feeling strong pull to orthodoxy ...

[Hesychios]

Think it’s ridiculous all you want, if you own this missal (which Opus Dei uses):

It is right in the pages of guide to a good confession, I sold the Missal on E-Bay or I would give the page and paragraph.

I don’t think it is wrong, nor do I think the term used in the Missal is ridiculous.

Personally, I feel that the author (probably a priest) could have just as effectively stated that the penitent should mentally contemplate the image of Jesus Christ, asking for forgiveness. It is effectively the same.

I believe that you are conflating two ideas (possibly a third):

1. 
   *]That Yahweh cannot be seen and should not be imaged (along with this His name should not be uttered).
   *]That one must not worship idols.
   Christianity very early resolved the first when it was formally recognized that Jesus Himself is God (as opposed to the Arian idea, and modern SDA/JW idea, that Jesus was a creature of God). You may hold the same, or similar view as mainstream Christianity. Jesus being God IS an image of God, an icon of God. Calling out the name of God or creating an image of Him was a way of limiting God in the mind, a way of “defining”, which we dare not do. But God can represent Himself in any fashion, like a burning bush for instance, or a still small voice, or a bouncing baby boy.
   
   Now we hear (and read) the words of God, and gaze upon His countenance. We strive to be like Him. We “put on Christ”.
   
   It was the decision of God to make Himself manifest in the world. It was His feet the woman kissed, wept over, perfumed and wiped with her own hair. It was His body that hung on the tree, spilling blood and water. God the Word chose to interject Himself into this limited form of humanity to bring to us the good news.
   
   For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 2Cor 5:21
   
   Now when we think of Jesus, we think of God. He is an icon of God. Icons are a way of ‘seeing’ the reality beyond the veil of space and time. A statue may possibly be used this way, but realism in three dimensional art is less adequate to the purpose. Icons are highly symbolic, not tending to realism.
   
   The Bible can be a type of icon of spiritual reality in words, when I was raised I was taught to kiss the Bible when I opened it and when I closed it, I still do. I still have images of Christ in my head, from all of the cherished and valued lessons I learned from the Gospel accounts.
   
   http://www.apicons.com/images/TAP Icons Web-Res/veronica.jpg
   
   The second issue, that of worshipping idols, is not even remotely applicable because there is no question of worship. The subjects of iconography are not foreign gods (which we know to not exist at all) nor demons, they have no independent powers.
   
   The subjects of iconography are creatures of God. Like all of us they strive to be holy, and unlike us are noted for some measure of success at this. We know they are with us still. We ask for their prayers and emulate their lives.
   
   Have a happy Easter.
   
   Michael

 

[justacloserwalk]

I wouldn’t think we would have to explain the difference between “veneration” and “idolatry”

Thank you Michael for posting part of the Trisagion Prayers.
Not too long ago I heard a Jesuit, Father Kraft (I think that is his name!) “the” Eastern Orthodox “expert” on the Eastern Church-The Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic.

He affirmed that it was Rome that broke away from the other 4 Patriarchs, that the Pope was “first among equals” EVERYTHING that the Orthodox have been saying all along.

IMO, the problem is NOT with what we agree on, everything the RCC has held to for 1054 years we are in agreement with.
The problem is in what has been added SINCE the Schism, things that the Church Fathers have never historically held to or believed in.

WE have NEVER changed. The Eastern Orthodox Church is the SAME today as it was yesterday and will be the SAME tomorrow.

The comments about ABC are out of line, get your facts straight before making statements.

Did you know the RCC used to require fasting from 12:00 midnight on before recieving communion?
We still do.
If you want a Church that holds fast to the teachings of the Apostles and the Fathers…you want the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I was appalled to hear that homosexuals in drag were served communion in San Francisco last year. That would NOT happen in an Orthodox Church.

I studied Roman Catholism for 20 yrs as an Evangelical and found the Eastern Orthodox Church.
I haven’t regretted my decision.

Many Years!
Barbara

 

[East_and_West]

I couldn’t ignore what my conscience was telling me, it was wrong and I knew it was wrong. I remember reading in my Missal about a good confession how it explained at the end to look up to a statue of Christ and thank Him for forgiving you. So I did it and I felt completely wrong doing it, I knew what I just did was wrong.

So it comes down to what you feel? Nevermind the incredible sanctity of centuries of Catholic and Orthodox saints who have vernerated Statues and Icons. Just ignore that because you “feel” its wrong to venerate somethings that are holy. Were the Old Testament believers wrong for venerating and treating holy the things that are holy, those things used in the worship of God such as the Ark of the Covenant?

 

[KLIBERA]

I Too Feel A Pull Toward Orthodoxy. I Don’t Have Any Problems With Rome Or Anything. I Think Its The Us Catholic Church Which As We Know Has Committed Some Grave Sins. The 2 Churches Agree More Than They Disagree. Again Its All About Different Ladders. Remember Paul Did A Lot Of Missionary Work In The East Which Gave A Lot Of Foundations To Orthodoxy.

 

[Della]

While there is a distinction between the Faith, itself, and the traditions, which give it expression, it is incorrect to take such a careless approach to the small traditions of the Church. Ponder these words of St. Basil the Great:

“Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us in a mystery by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay - no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer?” - On the Holy Ghost, chapter 27.

I see this conservatism, even in the small things, reflected in the Orthodox Church not the Roman Catholic Church, which as you said, sees them as not really worth preserving. If repoman wants to be in the Church of St. Basil, I think Orthodoxy would be right for him, not Catholicism.

Let me be clearer. I am not talking about things like the sign of the cross but of disciplines that can be changed if they are needed. The Eastern Churches should have (and be able to maintain) their own traditions, of course. That shouldn’t be a stumbling block to unity. The Eastern Rite Catholic Churches certainly don’t have any problems using their own traditions where Rome is concerned.

It is not schismatic to avoid communion with an heretical group. In fact, it is the sign of the true Church. And the Church has always held that Popes can err, lose the Papacy and have the faithful go on without them. This justifies us in our principle of lacking communion with the Pope. And this principle has a good application as Church history shows that Rome’s style of governing is foreign to the ancient Church, just as are several of her teachings.

God bless,

Adam

The Catholic Church is not heretical. And you are misstating the meaning of infallibility (no doubt because of misinformation you have received). You are right that the Catholic Church does not claim impeccability for the pope. The charism of infallibility has nothing to do with his personal holiness and everything to do with his office and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Even if he were to go off the rails and become a heretic, he would not be able to proclaim as doctrine or dogma whatever is not true. I find that a wondrous thing and a assurance that God has not and will never desert the Church. And there are no teachings of the Catholic Church that are “foreign” to the ancient Church. There are doctrines that were not formally proclaimed but none that were “invented” along the way.

It’s too bad misconceptions such as this are kept going because they stand in the way of unity–the unity Jesus prayed for and for which we, in all honesty and good will, ought to strive.

 

[searn77]

For the OP:

An article that has influenced me on choosing between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is this:

the-highway.com/Matt16.18_Webster.html

It is a long article but it is great to read. It’s about Matthew 16:18 and what the early church fathers taught about the pope. It explains the quotes from the fathers and shows the context that they were given in. It also refutes many quotes that Catholics use to uphold their view on the Pope by showing the quotes from the fathers that they use and explain the context that the quote was given in and also show more of the quote.