Eastern Orthodox is the true faith?

[rturner76]

I was looking into Catholicism and I love it! The sacraments are for me but RCIA is just not what I like. As I was studying I came across Eastern Orthodox books. They seem to have had less counsels, less changes and wasn’t most of the New Testament written in Greek? So wouldn’t that make Eastern Orthodox the original Church and Roman Catholic the spin off church? Can someone explain what makes Roman Catholicism the one true church and not Eastern Orthodox? Jesus never used the word Pope or even Patriarch did he? Weren’t the Disciples equals? Please don’t take this as an insult. I mean no disrespect. I may not be sounding right. I really don’t mean disrespect, I want to learn. I have been coming here for a long time but stopped contributing a while ago so I just read a lot and I didn’t do RCIA like I said I was going to. I got scared. I don’t want to do the wrong thing and go to hell. I feel like If I stay with what I know and grow in that God won’t punish me but all that is for another thread. Please someone help me understand what makes the Romans the originals?

 

[JDaniel]

I was looking into Catholicism and I love it! The sacraments are for me but RCIA is just not what I like. As I was studying I came across Eastern Orthodox books. They seem to have had less counsels, less changes and wasn’t most of the New Testament written in Greek? So wouldn’t that make Eastern Orthodox the original Church and Roman Catholic the spin off church? Can someone explain what makes Roman Catholicism the one true church and not Eastern Orthodox? Jesus never used the word Pope or even Patriarch did he? Weren’t the Disciples equals? Please don’t take this as an insult. I mean no disrespect. I may not be sounding right. I really don’t mean disrespect, I want to learn. I have been coming here for a long time but stopped contributing a while ago so I just read a lot and I didn’t do RCIA like I said I was going to. I got scared. I don’t want to do the wrong thing and go to hell. I feel like If I stay with what I know and grow in that God won’t punish me but all that is for another thread. Please someone help me understand what makes the Romans the originals?

RTurner:

No offense taken. You may be posting this question in the wrong forum, though. If you do not get many replies, put it in the Apologetics forum. Perhaps the mods guide you. By the way, love God with all your heart, your soul, and your mind, and your neighbor as yourself, and you’ll be fine. Your search for answers will interesting.

God bless,
jd

 

[ConstantineTG]

I was looking into Catholicism and I love it! The sacraments are for me but RCIA is just not what I like. As I was studying I came across Eastern Orthodox books. They seem to have had less counsels, less changes and wasn’t most of the New Testament written in Greek? So wouldn’t that make Eastern Orthodox the original Church and Roman Catholic the spin off church? Can someone explain what makes Roman Catholicism the one true church and not Eastern Orthodox? Jesus never used the word Pope or even Patriarch did he? Weren’t the Disciples equals? Please don’t take this as an insult. I mean no disrespect. I may not be sounding right. I really don’t mean disrespect, I want to learn. I have been coming here for a long time but stopped contributing a while ago so I just read a lot and I didn’t do RCIA like I said I was going to. I got scared. I don’t want to do the wrong thing and go to hell. I feel like If I stay with what I know and grow in that God won’t punish me but all that is for another thread. Please someone help me understand what makes the Romans the originals?

Being Eastern Catholic, I have so much love for our Orthodox brethren because we share the same expression of faith as they do. A lot of my reading on the Eastern praxis are works by Orthodox clergy.

One thing that bothers me about your conclusion is about the Bible being written in Greek which points to the true Church. The original language of the Bible has nothing to do which Church is true or not. I wonder why you think about that? The Bible is not the indicator of the true Church, Jesus Christ is the indicator of the true Church. The Bible is holy and sacred because of Jesus. The Church is holy and sacred because of Jesus. If you want to know which Church is the true Church, look to Jesus Christ, not the Bible.

Second is the use of words. Again, not just because “Pope” isn’t in the Bible, doesn’t mean the Catholic Church is not the true Church. “Orthodox”, “Ecumenical Patriarch”, "Divine Liturgy, etc, are not in the Bible as well. The Bible is not truth. Jesus Christ is truth. The Bible is only true as it relates to Christ. Don’t look to the Bible to find the truth, because the truth is in Christ. If we do not see the Bible in the light of Christ, then its just another book.

As for your discernment, its up to you. I have advised people to go either way. Catholic or Orthodox, to me there’s not a lot of difference. They’re two parts of the true Church who need to resolve their issues and unite. Eventually they will become one.

 

[Vincent1984]

I was looking into Catholicism and I love it! The sacraments are for me but RCIA is just not what I like.

If you’re a baptised Methodist, you wouldn’t do RCIA. RCIA is for unbaptised people, new to Christianity. For the sake of convenience some parishes lump their RCIA programs together with the program for Christians converts and people may call it all “RCIA”, but it isn’t. Therefore, some of the rituals that are part of the RCIA program would not apply to you, if that’s what you were thinking.

