THE
CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  FOUNDING
OF
VARIOUS  CHURCH  ENTITIES
_____________

LUTHERAN:  Founded in 1517 by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Roman Catholic Church.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:  Founded in 1534 by King Henry VIII because the Pope would not grant him a divorce
   with the right to re-marry.
PRESBYTERIAN:  Founded in 1560 by John Knox in Scotland.
CONGREGATIONALIST:  Originated in 1582 by Robert Brown in Holland .
PROTESTANT  EPISCOPALIAN:  Founded in the 17th Century in the American colonies by Samuel Senbury,
   and it is an offshoot of the Church of England.
BAPTIST:  Launched in Amsterdam in 1606, and tenets of the Church are owed to John Smyth.
DUTCH  REFORMED  CHURCH:  originated in 1628 in New York by Michelis Jones who is recognized as the
   founder.
METHODIST:  Founded in 1774 by John and Charles Wesley in England.
MORMON (Latter Day Saints):  Started in 1829 by Joseph Smith in New York.
SALVATION  ARMY:  Sect began in 1865 with William Booth in London.
CHRISTIAN  SCIENTIST:  Founded in 1879 by Mary Baker Eddy.
[SEVENTH  DAY  ADVENTIST:  Traced to the 19th Century.  The movement was inspired by William Miller
   (1782-1849).]
CHURCH  OF  THE  NAZARENE – PENTECOSTAL  GOSPEL:  Last 100 years.
HOLINESS  CHURCH:  Last 100 years.
JEHOVAH’S  WITNESSES:  Last 100 years.
ROMAN  CATHOLIC:  Split away from the original Church in 1054:  The Pope of Rome in 1054 split away from the
   other Apostolic Patriarchates — Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem.  Infractions are: the altering
   of the Original Creed and assertion of papal infallibility [and sovereignty].

ORTHODOX  CHURCH:  Founded in 33 by Jesus CHRIST, the Son of God, and remained intact as put forth by the
   Apostles.  Church is aged 2000 years and thus known as the oldest and as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic
   Church (or, Orthodox Church — NOT Orthodox Churches [plural]).  The Holy Faith unites ALL Orthodox as
   one forceful and undivided body expressed through multiple communities, whether ethnic, geographical, national,
   linguistic, etc.

It is perceived that the Orthodox Church, because of multiplicity, is divided apart.  The perception is wrong.  Division is the reciprocal of multiplication: the Church is increasing and abounding.

The Orthodox Church is cohesive by reason of the underlying common Faith
and not by force of down-line organizational authority.
Therefore, the Orthodox Church is collegial and not autocratic.

______________________________________
Source: The above chronological data were extracted from the contribution of Rev. Dr. Miltiades B. Efthimiou of the Greek Orthodox Church of America in OrthodoxPhotos.com.  (Independent commentary included is by the present Host).

THE  ERROR  OF  SIN

Christianity teaches against ignorance and advocates forgiveness.  It has nothing to do with guilt-mongering and bloodshed imagery: Neither is there innocence in exploiting the Supreme Sacrifice for lucre, nor is it conscionable to promote guilt as a means for social influence and control.

A major revamping is long overdue in the conveyance of the pristine and thus chief message of Our Lord Jesus CHRIST.  His is the way to hope, freedom, and illumination: It is not an abyss of negativism, self-doubt, emotional frustration, and abject denial.

Thoughtful consideration and faithful remembrance must be given to the last words of the Lord prior to His final utterance, when He granted salvation to the nobler of the two thieves on their cross and release from guilt to all humanity.  His words were: Father, forgive them for they know not what they do. (Luke 23:34-43).  His was NOT a closing and unrelenting accusation of perpetual guilt thrust upon the people He loved.  He shed His precious Blood once and for all time in final and complete forgiveness of human primordial sin.  By what right, then, does any person—priest, minister, or lay person—dare to contradict His sacred imperative of everlasting forgiveness? And, by what right does anyone dare to incorporate into sin such permanent and unrelenting moral turpitude that promotes nothing but hopelessness to even the most repentant?

The significance of recognizing sin is not for the purpose of demolishing the moral foundation intrinsic in the human soul—that underlying awareness, builder of civilizations—but rather for the cognizance of error.  Sin, therefore, is tantamount to error, or mistake, ignorance of truth, facts, and correctness.  Awareness of sin becomes such when there is objective acknowledgment of the wrong selection among alternatives; and, it is independent of moral trepidation that occurs in the conscious defiance of the selection of a correct alternative.  Both instances—awareness and trepidation—are subordinated to ignorance; and, trepidation is subordinated to awareness, because a sound mind aware of the consequences signaled by trepidation would abstain from a wrong selection.  By consequence, ignorance—the absence of awareness—is what causes the ultimate engagement in sin or error.  It is, therefore, for forgiveness of ignorance and not of guilt that the Lord prayed to the Father in Heaven.  His Sacrifice, apart, absolved humanity of the foundational sin that had caused guilt.  Two separate and distinct missions were consummated on The Cross: one final, the other ongoing.

