the other deeds that the Saviour did as man. We must not to forgot that the New Testament include only a small amount of all what the Lord had taught and had spoken, of what had did the Jesus’s Apostles and apprentices. Do you agree that a more complete knowledge of these elements could help us to a better understanding of the Jesus’s message of salvation? For this reason there is needed the Holy Tradition and a revival of those apostolic times, fact that it is happening during each Eucharist.

:The sad side is that the Protestant’s disagreements with the Catholic Church had evolved from some problems that could be discussed inside the Catholic Church to a new movement in which the protest is a main key. Dispute, contestation and disruption – not unity and love in Christ. And – very gravely – the Protestants waived to understand the Church’s teachings inside it and to recognize the authority of the Divine Grace and of the priests that drive the flock that love God. (There could be useful to remark that the Divine Grace is differently perceived in the Western Churches and in the Eastern ones. According to the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace], “In Eastern Christianity, grace is an energy of God, or a description of how God acts in forgiving and spiritually healing others. The sacraments are seen as a <<means of grace>> because '''God works through his Church''', not just because specific legalistic rules are followed; and '''Grace is the working of God Himself'''. not a created substance of any kind that can be treated like a commodity”). The Protestants observed that the priests, or even the Pope, make mistakes, too. But this is a normal thing and the Orthodox Church recognizes this fact: any man is under the mistakes, including the deacons, the priests and the bishops. Only God – who is the Truth Itself – is without sin. Even the Saint Apostle Peter denies the Lord when He was shut… More important that the fact that the clergy could fail is that in it the Divine Grace is working and so '''the Church as a whole follows the Bridegroom’s teachings, the Good Shepherd’s Way, who is Christ Itself'''. And this is true even they are not as good as we would to be. And the true question is not if the priests fails (this is, mainly, their personal problem), but how we can satisfy the God’s demands. As the Divine Grace and the priesthood help us to maintain a link with God, we must use this feature. The Protestants broke this link… They had put ahead only their reason, interest and conceit. The Protestants can be firmly moved ahead in the social life with these items, but they could be of little importance if they want to be saved and they waved to hear what the God wants from they.

:Unfortunately, it seems that the people who considered very important to be resolved some supossed errors of the Catholic Church didn’t know the Orthodox Church teachings… This is becouse some of the problems that the Protestants observed (with the aid of their reason), the Orthodox Church teaches from the beginnings – but as an expression of the Divine Grace that is manifesting Itself inside the Church. '''Becouse the Orthodoxy is the Way to reamain inside the Church that was founded by the Saviour Itself'''.

As a paranthesis, it could be observed that someone who acknwledges the catholic requirements will also do what the Protestants ask, whereas the acknowledgement of the Protestantism’s needings alone implies the emergency that some arbitrary rejected Catholic demendes to don’t be acomplished.

In other words, even if (strictly hypoteticaly and … „rational”) some of the demandes at what the Protestants waived – exaggeratedly – couldn’t be necessary for the salvation, their realization is at most inutile, but not harmful, whereas if, even it exist only one needed for the resurection demend that was rejected, the man who do so puts himself in the emergency to loose its own salvation.

In conclusion, the '''Protestantism seems to be only an extreme simplification of the Catholic Church teachings'''.

Very interesting, even this simplification leads to his power. Because it allows even to a person that in reality has almost no belief in God - as thoughts or deeds – to name itself as Christian.
:We refer at those Protestants that participated in a direct and violent manner to the New World conquest, men that it could be supposed that had a very weak link with the Christian dogma, teachings, conceptions, deeds and behaviour, not to those that founded the first protestant movements, who was interested in religion. We can observe that, from its beginnings, the was two kind of Protestants: with a weak link with Christianity, and with a deep interest in religion, but with a strong conceit, too.

:The polarization persists in our days. We can see Protestants that are strong involved in the religious life, but there are also Protestants that – in conceptions, deeds or professions – are far from the Christianity, men who after they speak about God, at a short time, plan wars, do disruptions, invent and manufacture new weapons or blast this wonderful Earth that the Creator gave us and we must to take care about its good state.

If we refer at those first Protestants, they had been acquainted with the fact that God exists, but they had almost nothing to do to prove their membership. They believed and that was all, their behaviour and thoughts were nearly unchanged, they can do anything. Minimal requirements, maximal vows, this was an much more tempting offer as the Catholic Church could do. Warning! The promises were great because form God originates, whereas the requirements were low because they came from man. And if the man passes over the God words, if he didn’t make what God asked he, then could be he doubtless that God will … give he the payment that he wish?

