EO or RC. How can a Protestant decide?

[Peter_J]

I think we are getting lost in terms and in how they are being used.

Indeed. I myself am very troubled by people who are overly sensitive about correct usage of such terms (which may seems strange, since on CAF I’m probably one of the biggest proponents of correct usage).

This also relates to my desire to keep terminology relatively simple. For example, there’s nothing wrong with talking about rites, if that word is used correctly … but oftentimes, I (and many others) will talk about the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches without specifying “X of them use the Byzantine Rite, Y of them use _____ Rite, etc etc.”

 

[itsjustintime]

That’s too bad, I am always really impressed when Evangelicals show some appreciation for Apostolic Succession.

Both Judaism, from the time of Moses, and Catholicism from the time of Jesus see succession in leadership to be essential to God’s plan for his Church, making for a more credible teaching institution.

While I deeply respect Evangelicals for what they do, even the best Mega-Church pastors recognize the innate failure in the Protestant faith in remaining consistent in what they teach. Recently Mars Hill Church in Seattle formed it’s own school to help new Church leaders hone their teaching skills in accord with what the scripture is actually saying. Pastor Mark Driscoll articulated how when the Church was first starting many of the leaders were speaking about throwing out things like the Resurrection, and just picking and choosing from the teachings they would keep. This is abhorrent and dangerous. Thanks be to God they are trying to equip their pastoral staff to teach what the faith actually is rather than just emphasize evangelism. Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, it’s not enough.

More often than not these attempts to grow Churches are just out of rivalry with the Catholic Church rather than the unity of all faith which the Holy Spirit is actually leading us towards. Thanks be to God that the Catholic Church can be a rock in what it teaches. Not because the Catholic Church possesses the truth, so much as the Truth possesses the Catholic Church. There is room for all of the Evangelical faith under the banner of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, let’s pray that this unity happens as opposed to the ridiculous and sinful rivalry that exists today.

 

[Peter_J]

Going back to the original reason for this thread, I’d like to ask the OP and others who are of like mind: Would you concede that we catholics (and note the lowercase “c” because I mean not only Rome but also Orthodoxy, the PNCC, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism) are relatively more unified than you protestants are?

 

[dronald]

Going back to the original reason for this thread, I’d like to ask the OP and others who are of like mind: Would you concede that we catholics (and note the lowercase “c” because I mean not only Rome but also Orthodoxy, the PNCC, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism) are relatively more unified than you protestants are?

You’ll have to be more specific. Evangelicals accept those who have complete Faith in Jesus Christ, accept the Trinity and accept the Bible as truth. Therefore we accept that Catholics are in the same Church as us.

If you’re saying that Rome has plenty more members that adhere to one set of beliefs then yes. But I’m not sure exactly what you mean?

 

[AbideWithMe]

Going back to the original reason for this thread, I’d like to ask the OP and others who are of like mind: Would you concede that we catholics (and note the lowercase “c” because I mean not only Rome but also Orthodoxy, the PNCC, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism) are relatively more unified than you protestants are?

I’d echo Dronald’s request to be more specific.

My short answer: Regarding unity–For Catholics, yes in theory, no in practice if I’m going by my personal observations, experience, and reading from a variety of Catholics. For Lutherans, no, going by the same means as above.

I’m not speaking for the OP, but for myself, in saying that I find Evangelicalism to be the best home for me where the things needed for growth towards Christlikeness are emphasized.

If I were to try to use “Evangelical” to cover everyone who roughly fits under that big tent, then I will say we are less unified because we cover more territory in terms of theological diversity which is admitted under the tent. Also, we don’t have a top-down sort of leadership which can completely expel a church standing on the outskirts.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Going back to the original reason for this thread, I’d like to ask the OP and others who are of like mind: Would you concede that we catholics (and note the lowercase “c” because I mean not only Rome but also Orthodoxy, the PNCC, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism) are relatively more unified than you protestants are?

Also, Peter, can you define how you’re using “catholic” and “protestant”?

 

[Kliska]

Going back to the original reason for this thread, I’d like to ask the OP and others who are of like mind: Would you concede that we catholics (and note the lowercase “c” because I mean not only Rome but also Orthodoxy, the PNCC, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism) are relatively more unified than you protestants are?

In theory, yes, in reality, no.