The Grace of God is not an abstract gift withheld in perpetuity or repelled by endless guilt.  Grace was dispensed through the Sacrifice on the Cross; and the world was freed forever.  It remains for humanity to recognize its errors and to reject them in a constant effort to attain excellence.  The image of God granted in humans is but a stepping-stone in their lofty yearning to receive the Grace of likeness with God.

_________________

The above indicts the wrong interpretation of sin, which promotes endless human guilt.  It also indicts the gross attention to physical blood, which attempts to inspire salvation resident solely in the sacred Blood of Jesus.

TOMIC  LOVE
ANATOMY  OF  CHRISTIAN  LOVE

The Greek verb temnein (τέμνειν) means to cut. From that is derived the word tomos that means a piece cut off.  The aphetic letter a appended to tomos results in the word atomos, which means something that cannot be cut: hence, the English word atom.

Atomism, otherwise known as atomic theory, is the philosophical view of all matter being an aggregate of minute indivisible elements that are called atoms.

Yet, in physics—contrary to that theory—the atom has been divided.  That accomplishment by all rights should have been labeled, tomic theory, which is the roadmap to tomic power (rather than to a-tomic power, which is a contradiction).  Be that as it may, the title atomic theory has acquired universal acceptance.

The premise that follows, unlike the above instance, conveys a principle that is expressed in tomic rather than in atomic terms.  That is, the basic element of the combined whole of all such elements is considered divisible or tomic.

________________


Attention is directed to the admonition of Our Lord Jesus Christ; thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.  It was not without depth that the imperative was set forth.  Yet, it is difficult to adjust to the admonition: whether on an emotional or on a rational basis.  It is reasonable that the better choice is to accept both the emotional and the rational alternatives.

A difficult quandary still remains, however, as to how to incite and nourish this love; when and how to express it; and where to direct it—to everyone or only to those . . . deemed worthy? The average minister, priest, or lay person queried on the matter often feels secure to resort to the six commandments on interpersonal behavior as a clear and unassailable explanation.  Or, the same person may allude to the Greek word agape with the attached ever-present qualifier that it means more than just the English word love—and not physical love etc.   It does not appear, however, that the Lord had in mind for people to thrash about in a loving frenzy without a meaningful, helpful, and useful purpose.  His was not a vague admonition but a definitive and constructive one that needs to be analyzed and comprehended.

His message is founded on the single elemental word, love, which on first impression coveys a sense of indivisible solidarity and unattainable perfection.  Nevertheless, both emotional and rational charges are inherent in the word or its meaning, which are made evident when the word is split asunder.  That is, when tomic action is applied.
The word ceases to communicate an overpowering and amorphous concept that eludes the ability to comprehend it — let alone to apply its principle.
What emerges is the perception of a definable love, or tomic love that tells of care and consideration for others in practical terms.  This includes an emotional as well as a rational involvement.

Two sub-elements comprise the notion of love: teaching and forgiveness.
[Forgiveness thrives on Remorse]

 Beneficent teaching has emotional as well as rational components.  It is emotional because there is concern and caring.  It is rational because it enhances the receiver's life quality in terms of knowledge and self-awareness.  Forgiveness is also dual in content:  It is emotional because of the caring; and, it is rational because of the deliberate forbearance [in Greek known as macrothymia (μακροθυμία)] of the giver, which permits the rehabilitation of the receiver.

Viewed in teh above context, the issue of love becomes definable, manageable, and purposeful in human cognizance; while it also enhances the emotional wellbeing of both the giver and the receiver.

It is essential, therefore, to perceive Christian love in its tomic form , in order to direct to its purpose and to derive from it the mutual moral and spiritual benefit.

On Athonic HESYCHASM

    Far from being just a traditional practice, Hesychasm is a major component of what constitutes the Christian Orthodox conscience of mystical union with God.

    Yet, it is necessary to attribute clarity to the resulting spiritual experience at the personal level in comparison to the witness of the Transfiguration of Jesus on Mount Thabor.

    The point of departure whence reflection begins in the attempt to elicit understanding determines the conclusion that is reached.  This means that if the experience is interpreted on the premise of physical terms, the conclusions will be different than if premised on transcendental terms.  The danger in the former option is the unintentional regression to any or all of the hitherto disavowed notions of old—whether it is Nestorianism, Monophysitism, or Arianism.

