When dealing with a religion which in its texts bares the promise that it’ll never disappear (such as Christianity), you are correct that the religion completely disappearing would prove it wrong.
if a religion has only a relatively small adherence world wide, and it’s not very new, than there is something wrong with it. I would hope truth has a ring to it and it attracts people–many peoples. Numbers count to some relative extent, but they are not the whole picture.
If you think truth attracts I urge you to look at the society around you. People are attracted to things that are shiny, or easy. The truth is seldom one of these things.
Curiously, I’ve heard the EXACT same argument in the Baha’i threads. THAT is telling, I think.
I think that last sentence sums this all up nice.
Amen. Christ’s message of taking up our crosses and following Him, the examples of the saints, monks, and martyrs who have died to the world in order to rise with Him…these things will never be attractive to the world at large, but it’s not for lack of inviting people to embrace them anyway. We are to take off the old man and put on the new and superior one (to quote a Coptic hymn), and invite all others to do the same. But it is easier to not do that, of course. I don’t see how that indicts or exonerates any particular communion, since that resistance to change is found everywhere.
A more appropriate question as concerns the Orthodox Church specifically would be how you’re supposed to measure ‘numerical success’ under harsh conditions like aggressive atheistic communism and Islamism. I’m not Byzantine, and I’m new to this whole Orthodoxy thing, but literally everyone at my little Coptic church knows at least one person back home in Egypt who converted from Islam to Christianity. They don’t talk about it openly, for obvious reasons, but they have mentioned it as a source of secret joy for the Church at large. I could tell some stories that would blow your mind if that were any way of making a point, but it’s not. There are also Catholics in many of these countries who are even smaller in official numbers…does that mean that the Catholic Church is somehow less true in, say, Albania or Egypt than it is in Italy or Poland?
I wouldn’t think so. As I recall, Mass attendance is pretty lousy these days in most of formerly Catholic Europe (and I don’t mean those countries that came under the sway of the Protestant reformation in the 16th century, I mean countries that were solidly, actively Catholic as recently as 80-100 years ago, like Ireland and Italy). In many places in Eastern Europe, while the vast majority of people may be baptized Eastern Orthodox, their attention is also elsewhere. There are cultural but essentially not practicing Catholics/Orthodox everywhere, which makes using numbers as evidence of conversion very unwise. You can be baptized and not become a disciple, and that’s as true in Spain or Mexico or wherever as it is in Russia, Greece, Armenia, or anywhere else.
Yes, it is telling. Ad Populum is universally recognized by those who know how to argue (ie orators and those who have studied rhetoric) as a fallacy - that is it is false and not a valid arguement.
That is not true. I have made a serious study of the reception of converts into the Orthodox Church. Very few Orthodox receive converts from the Catholic Church through Baptism. Almost all Orthodox receive Catholics through Chrismation (Confirmation) However, historically the prayer used is not the prayer to complete a Baptism, but the prayer that is used to reconcile someone from a schismatic group to the Church. When a Protestant is received the traditional prayer is the prayer used to complete a Baptism by Chrismation. Obviously since they lack Apostolic Succession Protestants lack the Sacrament of Chrismation. The Church of Russia receives Catholics though a profession of the Orthodox Faith.Many/most of the Orthodox still cast doubts that our Catholic baptism is invalid, any hopes of any sort of ecumenism are probably lost, though we can still pray they come to their senses one of these days.
Even if that is so (see Father’s post to the contrary) how does that mean that “any hopes of any sort of ecumenism are probably lost”? (I take it you also believe that any hopes of any sort of ecumenism between Catholics and Anglicans are also lost, since we do not recognize them as having a valid Eucharist?)Many/most of the Orthodox still cast doubts that our Catholic baptism is invalid, any hopes of any sort of ecumenism are probably lost, though we can still pray they come to their senses one of these days.
Quite a few more issues there and communion would never be restored to the Anglicans are they are, but… sort of?
Our senses are just fine, thanks. We follow the fathers who denied the salvific efficacy of sacraments outside of the Church. Sacraments performed outside of the Church have perhaps a certain sacramental character to them, which is why we can receive those who received baptism outside of the Church without baptism, but they are in themselves defective pseudo-sacraments until they are perfected by the Church.Many/most of the Orthodox still cast doubts that our Catholic baptism is invalid, any hopes of any sort of ecumenism are probably lost, though we can still pray they come to their senses one of these days.
I agree, the Empire, at the time of its dismemberment was in schism from the faithful Orthodox Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Georgia, among others, having officially accepted unionism as a part of imperial policy. The destruction of the Empire was a fitting and God-ordained punishment for this.
Does the faithful Roman Catholic hesitate to tell the Anglican that his Holy Orders are invalid? Does the Anglican complain that this destroys all room for discussion? Sacraments performed outside of the Church lack the perfection and efficacy of sacraments performed in the Church. It does not mean that these sacraments have not any sacramental character (this being contingent upon the form of the sacrament), but that they are in need of perfection, which alone can be found in the Church.
It is true that the preferred method of Baptism in the Orthodox Church is triple immersion. However, except for a few rigorists, most canonical Orthodox do not absolutely require triple immersion. Even within the Orthodox Church we recognize emergency Baptism even if it is not possible to immerse the candidate.
Canon 95 of the Council in Trullo provides that Non-Chalcedonians are to be received by Profession of Faith. Therefore the Eastern Orthodox Church receives Copts by simple Profession of Faith.