Orthodox may well require you to be baptised again, which the Catholic Church wouldn’t if you are from a mainstream Methodist background.

On the question of language: personally I think this is something of a red herring. In any case, most Orthodox are Russian (or a closely connected branch) and don’t speak a word of Greek. Furthermore, the Greeks today speak modern Greek, not the koine Greek of the New Testament. I am not a linguist but I think the two are mutually unintelligible, though of course they are connected. Therefore, the Orthodox do not have any automatic scriptural advantage.

I say it is is a red herring because “Jesus founded a Church; he didn’t write a book”. The Church was still the Church before the New Testament was written. Furthermore, the Church was still the Church while it was – over several hundred years – discerning which writings were to be part of the New Testament. Though we hold it in great esteem and love, the Church is not dependant on the Bible. The Bible is dependant on the Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If you’re a baptised Methodist, you wouldn’t do RCIA. RCIA is for unbaptised people, new to Christianity. For the sake of convenience some parishes lump their RCIA programs together with the program for Christians converts and people may call it all “RCIA”, but it isn’t. Therefore, some of the rituals that are part of the RCIA program would not apply to you, if that’s what you were thinking.

The way most parishes are today, RCIA is a catch-all program for everyone entering the Church.

Orthodox may well require you to be baptised again, which the Catholic Church wouldn’t if you are from a mainstream Methodist background.

I don’t know why this is brought up. I don’t think this should be an issue if the person is thinking about converting.

On the question of language: personally I think this is something of a red herring. In any case, most Orthodox are Russian (or a closely connected branch) and don’t speak a word of Greek.

Yes they do. “Kyrie Eleison” and “Christos Anesti” are commonly used in the Byzantine Rite.

Furthermore, the Greeks today speak modern Greek, not the koine Greek of the New Testament. I am not a linguist but I think the two are mutually unintelligible, though of course they are connected. Therefore, the Orthodox do not have any automatic scriptural advantage.

While I cannot verify because I cannot understand either way, I was informed the Greek Orthodox Liturgy is still in Koine Greek. Usually the Liturgical language is easily understood because its just an older form of their language, not a completely foreign language (say Latin in China). Also they are not completely unintelligible. The words are not the issues, its more of context. Its like Shakespeare’s English today.

I say it is is a red herring because “Jesus founded a Church; he didn’t write a book”. The Church was still the Church before the New Testament was written. Furthermore, the Church was still the Church while it was – over several hundred years – discerning which writings were to be part of the New Testament. Though we hold it in great esteem and love, the Church is not dependant on the Bible. The Bible is dependant on the Church.

No, the Bible is dependent on Christ. So is the Church.

 

[po18guy]

What you really need is a copy of Catholicism for Dummies. It is a great book that will answer probably all of your questions in plain English. Welcome back!

 

[Warrenton]

Please someone help me understand what makes the Romans the originals?

Coming from a major Protestant Church, you perhaps are accustomed to tracing the chronology of churches as a way of determining their validity. For Example, Rev. Wesley received his commission from the Church of England, which received it from the Roman Catholic Church, etc.

When you look at the Roman Church and the Greek Church, however, the chronological model is not applicable. If you looked at your parents, you would not ask, “Was Mom or Dad the original spouse?” right?

Why? Because, of course, they both created the union of your family at the same time.

It’s the same thing with Greeks and Romans (and some others we could name - but we’ll limit it to just these two for the sake of brevity).

Some early Christians lived in the Greek cities of Asia Minor (Ephesus, for instance), some lived in Athens, Byzantium, and other early Christians lived in Rome, which was the imperial capital. Tradition tells us that St. Peter and St. Paul both travelled to Rome and planted the Church there. So these early churches grew up together. Over time, they developed different styles - generally speaking, the Roman Church used Latin and favored a more plain liturgical style, and in general, the Greek Church used Koine Greek and favored a more ornate style. There arose differences between how Greeks and Romans decorated their churches, also, and how their monks and nuns were organized. But they were united.

Eventually, differences over politics, interpretation of certain mysteries, and especially how to govern the Church led to a formal “divorce,” which we call the Eastern Schism. But both the Greek Church and the Roman Church are equally old and “original.”

 

[rturner76]

This was a ton of excellent information that more than answered my questions. I was told to get the Catholicism for Dummies book by my local parish when I was inquiring about the faith there and I was just put off by the title but it looks like it’s the book to get. I’ve now heard it from more than a few people.

Also about the church existing before the Bible, I knew that too and I forget because as you know in Protestant churches, the Bible is pretty much everything. We don’t have the tradition in our history and that’s a big reason I believe I am seeking a deeper relationship with THE Church emphasis on THE. So I am satisfied with my relationship with Jesus Christ but sometimes I think there could be a more pure way of worship I could be involved with.

I’m not knocking Protestants because some of the outreach and evangelism is feeding the hungry and bring souls to Christ.