If I can clarify, I believe the organizational hierarchies and their core teaching are “more unified” but the church proper (the people/believers/congregations), no.

 

[Gicutzu]

I haven’t had the patience of reading the entire thread, but as someone who’s had to go through more or less the same thing (deciding if Catholic or Orthodox), I want to add my two cents:

To be honest, even though I live in a majority Orthodox country, I have never really been attracted by the EO Church. On the other hand, I have always been attracted by the RC Church (some might say this is the work of the Holy Spirit, some - especially some Orthodox I know of - might say it is the work of His foe): this is just to show that I was biased from the beginning. Also, I won’t offer any theological arguments, because there has been enough discussion on those.

As soon as I started accepting Catholic/Orthodox beliefs on apostolic succession and the like, and as soon as I realized I can’t be an Evangelical anymore, I had to choose an apostolic Church. I wanted to attend both kinds of services, but sadly I never made it to an Orthodox one: waking up early on Sundays is highly problematic, as would have been the question “where are you going on a Sunday morning” coming from my parents. So, I have attended Mass a number of times (must be around 10 or more now) at the RC Cathedral in my city.

And I must say, I felt and I still feel at home when I attend RC Mass. I know there are a lot of posters on the forum who say that the EO Divine Liturgy is very beautiful, and I really mean no offense to any EO or Byzantine Catholics on here, but in all honesty, after watching many different Divine Liturgies on YouTube, I have to say that they don’t fit me at all, and Byzantine chant gives me the creeps big time.

Also, talking about adhering to the Faith of the Fathers is really nice, but I have two observations: 1) Protestants don’t accept any changes after the Bible, and EO don’t accept any changes after the first seven Ecumenical Councils: so while it’s nice to have an ancient Church, there’s no possibility for change - I believe the Church is living and needs to respond to changes in the secular world, and a Church stuck in the ancient times can’t do that; 2) who actually lives out the Faith of the Fathers? all my friends are EO and they are great people, but no one cares about church other than at weddings or baptisms (and maybe Easter or Christmas) - only 4% of population goes to church regularly, even though there’s an 80% EO majority; I realize this is a problem in the RC Church as well, but I always seem to find the RC Cathedral full of people of all ages, while the EO churches fill up with old ladies once and again.

Also, there is a very non-charitable attitude from EOs towards RCs: while Catholics regard EOs as their brothers and sisters, EOs regard Catholics as heretics. I’m not saying it’s true for all, but it’s true for a lot of them and for some of the most vocal ones.

I hope I don’t get banned for saying these things, and please understand that I have nothing against EOs: again, 99% of my friends are EO and they are great people. It’s just that the EO church doesn’t appeal to me at all: some might say you don’t pick churches based on where you feel good, but I personally think that that mattters as well: if I am uneasy listening to Byzantine chant, I will be uneasy in the church as well. So, consider which church feels right to you as well, aside from the theological arguments which will always be presented by either side as the Truth.

Sorry for the very long post.

 

[PRmerger]

As soon as I started accepting Catholic/Orthodox beliefs on apostolic succession and the like, and as soon as I realized I can’t be an Evangelical anymore, I had to choose an apostolic Church

Egg-zactly.

 

[josie_L]

In my post which you quoted, I wasn’t discussing whether the OP was referring to the EO, the OO, or both. I was discussing the contention made by some that the fact that the EO and the OO are not in communion with each other proves the Orthodox are not one–a contention I reject as making no sense historically or theologically. Most people, when referring to “the Orthodox,” mean the EO, as most people are not even aware of the distinction between the EO and the OO, if they are even aware of the existence of the OO.

When I said what I said, I was trying to make it clear that EO and OO are different “types” of Orthodoxy (because I’m aware of this distinction), therefore, saying “Orthodox Church” creates a lot of confusion as I believe that he was referring to both EO and OO, i.e., two Apostolic Churches claiming to be the one true Orthodox Church.

 

[josie_L]

Your profile has the same issue. It says “Religion: Catholic” but it doesn’t specify whether you belong to the Roman Communion or whether you belong to the Polish National Catholic Church.

Are you suggesting that I’m part of the Polish National Catholic Church even after reading my posts, i.e., I think I’ve explained myself well enough in my replies to know which Church I belong to?

 

[josie_L]

There are no “rites/sui iuris particular Churches”. A sui iuris (particular) church (for example, the UGCC) uses a rite (in their case, the Byzantine Rite). There is no such thing a rite/church.