The Protestantism’s sunny side was and is that it has allowed to man to doesn’t make a completelly break between he and God, to mantain a link (even weakly) with the Creator.
But there is also a dark side because it affirms that only it can conduce the man to resurection. Because it rejected some of the God’s requirements it is difficult to believe that. It is harmful because it tries to inveigle Christians that are members of other confessions to it, namely it teaches them to waive also to hear the God’s will. In other words – by the extreme simplification of the Christian teachings that it brings – it is like a child that, after he learned that 1 + 1 = 2, then it tries to convince the PhD in mathematics Professor that all the mathematics is what he knows.

So, the Protestantism promises much (even it hasn’t arguments to prove that it really can do what it says) and asks very few. Nearby this aspect it exhibits elements that makes it attractively for many men. For example, it involves the people in many social actions as to sing together, to bring new members, to deliver jurnals, to revard the best members, etc. In reality it is like something as “the instrumentalists’s batch” or “the walking friends”, so it is a place when the youths can spend their energy and can challenge for a better rank in the group and the olds can avoid to feel themselves alone. But the most important is to do the God’s Will. It could be of interest that every Protestant to check how much counts in his participation at the Protestant groups the social needs and what is the part that is in reality for God. The money and the material goods are also elements of attraction for someone. There is no secret that some people becames Protestants because on this way they can emigrate easier or to have a house. Could be named Christian belief this pass to the Protestants that depends of money, and is not founded in love for God? And this is important more when it could be seen that by this way there are men who lost their Christian deeds and beliefs and arrive to ignore some of the Good’s words. Let us don’t forget the Saviour teachings and life and how the first Christians had lived.

Really, are the Protestantism not a movement in which the man remains in the state in which he do like to be, only speaking about God and trying to bring God at his rational level and its interests?

===And the Ecumenism Came into View…===
The Protestantism has the good aspect that each of its members studies carefully the Gospel. Even there are more wrong interpretations, even they don’t recognize the importance of the Holy Spirit for a correct understanding of the God’s word, however their reason and effort help them to understand some teachings.

In these conditions, around 1910, the Protestantism gave birth to a new and strong movement: the (protestant) ecumenism, an attempt to unify the Christian Churches.
The initiative seems to be laudable because we, all the Christians, must confess the same God and we have to hike on the same narrow and straight way that carries to salvation.
Of course, the ecumenism may be understood as a protestant technique to attract all the Christian under its wings, too.

But it may signify an awakening. Namely, “my family and my friends are Protestants and I myself have learning since my very early days that the Protestantism is the unique way to salvation, but…. Some things seem to don’t go well. But, it seems that other confessions act more correct as us do. But, why the Protestants ignore some of the Saviour's words? I don’t have the courage to think more because I am afraid that I will be regarded as heretic and because my family and my friends could avert from me, but…”

In other words, the ecumenism may be also an expression of the fact that some Protestants feel that the way is wrong. As a direct recognition could have disagreeable personal consequences, a more acceptable path seems to be the realization of a tendency toward the change of the protestant concepts themselves. The direction can be only one, toward a reapproch toward the Saviour’s teachings.

As this implies to recognize that other confessions had a more correct behaviour, this thing can be interpreted as a defeat and so the conceit and the concern about how the Protestantism could be judged by other confessions begin to intervene. There are human concerns, but very important for someone who feels that he made mistakes and feels fear concerning how the others will react…
In these conditions it seems to be necessary that the others waive from some of their concepts, too. If this will happen, the others can’t judge your defeat and so your “honor” will remains unchanged.

So, the ecumenism could signify both that the Protestantism did make faults, but also it could be seen as a technique that avoids the Protestantism judgement by other confessions by persuading them to waive also to some of their concepts.

===What to do?===
There is no astonishment that the Protestantism was who proposed the ecumenism (in the shape about which we are dealing in this article). This is because the protestant movement has made the biggest changes to the Catholic Church teachings and, so, it has done the most important waiver at the Jesus Christ’s words and example. The outcome was that the errors are becoming more evidently.

Because the truth is this: the Christian teachings were made 2,000 years ago and those we have to follow! The Protestantism bases involved some conceit that required to Protestants to exhibit an individual way, apart from the Saviour teachings. So, it ignores some fundamental Christian aspects. Even more, at the beginning of the third millenium, the Protestantism didn’t return yet to the Jesus Christ’s path that leads to redemption because of the same conceit: how could it cede to other confessions?

But the most important aspect is not to cede or not to cede, but to become again duteous of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity that, only He, can save us.
It matters only one thing: that to do to gain the salvation. If the Protestants waive only a little and follow an average direction, it is very probable that they remain out of the narrow and straight path that leads to the redemption.

The unique option, that is good also for the Protestants, is to follow the way that Jesus Christ Himself had showed us and the Orthodox Church has followed from the beginnings.

==Note. Read it First!==
The paragraphs with identation correspond to footnotes in the initial article.

'''For this article, copyright 2007, Mircea Romania. All rights reserved.'''
::The copyright clause was introduced only to keep the article message. Feel you free to copy the article as you need. If you quoute some items, please mention a link to a place where there is the full article.