Help choosing between orthodox catholic and lutheran

[jbm0117]

My two cents:

I am an Eastern Catholic, grew up in Latin Schools and Churches.

I studied church history and where my church came from and my conclusion for me is the Orthodox Church. I realized all the changes Rome has made throughout the years:

Papal Supremacy, Celibacy, Immaculate Conception, Priest facing the people, instruments in the mass, Protestant influences on the mass, etc etc etc…

I did have a hard time with this as it has been a big part of my life and I felt a loyalty to the Pope and Rome, but I look at the Orthodox and see a unity of equals that is still intact to this day and a church that has stayed true to its traditions

God Bless you on your journey…

 

[Saint_Dismas]

the only three bodies in christianity that seem likely to be truth is catholicism orthodoxy and lutheranism. how do i find out wich is true?

After researching and praying the Holy Spirit blessed me with the understanding that the Catholic Church was the True Church. I first started looking at the protestant Churches and their enormity. They just keep continuing to grow with no end in sight. Their doctrine is what caused the multiple divisions, and I knew if Christ wanted unity then this doctrine is not what I want to follow. The other thing that struck me was how the modern day Protestants or nothing like their predecessors. Luther the first protestant never wanted to leave the Catholic Church, and neither did the people that followed him. Yet their doctrines again were so radical they were clearly not reforming the current Church but starting a brand new one. The other thing that turned me away from Protestantism is the Bible and the history of it. That and the fact that the current Protestants us and OT cannon that was decided by the Hebrews during 90ad. The same Hebrews that denied Christ was the messiah! This council held by the Jews was a clear move to stop the Christian uprising by removing the OT books which the early Christians held as part of the OT and are so called apocryphal by Protestants today. I also came to find out that the first Protestant Bibles had the same OT cannon as the Catholic Church until sometime around 1800s.

So in short the early Protestants were once Catholics. They never intended to leave the Catholic Church and their very existence gives evidence that the Catholic Church is the first Church and the source since they came from it. They used to accept the Bible as the Catholics held it up until 1600s-1800s when they then removed the OT books to match up with the Jewish Council that was convened to decide which books was part of the Hebrew Canon. A Jewish council that did not believe my Lord Jesus Christ was the Messiah. There are plenty of other points but for the sake of time I will stop here.

After more research into history it became apparent that there was another choice. This Choice is the Orthodox Church. This required more research into history, and when you get there you see that the Orthodox Churches left the already existing Catholic Church. The reason for why they did this is over the filogue in the creed. Long story short they were not present for the “addition” of a known truth so they decided to get upset over that and decided to split from the Catholic Church. The split was in my opinion political rather theological. Regardless of this I believe the Church was Called Catholic, and when you read the Church Fathers you can see that they called the Church “The Catholic Church” also. The Orthodox BROKE away from the Catholic Church in 1000ad and since then the Catholic Church which had and still does have ecumenical councils to form the faithful continued to have them as the Orthodox have not, and this is because they have no authority and no visible head on earth. There is more and more but I felt all roads point to the Catholic Church, and so I therefore must go to the Catholic Church.

God Bless

PAX

 

[Harpazo]

The evidence you presented actually points in exactly the opposite direction. The splits you describe are not “deep” at all, and the fact that they are centuries old undercuts, perhaps even demolishes your position.

Compare Protestantism. In Protestantism splits routinely lead to other splits in an almost exponential fashion. And once splits happen, they are very hard to heal. The Orthodox have been excommunicating and quarreling with each other ever since–well, ever since the early Church. The kind of behavior you describe happened in the centuries of the “undivided” Church quite frequently. The Meletian schism is one famous example, in which Rome turned out to be on the “wrong” side (if you don’t believe me, check the Catholic Encyclopedia).

If a time traveler could hop through the history of the Church centuries at a time, he/she would find in the fourth century quarreling Christians who more or less acknowledged each other as part of one Catholic Church but had a rather creaky system for enforcing this unity. The traveler could then hop to the seventh century–same thing. Then to the eleventh–same thing, and one of the big quarrels (not for the first time) would be between East and West. Then to the fifteenth, in which it looked as if that quarrel was being made up. Then to the nineteenth, by which time it would be clear that the Western Catholic Church had not only divided from the East but had itself divided into a monolithic, ultra-centralized structure and an abundance of quarreling sects. The Orthodox, on the other hand, would be functioning much as their forebears had done back in the fourth century.

