When the Homily is about Immunology

Three Questions that St. Stephen Muses over...and the connection between the Theotokos and the Nicene Creed
(make sure to check out the addendum..scroll down)

Enetation seems to be down, so I thought I'd bring the questions Karl's gotten over here.

#1
If Orthodoxy is so great, why haven't I heard of it?

And in the jungles of South America a native person of pagan persuasion may ask the very same question of a missionary...though insert "Christianity" in place of "Orthodoxy"

#2
If the Orthodox Church has preserved the fullness of the Faith, why are there so many good people not a part of it?

See what I wrote above.

#3
If I see so much fruit in other faiths, how can the Orthodox claim to be the true faith?

See what I wrote above.



Now...something Karl wrote reminded me of something else I'd been pondering while reading Scripture in Tradition because it has an excellent chapter on the Theotokos. Most protestants don't like using such terms (Theotokos, Ever-Virgin) for Mary because they find its use no where in the Bible.

Curious...because these very same folks are often very much staunch defenders of the Nicene Creed - perfectly willing to adopt it and even use it liturgically in some cases. But what about that troublesome little phrase homousia? The Arians decried it for being found no where in Scripture (those writings which were universally recognized as such at the time). But the Council made its decision and we've stuck with it ever since. Today the term is still used as a measure for "o"rthodox Christology...even the Bible Answer Man uses it.

Yes yes I know...we'd like to say that the term is clearly derived from the "plain meaning" of Scripture, but many a Jehovah's Witness, Oneness Pentecostal, or Mormon (perhaps others as well?) would likely disgree. The fact is, the decision was made - not only because the apostolic writings bore witness to it - but because it was what was handed down to the Church in her Holy Traditions. Nothing in Scripture (even as we accept it today...which is not at all exactly as they understood it in 325AD) explicitly states that Jesus shares the same essence with God the Father.

And nothing in Scripture explicitly states that Mary should be called the Mother of God or that she was without a doubt "Ever-Virgin." But the Church met in council and affirmed these titles. The Church saw them as being present and clear in the Scriptures when rightfully connected with Holy Tradition. (Ever Virgin is quite explicit if the early church was correct in her exegesis of many Old Testament passages and her being Mother of God is also explicit IF we accept an "o"rthodox and Nicean understanding of the Incarnation.)

So why accept council number 1, but not council numbers 3 and 5? If they got 3 and 5 wrong, how do we know that they got number 1 right? Or worse yet, what about the REAL number 1 (Acts 15)? Maybe Arius was right? Or maybe we should still be circumcising ourselves!? Is it REALLY that clear in Scripture? Umm...wait a minute...I guess the council in Acts 15 didn't have any NT Scripture - they only had the OT, and I'm guessing they have a hard time justifying no more circumcision using that!

So just how did those guys come to an AUTHORITATIVE decision without using NT Sola Scriptura? Something to think about: do you suppose that that sort of authority ended when the apostles died and it was then suddenly transferred to a not-yet put together collection of writings? (BOY, that takes some faith, doesn't it - especially since we'd have at least another 267 years before everyone could agree upon a canon...and even THEN there wasn't total agreement...still isn't, but that is another post.) The fact is, the early Church believed that that sort of authority was continually handed down to the Church. Hence we continued in the Apostolic Tradition of councils.

And here we sit more than a thousand years after the fact pontificating with all of our vast personal wisdom about which councils were right and which ones were wrong...astounding! Gee, isn't this EXACTLY what the Pope claimed to be able to do? I guess the old Catholic saying (The Reformation rejected the Pope in favor of millions of them) is true. Speaking of Roman Catholics...

A Roman Catholic friend once told me that he was informed by an old priest that you can always tell real "o"rthodox Christology by a groups corresponding Mariology. If they shrug their shoulders at her, they shrug their shoulders at the majority of historic and present day Christian belief, practice, and piety. Perhaps even the Incarnation itself...certainly as it was understood in the ancient Church.

Come on guys...accept them councils!

Addendum:

It just occurred to me on the bus ride to work this morning that the Creed as I've often seen used in evangelical / post-mod churches is in fact NOT just the Nicene, but the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed! Recall that that bit in the creed about the Holy Spirit was not apart of the creed as handed down from Nicea, but was added at the second council after the Cappedocian Fathers had succesfully defended the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Now, I'd say you can probably find plenty of proof-texts to argue for the divinity of Christ, but you'd have a much harder time doing so with the Holy Spirit...and indeed this debate again required a council to decide. And in 381 AD no less! Long after the Church was paganized (grin)

And so, by using the Creed as a statement of their beliefs, they are - perhaps inadvertantly and ignorantly - affirming the 1st AND the 2nd council. I've even noticed that some groups are using the MUCH later western addition of the filioque (the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son)...which is amazing to me. So once again I ask: if they got the Acts 15 council right, the 1st and 2nd council right, AND they got the right cannon decided upon...what more does one need to affirm the Church as an authority and ultimately an article of faith? Surely we cannot contend that all of these are clearly demonstrated by the New Testament witness? As far as I know the New Testament does not itself list the canonical books of the New Testament, unless you count the Table of Contents which I am relatively confident is not found in the earliest extant manuscripts