    It is here noted that any one of the aforementioned notions has in essence a physical foundation from which it springs.  This common characteristic is what renders them—each in its own way—contrary to the acceptance of the Godhood of Christ. Observe the following: a) Nestorianism asserts two distinct natures in Christ, which is tantamount to describing Christ as half part human and, therefore, incomplete in His Divinity; b) Monophysitism achieves the same conclusion, since it compromises the presumed  one Person—Divine only—with the injection of a full one half portion of physical substance [or appearance as a human]; and, c) Arianism is a complete denial of divinity, since the substantial essence of Christ is outright negated.  All three notions derive from a physical viewpoint in a futile attempt to explain God.  The apophatic stance of Christian Orthodoxy ensures avoidance of the error by declaring knowledge of only what God is not rather than what He is.

    The naturalness of Christ being interjected versus His Divinity, establishes the conviction that human awareness of God is human-generated and not autogenous.  This is to say, the notion is sustained that the created has created the creator.  Such a position, of course, nullifies the gift of Divine Grace, since nothing is forthcoming from a vacuum outside human awareness.  It is at this juncture of the clash between naturalism and transcendence that, in view of the unique event of the Transfiguration, the hesychast experience of the Divine and Uncreated Light begs clarification.

    There is no basis upon which it can be argued that an hesychast mystical experience does not occur.  The matter is a personal experience that can only be attested to by the individual involved.  Denial of the event by others cannot be supported, and acceptance of its existence must be taken at face value based on the credibility of the declarant.  And, although the resulting effect is the product of divine grace, the pursuit of that result is initiated at a natural level—i.e., the individual in prayer.  To equate that personal experience with the event of the Transfiguration is only valid in connection with the Divine and Uncreated Light that occurs in both instances.  Otherwise stated, the human-based practice, despite its possible favorable outcome granted by divine grace, is not tantamount to the witness of the Transfiguration.  The difference lies in the fact that the result grounded in a natural setting is a manifestation of Grace; whereas, the Holy Transfiguration is an emanation of Grace of the Divine Source—Christ.

    The hazard in contradicting the above relationship, which is to equate the personal hesychast productive outcome with the Transfiguration, is that it provokes the following: a) either it elevates the natural person to godhood—a presumption—rather than to assign one as the recipient of grace; or, b) it subordinates The Christ to a natural state, which in effect is a reversion to any or all of the aforementioned three disavowed notions of naturalism.

On the
ERROR  OF  COMPULSORY  CELIBACY
&
THE  UNREPENTANT  ATTITUDE  OF  PERPETUATION

Compulsory and pretentious celibacy at all levels of religious life is not a substitute for voluntary and unadulterated celibacy.  It is coercive and unnatural.  Not mandated by the CHRIST teaching, it is often the cause of hypocrisy and aberrant behavior.  It is irrelevant to true faith and religiosity.  It is self-serving and abusive and a traditional frequent administrative device for power and control.
____

The grandest of all marriages is the union of Jesus The CHRIST with His Holy Church.

The Church is not a  POSSESSION of Her People nor of Her Priesthood.
Both are children gathered in Her fold to be ministered to and to minister
-- all by grace, and the latter by the calling and by the common wish.

The institution of marriage in physical terms and within human social order is a natural event toward procreation.  Jesus  excludes its existence beyond the threshold of perishable life:

 ³⁰ For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
³¹ But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
³² I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. (Matt. 22:30-32).

The Apostle Paul is reserved, disclaiming authority on the matter and only offers personal judgment in hope of guidance by God's Spirit.  He recommends conscience to dictate each occasion, and in his opinion favors celibacy when matters hang in the balance.

IN  NO  INSTANCE,  HOWEVER,   DOES  SAINT  PAUL  IMPOSE  CELIBACY  AS  AN  IMPERATIVE.
Therefore:

 It is stealth, deception, and an attempt on
The CHRIST Kingship --
thus, a Major Sin
-- for any one or more ecclesiastics,
under cover of the Holy Church
as though in possession of Divine authority,
to IMPOSE the practice of celibacy
either upon the Laity or as a condition toward
Ordination or Consecration in the Clergy.

Saint Paul's words (I Cor. 7:25-40) are:

²⁵ Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
²⁶ I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, [I say], that [it is] good for a man so to be. {distress: or, necessity}
²⁷ Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a  wife.
²⁸ But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
²⁹ But this I say, brethren, the time [is] short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
³⁰ And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
³¹ And they that use this world, as not abusing [it]: for the fashion of this world passeth ^away.
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please thee Lord: {that belong...: Gr. of the Lord}
³³ But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please [his] wife.
³⁴ There is difference [also] between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, thatt she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please [her] husband.
³⁵ And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and thatt ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
³⁶ But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of [her] age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
³⁷ Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
³⁸ So then he that giveth [her] in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth [her] not in marriage doeth better.
³⁹ The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
⁴⁰ But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.