I’m putting the Orthodox case. I recognize that there’s a case on the other side. For instance, one can question whether this “creaky” jurisdictional structure is a good thing in itself, and one can certainly question whether it is more important than union with the See of Rome.

Furthermore, it is certainly conceivable that some of the current quarrels in Orthodoxy will turn out to be genuinely “deep cracks” of the kind that opened in the early second millennium between East and West, even though initially it looked like just another temporary quarrel. But a case could be made that that particular crack was so deep because of the intransigent, legalistic absolutism of the Western Church.

My point in all of this is that the unity of the Orthodox, in spite or because of their habitual quarrelsomeness, is impressive. They have maintained recognizably the same Faith, and with the exception of the Old Believers’ schism and possibly the Old Calendar schism (I think the jury is out on how deep that one goes) recognizably a united faith, for nearly a thousand years without Rome. The fact that they have been excommunicating each other right left and center for much of that time is distressing, but only underlines their immense difference from Protestantism and the fact that something keeps them together in spite of all the tiffs.

Edwin

Christ is risen!

A very refreshing perspective from the “Orthodox aren’t the Church because they don’t look to the throne of St. Peter” argument we hear ad nauseum, and in my opinion pretty spot on. We Orthodox would recognize that something as the Holy Spirit.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Lypher]

How have the Orthodox “continued to split”?

I also question whether the Orthodox reduction of the Papacy to a purely human institution (at least this is a common position) is correct, but I don’t see how you can deny that they have maintained their unity and their faith for close to a thousand years without the Pope!

Edwin

Edwin,

A number of the Orthodox churches are not in communion with each other. Most seem to be based on National Borders. In the past 10 years things have been getting better, but they are not healed, and even if they do issues such as divorce and contraception are different depending on which area you go through. A central authority has been extremely important for the health and solidity of the RCC.

Total numbers of Orthodox are significantly down since the 1400. Appearantly the gates of Constantinople just did not hold?

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

After more research into history it became apparent that there was another choice. This Choice is the Orthodox Church. This required more research into history, and when you get there you see that the Orthodox Churches left the already existing Catholic Church. The reason for why they did this is over the filogue in the creed. Long story short they were not present for the “addition” of a known truth so they decided to get upset over that and decided to split from the Catholic Church. The split was in my opinion political rather theological. Regardless of this I believe the Church was Called Catholic, and when you read the Church Fathers you can see that they called the Church “The Catholic Church” also. The Orthodox BROKE away from the Catholic Church in 1000ad and since then the Catholic Church which had and still does have ecumenical councils to form the faithful continued to have them as the Orthodox have not, and this is because they have no authority and no visible head on earth. There is more and more but I felt all roads point to the Catholic Church, and so I therefore must go to the Catholic Church.

We didn’t “leave” anything. I seem to recall someone placing a papal bull of excommunication at the Hagia Sophia.

Also, you should read history more closely. The Filioque (what’s the filogue?) was opposed in Rome for a long time, and the Creed in its original form was put on public display by a pope in opposition to the pressure from the outside to change it. It was external imperial pressure that eventually caused the papacy to cave in. If I’m not mistaken the inscription which defends the original Creed in Rome might remain to this day.

As far as there not having been an Oecumenical Council since the schism, what do you believe is the nature and purpose of an Oecumenical Council?

As far as us not having visible heads, this is patently false. If you see a bishop, you see a head. If you mean that we are not ultramontane, then you are correct. But then again, neither were the autocephalous churches of the first millennium.

Our Holy and God-Bearing Fathers indeed called the Church Catholic, and so do we. We are the Catholic Church, and Rome broke away from us. You don’t have to agree, but we also don’t have to agree with you. - Smiley so I don’t get banned

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

A number of the Orthodox churches are not in communion with each other.

