Falling for an Orthodox girl: revisited

  • Thread starter Thread starter malfunkshun
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow. This thread got nasty rather quick. It’s a shame that most threads with “Orthodox” in the title seem to go that way. Anyway, I’m not in the spiritual position at the moment to be taking sides in any of this fighting (and I should hope that if I were so sorted out I would see the futility in such divisiveness), so I just want to say that it made me quite happy to read the OP. Congratulations to you, Malfunkshun.
Thanks. 🙂

By the way, I’ve seen flame wars on other forums that make this quibbling seem like a pillow fight. So far there has been no name calling or accusations to speak of; merely the somewhat passionate arguments by folk of either side.

I was worried that this thread was going to go to hell in a handbasket after the first few initial posts, so I stayed away purposefully for these past four days. And although the topic here has gone WAY beyond my original purpose, which was simply to announce my becoming a catechumen, I am actually relieved that after five days it hasn’t degenerated to an all out nasty brawl. What I see here is, at most, just heated discussion. Certainly nothing to get upset about, in my opinion.
 
Wow. This thread got nasty rather quick…
Since when has debating become a “nasty” thing. Why is it that if Karl Keating debates James White it is not considered nasty but if someone debates Orthodoxy it is nasty?

Are these articles by Jimmy Akin, Fr. Ray Ryland, and Fr. Harrison (In This Rock magazine mind you) nasty?

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2009/0905fea6.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9610eaw.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0810fea3.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9711eaw.asp
catholic.com/library/Filioque.asp
 
Funny, but I would argue that it is the Roman Catholic Church that needs to be drawn back to the Truth of the Orthodox faith.
You are wrong, but one thing I must commend you for is at least you care enough to debate. At least you have not taken the indifferentist “I’m okay, you’re okay” position common to so many today. You realize that the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church cannot be at the same time the one true Church. (This by the way is what led Jim Likoudis to study Catholicism- he realized that both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church claim to be the true Church, and they cannot both be the one true church at the same time)

In other words I commend you for accepting the law of non-contradiction:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_contradiction
 
You are wrong
No he’s not. 😃
(This by the way is what led Jim Likoudis to study Catholicism- he realized that both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church claim to be the true Church, and they cannot both be the one true church at the same time)
It is what led me and countless others to study Holy Orthodoxy–and our eventual conversion to the fulness of the truth of the Holy Orthodox Church. 🙂
 
Since when has debating become a “nasty” thing. Why is it that if Karl Keating debates James White it is not considered nasty but if someone debates Orthodoxy it is nasty?

Are these articles by Jimmy Akin, Fr. Ray Ryland, and Fr. Harrison (In This Rock magazine mind you) nasty?

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2009/0905fea6.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9610eaw.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0810fea3.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9711eaw.asp
catholic.com/library/Filioque.asp
Because this thread was meant to show someone’s spiritual growth, and when a Catholic very kindly congratulated him you TURNED it into a debate. Maybe “nasty” isn’t the right word, but the form that your surely authentic zealotry is taking is rather off-putting just the same. God bless you for your strong conviction, but sometimes a few words can say a lot more about a person’s mindset than a giant pile of links that I’m not going to read because I’m not interested in getting into a theological bar-fight with you over the internet.
 
Because this thread was meant to show someone’s spiritual growth, and when a Catholic very kindly congratulated him you TURNED it into a debate. Maybe “nasty” isn’t the right word, but the form that your surely authentic zealotry is taking is rather off-putting just the same. God bless you for your strong conviction, but sometimes a few words can say a lot more about a person’s mindset than a giant pile of links that I’m not going to read because I’m not interested in getting into a theological bar-fight with you over the internet.
Beautifully put! I would be just as disgusted if an Orthodox were doing that to a Roman Catholic or Protestant. It’s a shame that people cannot just post something around here without being berated. 😦

In Christ,
Andrew
 
I suggest that all those who are interested in the sentiment of the original post by malfunkshun discontinue posting here and leave those who want to continue the other arguments to do so on their own.
 
Because this thread was meant to show someone’s spiritual growth, and when a Catholic very kindly congratulated him you TURNED it into a debate.
I know this post is not aimed at me, however, you kindly term it “spiritual growth”… yet, to Tradycja, myself, and others, this is growth away from the truth of the Faith. This is not something to be praised, but something to caution. The Catholics on this thread who are celebrating someone’s entering the Orthodox Church is like cheering a man to keep walking as close as possible to the edge of a dangerous precipice.

Would you cheer if someone joined a faith that did not possess the fullness of truth? Or would you caution them?
 
I know this post is not aimed at me, however, you kindly term it “spiritual growth”… yet, to Tradycja, myself, and others, this is growth away from the truth of the Faith. This is not something to be praised, but something to caution. The Catholics on this thread who are celebrating someone’s entering the Orthodox Church is like cheering a man to keep walking as close as possible to the edge of a dangerous precipice.