THanks a lot for the responses and the gret attitudes toward my line of questioning. Very Christian of you

 

[po18guy]

This was a ton of excellent information that more than answered my questions. I was told to get the Catholicism for Dummies book by my local parish when I was inquiring about the faith there and I was just put off by the title but it looks like it’s the book to get. I’ve now heard it from more than a few people.

Also about the church existing before the Bible, I knew that too and I forget because as you know in Protestant churches, the Bible is pretty much everything. We don’t have the tradition in our history and that’s a big reason I believe I am seeking a deeper relationship with THE Church emphasis on THE. So I am satisfied with my relationship with Jesus Christ but sometimes I think there could be a more pure way of worship I could be involved with.

I’m not knocking Protestants because some of the outreach and evangelism is feeding the hungry and bring souls to Christ.

THanks a lot for the responses and the gret attitudes toward my line of questioning. Very Christian of you

Once you come to belief in our Lord’s presence in the Holy Eucharist, you will be forever changed. Scripture that was overlooked now jumps out at you. Have you considered going to a local parish when they have Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament? It is an absolute Catholic belief that Jesus, in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is present in the consecrated bread. We have the wonderful opportunity to go and spend time before Him - in prayer, adoration, thanksgiving, or just plain awe. Consider going and asking Him to reveal His presence to you. Open your heart, have patience, and you will not be disappointed.

 

[rturner76]

That’s where I have some trouble because I have been to Catholic Mass and we are not allowed to take Communion. For me, and I’m just talking about me. I know there are reasons for it and I respect them or I would have just gone up there anyway. They don’t check for ID or secret handshakes. I respect the sacrament for what it is but it’s like a slap in the face to be seated at the Lord’s table with everyone but not be allowed to partake of the bread and wine, body and blood. Like I said, it’s just me, but I don’t think Jesus himself was checking who finished RCIA at his table during the last supper. Everyone who was at the table was allowed to eat and drink. I know, it’s very Methodist of me namely AME. I mean we feed it to babies and kindergartners go up and get their body and blood. So I don’t go to worship services with Catholics very often any more. I just want to cry standing on the sidelines knowing I can’t have my Lord there when I can go to most any other church and be seated at the Lord’s table and eat and drink. Like I said, I know The Church has her reasons and I don’t intend to challenge two thousand years of tradition. I just want no part of it unless I am able to be a part of it.

 

[Vincent1984]

I just want no part of it unless I am able to be a part of it.

Then please allow me to invite you to be fully, 100% a part of it.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

No.

But I’m also looking for a good response that will show how Eastern Orthodoxy is wrong without just merely stating, “They aren’t united with the pope.” Although I believe they are in a schism, I want to see someone have a good solid argument, preferably citing Church Fathers.

but if not, whatever. I don’t really care a lot. I just think it would be interesting.

 

[po18guy]

That’s where I have some trouble because I have been to Catholic Mass and we are not allowed to take Communion. For me, and I’m just talking about me. I know there are reasons for it and I respect them or I would have just gone up there anyway. They don’t check for ID or secret handshakes. I respect the sacrament for what it is but it’s like a slap in the face to be seated at the Lord’s table with everyone but not be allowed to partake of the bread and wine, body and blood. Like I said, it’s just me, but I don’t think Jesus himself was checking who finished RCIA at his table during the last supper. Everyone who was at the table was allowed to eat and drink. I know, it’s very Methodist of me namely AME. I mean we feed it to babies and kindergartners go up and get their body and blood. So I don’t go to worship services with Catholics very often any more. I just want to cry standing on the sidelines knowing I can’t have my Lord there when I can go to most any other church and be seated at the Lord’s table and eat and drink. Like I said, I know The Church has her reasons and I don’t intend to challenge two thousand years of tradition. I just want no part of it unless I am able to be a part of it.

Jesus did not first approach those whom He taught with communion in His hand. He offered it to them only at the end, after they had three years of teaching and exposure to Him. And, so His Church has a period of teaching also before you receive. In the earliest years of the Church, catechumens were taught for years before being allowed entry into full communion. Blessed are you that RCIA is all that stands between you and receiving your Lord into your body!

 

[po18guy]

No.

But I’m also looking for a good response that will show how Eastern Orthodoxy is wrong without just merely stating, “They aren’t united with the pope.” Although I believe they are in a schism, I want to see someone have a good solid argument, preferably citing Church Fathers.

but if not, whatever. I don’t really care a lot. I just think it would be interesting.

Since the schism officially occurred in the year 1054, the early fathers were long gone. We must rely upon contemporary records. First: the “Orthodox” Church is not one community, but a series of communities that are united in Christ, but remain separated as to geography, political affiliation and allegiance to their own Patriarch. There is no Pope uniting them. I understand that they have called no universal councils because they lack the authority or structure to do so. Someone will correct me if this is not the case. However, between the Catholic and the various Orthodox Churches, which may be found in all nations on earth, in accordance with Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:19?