Which autocephalous churches are you referring to?

Total numbers of Orthodox are significantly down since the 1400.

Are you really going to make this out to be a numbers game?

Apparently the gates of Constantinople just did not hold?

Burn Constantinople, or Moscow, or Rome to the ground and the Church remains. You obviously don’t understand us very well.

 

[Lypher]

We didn’t “leave” anything. I seem to recall someone placing a papal bull of excommunication at the Hagia Sophia.

Also, you should read history more closely. The Filioque (what’s the filogue?) was opposed in Rome for a long time, and the Creed in its original form was put on public display by a pope in opposition to the pressure from the outside to change it. It was external imperial pressure that eventually caused the papacy to cave in. If I’m not mistaken the inscription which defends the original Creed in Rome might remain to this day.

As far as there not having been an Oecumenical Council since the schism, what do you believe is the nature and purpose of an Oecumenical Council?

As far as us not having visible heads, this is patently false. If you see a bishop, you see a head. If you mean that we are not ultramontane, then you are correct. But then again, neither were the autocephalous churches of the first millennium.

Our Holy and God-Bearing Fathers indeed called the Church Catholic, and so do we. We are the Catholic Church, and Rome broke away from us. You don’t have to agree, but we also don’t have to agree with you. - Smiley so I don’t get banned

Alveus,

Please correct me if I am wrong, but please provide references as I am a protestant convert in RCIA and my understand of the split was that a couple of Priests (Diplomats) from Rome felt slighted by the Byzantine Priest and excommunicate him without the knowledge or the Pope, then it became a he said she said and the change to the creed kind of solidified the split?

I am very interested in the Eastern Catholic Rites and personally believe that if the two lungs of the whole Catholic Church don’t get their acts together we will all be buried in the Koran in a few short years.

By the way as Lutheran I see immense value in the Magisterium and the Pope as when I looked at the Orthodox you have different beliefs on contraception because the Patriarchs cannot seem to agree?

Again if I am wrong I would greatly appreciate your pointing out places I can go read as I like the Eastern Church. Do you by chance have a Catechism?

Take care,

Lypher

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

The evidence you presented actually points in exactly the opposite direction. The splits you describe are not “deep” at all, and the fact that they are centuries old undercuts, perhaps even demolishes your position.

Compare Protestantism. In Protestantism splits routinely lead to other splits in an almost exponential fashion. And once splits happen, they are very hard to heal. The Orthodox have been excommunicating and quarreling with each other ever since–well, ever since the early Church. The kind of behavior you describe happened in the centuries of the “undivided” Church quite frequently. The Meletian schism is one famous example, in which Rome turned out to be on the “wrong” side (if you don’t believe me, check the Catholic Encyclopedia).

If a time traveler could hop through the history of the Church centuries at a time, he/she would find in the fourth century quarreling Christians who more or less acknowledged each other as part of one Catholic Church but had a rather creaky system for enforcing this unity. The traveler could then hop to the seventh century–same thing. Then to the eleventh–same thing, and one of the big quarrels (not for the first time) would be between East and West. Then to the fifteenth, in which it looked as if that quarrel was being made up. Then to the nineteenth, by which time it would be clear that the Western Catholic Church had not only divided from the East but had itself divided into a monolithic, ultra-centralized structure and an abundance of quarreling sects. The Orthodox, on the other hand, would be functioning much as their forebears had done back in the fourth century.

I’m putting the Orthodox case. I recognize that there’s a case on the other side. For instance, one can question whether this “creaky” jurisdictional structure is a good thing in itself, and one can certainly question whether it is more important than union with the See of Rome.

Furthermore, it is certainly conceivable that some of the current quarrels in Orthodoxy will turn out to be genuinely “deep cracks” of the kind that opened in the early second millennium between East and West, even though initially it looked like just another temporary quarrel. But a case could be made that that particular crack was so deep because of the intransigent, legalistic absolutism of the Western Church.