Would you cheer if someone joined a faith that did not possess the fullness of truth? Or would you caution them?
Is that what the RCC considers the Orthodox Church, the edge of a dangerous precipice?

In Christ,
Andrew
 
I would not worry about it to much. Most people on both sides do not display this kind of behavior when not behind a keyboard. I converted to Orthodoxy from the Catholic Church and do not have ill will towards the Catholic Church.
 
You are wrong but one thing I must commend you for is at least you care enough to debate. At least you have not taken the indifferentist “I’m okay, you’re okay” position common to so many today. You realize that the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church cannot be at the same time the one true Church. (This by the way is what led Jim Likoudis to study Catholicism- he realized that both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church claim to be the true Church, and they cannot both be the one true church at the same time)

In other words I commend you for accepting the law of non-contradiction:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_contradiction
When I’m flat out told that I’m wrong in no uncertain terms, then there’s not a whole lot of room for the debate you commend me for caring about.

I’d like to clarify one thing though. While I do believe that the Orthodox Church is the original Church as established by the Apostles and the 72 followers, and is the original Church from which all other denominations branched away, including Roman Catholicism, I don’t think that a persons eternal soul is necessarily in immediate peril for practicing another denomination. However, the road to salvation is a lot harder and fraught with more peril the further away from the Orthodox Church one strays. I’ll use fasting as an example:

The reason we fast is to gain control over our sinful ways by denying our bodies pleasures that can lead to passions; to focus our spiritual awareness so that we may be more receptive to God’s will, and to remind us of the suffering of Christ during his 40 day fast.

For RC’s, the practice of fasting usually means the exclusion of meat only. In America, RC’s only fast for about one week (plus or minus a day or two) out of the year during Lent, and then just on Fridays, with the addition of Ash Wednesday. Fasting doesn’t even necessarily apply to what you eat… it has actually been suggested by Catholic clergy that abstaining from text messaging or TV should be an appropriate way to fast.

To the Orthodox on the other hand, fasting is given its due consideration much more seriously. The normal rule is to exclude all animal products (meat and dairy), as well as oil and wine, from the diet. Orthodox Christians, if they can, will fast every Wednesday and Friday of every week of the entire year. I addition to those days, there is Holy Week (7 days), the Lenten Fast (40 days), the Nativity Fast (40 days), the Apostles Fast after Pentacost (variable, usually 2 - 3 weeks), and the Dormition Fast (2 weeks) in anticipation of the Theotokos feast. This adds up to about half of the year spent fasting. As for other Protestant denominations, I really don’t know, except that Methodists and Baptists of the bible belt in East Texas would consider the suggestion of fasting a really funny joke.

My point is, the Orthodox Church is the only Christian church that I’m aware of which tries to practice strict fasting in accordance with the spirit in which it is meant to be undertaken. In my opinion, Roman Catholics slack with their fasting. They don’t fast enough, and when they do fast, they don’t do it right. The way the RCC has slowly eased off of the rules for fasting throughout its history is just one symptom of a much larger problem - that problem being the slow movement of the RCC away from and out of communion with the Orthodox Church over the centuries.

There are other issues that I won’t go into because I’m tired and this is already a long post, but suffice it to say that a practicing Roman Catholic is going to find his or herself more temped by sin and more likely to fall away from salvation than a practicing Orthodox Christian.
 
Dear brother Malfunkshun,
Firstly, that verse you refer to isn’t a statement, it is a question:

“Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time?” Matthew 24:45
Jesus was asking a rhetorical question. It is called the dialectical method, and was a very popular form of reasoning in Jesus’ time. The question merely introduces the topic to be discussed, and moves the hearer’s mind to focus on that topic.
If Matthew 24:45 does in fact tell us that a Pope should hold supreme authority over the church, then Matthew 24:48-51 seems to warn against that power being abused or corrupted; a common form of corruption being the use for political purposes:

