You are confused about your history of the Old Catholics. These trace their history back to St. Willibrord’s evangelisation of the Netherlands (early 8th century). Your 1870 date refers to many joining them because, like Eastern Orthodox, they do not accept the infallibility of the the Bishop of Rome which became defined at the unification of Italy and the loss of his Papal States.

“Following Kevin’s logic one would say:
“You can’t call yourself “orthodox” in the sense of agreeing with the consensus of the first 1500 years of Christianity AND agree with interest on loans, contemporary Western banking, the rejection of slavery, etc…””

Chattel slavery was rejected in Christendom by c. 900 and only revived in the 1500s by specious reasoning. Contemporary western banking may well be unorthodox – it isn’t serving us that well.

By your second definition of Orthodoxy, being “right belief” particularly as found in the ancient creeds and the 7 ecumenical councils…could any Christian group be called Orthodox in the modern era? To the strict letter of the canons.

‘”Paganism” is a Christian coinage, a term that suggests a system of doctrine and an orthodoxy as Christianity knows one. But pagan religion was essentially a matter of cult rather than creed. No group of pagans ever called themselves “the faithful”. There was also no pagan concept of heresy – to pagans the term meant a school of thought rather than a false and pernicious doctrine. Among pagans, the opposite of heterodoxy was not orthodoxy but homodoxy, meaning agreement.’

The bottom line for each of us – perhaps especially for those of us who have a call to secular vocation as we center our lives around pursuing God – is that we get to CHOOSE those to whom we give credence and those to whom we give skepticism. I must pursue God in community with other believers, but I must also choose which particular flavor of believer I align myself with, and which I offer honor but at a distance.

Your definitions can be useful to me and others in that, Bosco! I do not want to alienate or hurt those with whom I differ, but sometimes love and justice require taking a stand against something, as well as the stands I take for other things. I choose to be in fellowship with all Christians who are orthodox, as per your definition. And I choose to take an open stand against homodoxy, as per your definition. I am called to follow Jesus and to obey His primary command in John 13-15. This gives me greater clarity in how to walk that out.

Thanks for this post!

Did he pass on any direct authority?

Did Paul claim to be a directly commissioned apostle of Jesus, prophesying in his name and reporting his commands?

If so, then we should all be homodox on those things.

If not, and Paul was mistaken, and was a false prophet on certain things, and we disagree with him, then we as a church have the right to throw him out. Sure.

However, ironically, that right extends forward into the present. People seeking to follow Jesus today have the same exact right–the right to throw out those they disagree with.

Both the “homodox” and those who complain about them could learn a thing or two about how Paul handled bad behavior & belief in the church. His letters were soaked in the hope for reconciliation–indeed, the absolute drive that it take place. He would settle for nothing else–but he would not settle for false reconciliation, based on lies.

One wonders, however, if the church in Corinth would have ignored his first letter and gotten worse, rather than repented and striven to prove themselves innocent of Paul’s charges. How many letters would he have written to them in the same tone–before finally coming out against them, as he had threatened? I don’t think his threat was a rhetorical trick.

Both the “homodox” and the “enlightened” need to learn to fear God first, rather than each other. That would be a start. If we want to all grow into the image of Christ–one body. In agreement with the words of God. Fearing God would demand real changes of belief, opinion, and behavior–for both parties.

Tolerance is a virtue, but, like marriage, it is a passing one, not an ultimate one. It is a means, not an end. Tolerance is certainly not the chief gospel virtue. We tolerate tares in the wheat field because we are copying Christ, who is longsuffering of the straying and unfaithful. But we don’t call the tares wheat, and we don’t call ravenous wolves lambs, either. To do so would be to directly contradict Christ’s own words.

I have no problem saying the Creed as a part of the liturgy regularly. While I think it is fine that the New Zealand BCP doesn’t require it, there is something to be said for one having to grapple with it.

It seems to me that it is more a prayer to be prayed than an oath to which to be conformed. It seems a profession of sacred mystery, and yet our inheritance from our forbears.

Peace, Mike+

That led me to reading the various English versions, some translations of those used in worship in other languages in the Eastern churches of the Nicene creed-the variation was huge. The Armenians seem to include the most other things, but I would definitely include the Armenians in the small-o orthodox, despite changes to the creed.

I like how much I learn about Christian history from this site–whether it be from posts or comments.

I like Alastair’s point:

“worship and life which is founded on Scripture and the Catholic Creeds”–we may disagree about interpretations of scripture, but the rhythm of life and worship that comes out of liturgical worship and praying the office, is the timeless aspect of small-o orthodoxy. And in all truth, I think that the differences between the most liberal Protestant, the most fervent evangelical, and the most conservative Orthodox and Catholic of our brethren are comparatively small compared to the varied beliefs of the very first Christians in the first centuries until the Canon of the Bible was selected and a formal theology of normative belief decided upon.

You know, there are people of various denominations, even evangelicals, showing up for retreats at the Taize community in France nowadays. I believe the catholic, small c, and orthodox, small o ways WORK as spiritual practices of value, and are being adapted by many people of various Christian denominations. There is grassroots orthodoxy happening. We may not have control over what our overall church worship service looks like, unless we change churches, but we can certainly incorporate the contemplative Christian practices of praying the office, affirming the creeds (whichever form we use), reading the Scriptures with lectio divina, etc.

There is grassroots orthodoxy happening. There is a hunger for structure and discipline. Look at how many people read this blog.