My point in all of this is that the unity of the Orthodox, in spite or because of their habitual quarrelsomeness, is impressive. They have maintained recognizably the same Faith, and with the exception of the Old Believers’ schism and possibly the Old Calendar schism (I think the jury is out on how deep that one goes) recognizably a united faith, for nearly a thousand years without Rome. The fact that they have been excommunicating each other right left and center for much of that time is distressing, but only underlines their immense difference from Protestantism and the fact that something keeps them together in spite of all the tiffs.

A refreshing post. Thanks Edwin.

 

[Lypher]

Which autocephalous churches are you referring to?
I was mostly thinking of the Russian Orthodox but here are a bunch of others listed in Wikepedia…(Probably not that accurate).

Churches that have voluntarily “walled themselves off”
These Churches do not practice Communion with any other Orthodox jurisdictions nor do they tend to recognize each other. Yet, like the “Churches in Resistance” above they remain fully within the canonical boundaries of the Church: i.e., professing Orthodox belief, retaining legitimate episcopal succession, and existing in communities with historical continuity. Nevertheless, their relationship with all other Orthodox Churches remains unclear, as ‘Orthodox’ Churches normally recognize and are recognized by others.

• Old Believers
• The Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece
• The Russian True Orthodox Church
• The Russian Orthodox Church in America
• The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church
• The Autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America
• The Belarusian Autocephalous Orthodox Church

edit] Churches that are unrecognized

The following Churches recognize all other mainstream Orthodox Churches, but are not recognized by any of them due to various disputes:

• The Macedonian Orthodox Church
• The Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate

edit] Churches self-styled as Orthodox, unrecognized as such

• The Bulgarian Alternative Synod
• The Croatian Orthodox Church (1942–1945)
• The Orthodox Church in Italy
• The Montenegrin Orthodox Church
• The Karamanli Turkish Orthodox Church

Are you really going to make this out to be a numbers game?.

We have to for survival. Most Catholic countries are having birthrates below the 2.1 required for sustaining population. Muslims are FAR above this and we are being replaced. Numbers matter and we need to stop abortion and contraception or we will be replaced in 100-200 years. By the way countries that become Islamic do not tolerate Christians very well.

Burn Constantinople, or Moscow, or Rome to the ground and the Church remains. You obviously don’t understand us very well.

Well Rome was sacked and burned, but did come back… I am not so sure about Byzantium. I mean it is not a major Catholic Stronghold and is in enemy territory. Moscow is only a replacement and the history I read is that they held the Patriarch of Byzantium hostage to create the region? Is that right? Alexandria is also in enemy territory. Our Orthodox Churches, I say our because Rome is in communion with you, even if you are not in communion with Rome, are doing pretty good in the US, but we really need to heal this Schism and do something to offset the growth of Islam at the expense of Christianity.

T

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but please provide references as I am a protestant convert in RCIA and my understand of the split was that a couple of Priests (Diplomats) from Rome felt slighted by the Byzantine Priest and excommunicate him without the knowledge or the Pope, then it became a he said she said and the change to the creed kind of solidified the split?

There’s really no clear-cut moment when it came; it was gradual. But the Second Council of Lyon didn’t help anything; that’s for sure. This muddy nonsense which clouds the glorious balance of the Tri-unity comes from the first Constitution of the council:

We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.

By the way as Lutheran I see immense value in the Magisterium and the Pope as when I looked at the Orthodox you have different beliefs on contraception because the Patriarchs cannot seem to agree?

This is a private pastoral matter. The Latins will never understand this.

Again if I am wrong I would greatly appreciate your pointing out places I can go read as I like the Eastern Church. Do you by chance have a Catechism?