I’m not going to try to tell you what opinion you should hold of Eastern Catholics, but at least do not call us “rites/sui iuris particular Churches” if you please.

What opinion do you think I hold concerning my fellow Eastern Catholics, i.e., did I give the impression that I do not love and respect them? And let me turn the question on you, if you please, what opinion do you hold of Latin rite Catholics?

 

[josie_L]

I was only referring to your use of the term “rites” to refer to particular churches.

I did not realize it would cause offense to say “rite” when in actuality I did mean particular Churches (I thought rite/church went hand in hand). Sorry, for that!. God bless!

 

[josie_L]

Indeed. I** myself am very troubled by people who are overly sensitive about correct usage of such terms **(which may seems strange, since on CAF I’m probably one of the biggest proponents of correct usage).

That’s not strange just hypocritical.

 

[Peter_J]

Also, Peter, can you define how you’re using “catholic” and “protestant”?

I would say that “catholic” describes Lutherans, Anglicans, PNCC, Old Catholics, ACoE, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholics, and “protestant” describes Lutherans, Anglicans, and every Christian group not in the first list.

I’d echo Dronald’s request to be more specific.

My short answer: Regarding unity–For Catholics, yes in theory, no in practice if I’m going by my personal observations, experience, and reading from a variety of Catholics. For Lutherans, no, going by the same means as above.

I’m not speaking for the OP, but for myself, in saying that I find Evangelicalism to be the best home for me where the things needed for growth towards Christlikeness are emphasized.

If I were to try to use “Evangelical” to cover everyone who roughly fits under that big tent, then I will say we are less unified because we cover more territory in terms of theological diversity which is admitted under the tent. Also, we don’t have a top-down sort of leadership which can completely expel a church standing on the outskirts.

Fair enough, though I can’t say I agree. For me it really seems that catholics are considerably more united than protestants – not completely united, obviously, but more united.

 

[Tony_Micelli]

This may have been previously mentioned, but technically Protestants are “Roman Rite” Christians which means normally you should become Roman Rite Catholic. But you may choose any rite you want: Byzantine, roman, Coptic or whatever. Just realize that Roman Rite Catholicism will “feel” more at home all things being equal.

The best reason to be catholic rather than orthodox is because Catholicism is universal: we reflect more legitimate diversity than the EO churches who are dominantly Byzantine rite only. If you like eastern spirituality–I do–we offer that. If you like western spirituality–I do–we offer that too.

The only serious difference in the end is the role of the Holy Father. If you want a church with a visible head, carrying on the role of St. Peter, who was the center of unity in the ancient church, become catholic. If you hate the idea of the pope and how it has developed in the west and want a church that lacks diversity of spirituality, become orthodox.

Either way, you will follow a church that goes back in continuity to the time of the apostles.

 

[RyanBlack]

I did not realize it would cause offense to say “rite” when in actuality I did mean particular Churches (I thought rite/church went hand in hand). Sorry, for that!. God bless!

No reason to apologize. There was obviously no intent on your part to cause offense. I have an academic background in theology, and am picky about this sort of thing.

 

[josie_L]

No reason to apologize. There was obviously no intent on your part to cause offense. I have an academic background in theology, and am picky about this sort of thing.

No, it’s good that you told me, I just wasn’t sure if you were disagreeing with my reply in toto and/or if you thought I was being disrespectful, i.e., I want it understood that Eastern Catholics are a part of the CC so one should not refer to the universal Church as the RCC.

 

[Peter_J]

No, it’s good that you told me, I just wasn’t sure if you were disagreeing with my reply in toto and/or if you thought I was being disrespectful, i.e., I want it understood that Eastern Catholics are a part of the CC so one should not refer to the universal Church as the RCC.

Reading the “so” and the words following, I have to wonder: if you were living in a time without Eastern Catholics, is there an alternate argument that you would use instead? (Don’t feel obliged to answer; it’s just a question that comes to mind.)

 

[josie_L]

Reading the “so” and the words following, I have to wonder: if you were living in a time without Eastern Catholics, is there an alternate argument that you would use instead? (Don’t feel obliged to answer; it’s just a question that comes to mind.)

Some posters were referring to the CC as the RCC and I felt obliged to correct this because we are not one particular Church representing one rite.