“But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 24:48-51
Yes indeed. The ONE servant must NOT CORRUPT his God-given authority. Strangely, you see in this verse not an exhortation and warning to the ONE servant, but rather a statement that he is not to be given any authority at all.:confused::confused::confused:
If you can provide evidence that a council of bishops did, in fact, decide that Matthew 24:45 was to be taken to mean that one Pope should hold ultimate authority over the Church, then I’ll have some serious thinking to do. However, if that one Bible verse is the only support you have for the legitimacy of papal primacy, then I’d say that’s a pretty weak argument.
This is my own reflection on Scripture, and it has solidified my belief in the GOD-GIVEN office of the papacy.
The early Byzantine patriarchs never tried to deny Rome her seat at the head of the five churches. She deserved special recognition; being the capitol city, and possibly the Roman patriarch’s opinion might have even held a certain amount of respect and therefore influence among other patriarchs, but this is the limit of the notion of primacy. Anything beyond this, like it or not, WAS instituted by secular powers, and you have provided no real evidence that papal primacy, as practiced by the Roman Pope, was in any way legitimately organized or recognized by the Church.
Evidence abounds in history, but I don’t have time to talk about them right now. I expect to post regularly only after the first week of February, 2010. Until then, perhaps others will engage you on proofs of the universal nature of the Petrine primacy.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
I know this post is not aimed at me, however, you kindly term it “spiritual growth”… yet, to Tradycja, myself, and others, this is growth away from the truth of the Faith. This is not something to be praised, but something to caution.
This type of objection from you, Tradycja, etc. would make more sense if Malfunkshun had previously been Catholic, but that is not the case if I am reading the OP correctly. As it is, it seems that he has gone from a space of not really having any firm religious conviction to having a firm conviction in favor of Orthodoxy. I do not see this as anything to feel cautious or bad about.
The Catholics on this thread who are celebrating someone’s entering the Orthodox Church is like cheering a man to keep walking as close as possible to the edge of a dangerous precipice.
I do not see the “danger” in it, frankly. Someone who was doubting even the very concept of God has now found a home in His house. I would say that means there is less danger than before (or at least more protection and guidance away from danger), but if you want to disagree, that is your right. I do not think Roman or Eastern Catholics have anything to fear from Orthodoxy.
Would you cheer if someone joined a faith that did not possess the fullness of truth? Or would you caution them?
No, I would not cheer. I do not think that this is what Malfunkshun has done.
 
Is that what the RCC considers the Orthodox Church, the edge of a dangerous precipice?

In Christ,
Andrew
To use a metaphor:

Envision a ridgeline, some 5 yards wide, with a well marked path, leading to a distant summit, and two valleys to the sides, deep, and filled with trees, each with a toxic river running through the bottom…

The Catholic Church sees itself as the well marked path with the safety rails, and a precipice some feet, say 2-3 yards, from the path. The Orthodox, both EO and OO, are on the precipice side of the rail, off the path, but still following the path faithfully, towards the summit of the Enfoldment of theosis fulfilled in the end of days. The Old Catholics, by comparison, dally along the precipice, and many are over the edge, a few run down the slope, and a few claw to stay just above the edge. The Traditional anglicans are over the edge, and struggling to find their way up the hill; the TAC have asked for a hand up, and now have to realie that that hand brings a price of following the path on the crest, rather than the easy path down to the valleys of hell and gehenna. The Jews wait at the rest stop at the midway point, not realizing the path already leads on. Most protestants are somewhere on the steep slopes below the precipice.
 
The Catholic Church sees itself as the well marked path with the safety rails, and a precipice some feet, say 2-3 yards, from the path. The Orthodox, both EO and OO, are on the precipice side of the rail, off the path, but still following the path faithfully, towards the summit of the Enfoldment of theosis fulfilled in the end of days.
That is a wonderful metaphor–accept that we see Holy Orthodoxy as the well marked path
—and you as being on the precipice side of the rail. 😉
 
All of this amounts to the following:

Jesus established his Church, and it is Church x
Church x possesses the fullness of the faith (or substitute your favorite phrase)
Therefore, it is quite “beneficial unto salvation” to be as close to Church x as possible.

No one should be surprised when the Orthodox think that everyone should be Orthodox, or when the Catholics think that everyone should be Catholic. It is quite logical. How this belief should be carried out is another question, but I am very much puzzled by those people in either Church who wouldn’t so much as gently encourage someone else to consider their Church. We might as well not bother to evangelize at all!

However, one can rejoice when an individual moves closer to union with their Church – if a non-Christian becomes a Christian of any sort, I am happy. I also pray that eventually they become Catholic, whether in this world or the next. 😉

Ultimately, if I see signs that they are moving closer to Jesus, I am happy, and if it appears they are moving away from him, I am sad. I will let Jesus decide how quickly he wants to draw people to himself.
 
You know, I’m pretty sure that it’s the Roman Catholics who moved away from the Orthodox Church and not the other way around. It was the separation of the Catholic Church from the Orthodox Church that gave rise to protestantism; the Pope has even been referred to as the First Protestant. So technically, it’s the Roman Catholics who are ‘outside the church’, as you put it.

Yeah keep telling your self that:rolleyes:
 
:banghead:

Sadly, you know not what you are talking about at all. If you did, you would not have copy/pasted a bunch of articles. Malfunkshun was never a Catholic of any stripe. How can he be leaving the RCC if he was never a part of it? :confused:

Also, if I remember correctly, RCs aren’t supposed to be evangelizing the Orthodox per the Balamand Agreement from the 1990s. 😉

In Christ,
Andrew
 
:banghead:

Sadly, you know not what you are talking about at all. If you did, you would not have copy/pasted a bunch of articles. Malfunkshun was never a Catholic of any stripe. How can he be leaving the RCC if he was never a part of it? :confused:

Also, if I remember correctly, RCs aren’t supposed to be evangelizing the Orthodox per the Balamand Agreement from the 1990s. 😉

In Christ,
Andrew
neither Catholics’s the Orthodox nor the Orthodox the Catholics… but that hasn’t stopped the polemicists. Nor even certain Bishops…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top