If you are asking about the Orthodox Church, I would just point you toward St. John the Damascene’s Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. It was written in the eighth century, but then again we haven’t changed anything since then, so there’s no need for updates. Here’s a link: orthodox.net/fathers/exactidx.html

Of you want a more recent book that’s a bit more readable, Bishop Kallistos Ware’s The Orthodox Way is a nice beginner’s book for understanding Orthodox spirituality, and then I would read Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr. Michael Pomazansky. Here are some links for purchase:

amazon.com/Orthodox-Way-Kallistos-Ware/dp/0913836583/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b
amazon.com/Orthodox-Dogmatic-Theology-Concise-Exposition/dp/0938635697/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273640094&sr=8-1

I hope these are helpful.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

Churches that have voluntarily “walled themselves off”
These Churches do not practice Communion with any other Orthodox jurisdictions nor do they tend to recognize each other. Yet, like the “Churches in Resistance” above they remain fully within the canonical boundaries of the Church: i.e., professing Orthodox belief, retaining legitimate episcopal succession, and existing in communities with historical continuity. Nevertheless, their relationship with all other Orthodox Churches remains unclear, as ‘Orthodox’ Churches normally recognize and are recognized by others.

These kinds of groups are relatively small (not that that means anything), but generally speaking, schism is only praiseworthy when it is to be walled-off from heresy. I will not pass judgment on all of these groups, because in some cases I am very sympathetic to their causes, but others I am not at all.

Some are interested in forming national churches and have little interest in spiritual matters. This sort of schism is disgusting.

That being said, there have been times in history when a very small minority maintained the Orthodox faith and the rest fell into heresy, so I am always slow to judge. Many of these groups consider Ecumenism a heresy and seem legitimately honest in their convictions to me, but others are just opportunistic men looking to play bishop and have some power in their little makeshift internet sect.

These kinds of groups do not represent anything substantial, and the Vatican has many such breakaways themselves. Just as you don’t see breakaway sects as destroying your unity (Protestantism anyone?!?!), we also don’t see these groups as ruining our unity. Many schisms can be for legitimate reasons, and this happened all the time in the first millennium, and continues until today when necessary. In the end, the Truth always prevails. As some have pointed out, the dispute over the calendar change by some churches has yet to be completely resolved, meaning there are still tensions, but for now unity and communion remains between the Old Calendar Churches (Russia, Serbia, Jerusalem, etc.) and the New (Greece, Antioch, etc.). If you are interested, I support the Old Calendar, as I am a part of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

 

[Lypher]

If you are asking about the Orthodox Church, I would just point you toward St. John the Damascene’s Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. It was written in the eighth century, but then again we haven’t changed anything since then, so there’s no need for updates. Here’s a link: orthodox.net/fathers/exactidx.html

Of you want a more recent book that’s a bit more readable, Bishop Kallistos Ware’s The Orthodox Way is a nice beginner’s book for understanding Orthodox spirituality, and then I would read Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr. Michael Pomazansky. Here are some links for purchase:

amazon.com/Orthodox-Way-Kallistos-Ware/dp/0913836583/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b
amazon.com/Orthodox-Dogmatic-Theology-Concise-Exposition/dp/0938635697/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273640094&sr=8-1

I hope these are helpful.

Thank you for the information…

 

[Formosus]

Churches that have voluntarily “walled themselves off”
These Churches do not practice Communion with any other Orthodox jurisdictions nor do they tend to recognize each other. Yet, like the “Churches in Resistance” above they remain fully within the canonical boundaries of the Church: i.e., professing Orthodox belief, retaining legitimate episcopal succession, and existing in communities with historical continuity. Nevertheless, their relationship with all other Orthodox Churches remains unclear, as ‘Orthodox’ Churches normally recognize and are recognized by others.

• Old Believers
• The Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece
• The Russian True Orthodox Church
• The Russian Orthodox Church in America
• The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church
• The Autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America
• The Belarusian Autocephalous Orthodox Church

edit Churches that are unrecognized

The following Churches recognize all other mainstream Orthodox Churches, but are not recognized by any of them due to various disputes:

• The Macedonian Orthodox Church
• The Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate

edit Churches self-styled as Orthodox, unrecognized as such

• The Bulgarian Alternative Synod
• The Croatian Orthodox Church (1942–1945)
• The Orthodox Church in Italy
• The Montenegrin Orthodox Church
• The Karamanli Turkish Orthodox Church

We have to for survival. Most Catholic countries are having birthrates below the 2.1 required for sustaining population. Muslims are FAR above this and we are being replaced. Numbers matter and we need to stop abortion and contraception or we will be replaced in 100-200 years. By the way countries that become Islamic do not tolerate Christians very well.

