There is a second sense of acceptability. Those would be the people whose behavior is such–a la Cornelius–that despite their mistaken doctrine, God “accepts” them and works with them. Note that Cornelius was already classified as one who followed the tenets of Judaism rather than Rome.

I could go on, but you get the idea. The term “acceptable” can be and is used in several senses. But that is not a topic for here.

PS: I’m not being hard on those Orthodox - as I hope you see by (a) the ORthodox who comment here agreeing with me; and (b) by the fact that the “good guys” in my post are, themselves, Orthodox. I’m only being hard on the nutty ones.

This makes good sense to me.

But I would say only that, regarding the part I elided in my quote, you wrote, “what is “acceptable” to our Lord” and later added “willing to forgive, or willing to work with someone does not automatically mean that what they are into is “acceptable”.”

And while I can not but agree with your logic, neither can I agree that you might know what Jesus would find “acceptable” - nor can I: we both go on blind faith there - faith in what we *feel* to be so.

For me the question is more can you and I at the point of disagreement, share in communion?

Having said that, folks who try to live on the bleeding edge of maximalism or minimalism often already are “outside” of “acceptable” in that they have an attitude problem that needs some fixing.

Now before you tell me again how Jesus is quite willing to forgive, let me grant that. But willing to forgive, or willing to work with someone does not automatically mean that what they are into is “acceptable”. I am convinced that, for the sake of saving their souls, our Lord consistently works with and draws people who are otherwise engaged in “unacceptable” behaviors or have “unacceptable” approaches to “Church”, “doctrine”, or “worship”.

So, I can easily grant that our Lord is working with many people, while, at the same time, I am calling them to change their “Church” approach or their “doctrine” or their “worship” or their “unacceptable” personal behavior. The two need not necessarily contradict!

Icons are Icons are Icons! I don’t care where they come from! If they help you pray why not use them.

God save us from the Uber Pious!

BTW that monastery of which you speak has some of the best incense.

But, again, given the “Whole package” approach… by which I mean the idea that *everything* is (T)radition, Where do you draw the line? I know that neither Maximalism nor Minimalism is very satisfying. BUt I think, “Jesusism” (pardon the neologism) is much broader than any one denomination is willing to admit.

Fr G - I think, in some ways, it’s ironic that those icons, of which you speak, as well as the liturgical translations from the same source, are a standard among the “World Orthodox” out here. They are brilliant.

Ben - I have much the same story about OUr Lady of Perpetual Help. Sigh.

However, part two of your comment is slightly misleading. You say, “I think our human boundaries are meaningless to God . . . .” By phrasing it that way, you are already assuming they are only, and nothing else but, human boundaries. I beg to differ. If that is all they are, then—as St. Paul says when he speaks of the Resurrection in 1 Cor. 15—our sins are not forgiven, and we are of all men most to be pitied.

Frankly, if that is all they are, why bother, other than to make myself feel good about my now-meaningless good works and good thoughts?