Well Rome was sacked and burned, but did come back… I am not so sure about Byzantium. I mean it is not a major Catholic Stronghold and is in enemy territory. Moscow is only a replacement and the history I read is that they held the Patriarch of Byzantium hostage to create the region? Is that right? Alexandria is also in enemy territory. Our Orthodox Churches, I say our because Rome is in communion with you, even if you are not in communion with Rome, are doing pretty good in the US, but we really need to heal this Schism and do something to offset the growth of Islam at the expense of Christianity.

T

Yeah that secularist Turkish government! Wait… oh yeah I guess that means Paris, Rome, Madrid, Avignon, Vienna, Washington, London, etc are all in enemy territory too. Islam isn’t growing at the expense of Christianity. The number of people converting from Christianity to Islam is very low ( imagine), the number of people converting from Islam to Christianity is probably much higher then one would expect (the Coptic Orthodox Church has actually done a lot in this regard in recent times).

 

[Lypher]

Yeah that secularist Turkish government! Wait… oh yeah I guess that means Paris, Rome, Madrid, Avignon, Vienna, Washington, London, etc are all in enemy territory too. Islam isn’t growing at the expense of Christianity. The number of people converting from Christianity to Islam is very low ( imagine), the number of people converting from Islam to Christianity is probably much higher then one would expect (the Coptic Orthodox Church has actually done a lot in this regard in recent times).

Formosus,

You may be right. I sure pray so. The problem with converts to Christianity is that in many countries they have to be silent or accept stoning. Islam is not a very open religion. We will find out just how loving it is when France becomes an Islamic Republic. Likely in my lifetime (God Willing)…

 

[Contarini]

Christ is risen!

A very refreshing perspective from the “Orthodox aren’t the Church because they don’t look to the throne of St. Peter” argument we hear ad nauseum, and in my opinion pretty spot on. We Orthodox would recognize that something as the Holy Spirit.

Right. As an Anglican, I see possible evidence of the Holy Spirit’s activity in both the Roman Communion and yours. Maybe sometimes even among Protestants

Also, as an Anglican, I can be expected to side with you guys on this issue. Although I see a lot more need for the primacy of Rome than most Anglicans or Orthodox do, which is the main reason I’m not Orthodox. (Another important consideration is my desire not to abandon my Western heritage, even though I personally prefer Eastern Christianity in many ways.)

I’m in an “Orthodox mood” these days, largely because I’ve been teaching a class on the subject and have been reading Orthodox theology more deeply than previously. But this has happened before–about the time (or just before) I joined Catholic Answers, in fact. I seem to get Catholic moods about every six months and Orthodox moods about every 5-6 years! (The Catholic moods are much more frequent in spite of, or maybe because of, my greater agreement with Orthodox theology and my love of Eastern liturgy.) But by playing them off against each other, I manage to remain Anglican. . . . so far.

Edwin

 

[StevenFrancis]

the only three bodies in christianity that seem likely to be truth is catholicism orthodoxy and lutheranism. how do i find out wich is true?

Jesus Christ is the truth.

Jesus founded the Church, on Saint Peter.

The Church has run in continuous Apostolic succession up to today, under the guidance of the paraclete of the Holy Spirit, which was promised by Christ. The Chair of St. Peter is the one that all Bishops always turned to in times of dispute, or for clarity in matters of faith or morals. The scriptures and the traditions of the Christian Church bear out a nearly flawless case, as far as I can tell, so far, for the primacy of St. Peter.

A person doesn’t get any morality breaks, or anything different really from the EO Church, save for a denial of the primacy of Peter, and a slightly different liturgy, (The Divine Liturgy) as opposed to the Mass. All sacraments are present, as is Apostolic succession in both Churches. The EO fought for many years, back and forth about the sending of the Holy Spirit. They agreed finally that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. We even share the same understanding of Trinity now. Because of the lack of supplication to the Bishop of Rome, I believe that the full truth would reside in the Holy Catholic Church. All roads lead to Rome.

The Lutherans don’t accept apostolic succession. In fact, after reading the history of Martin Luther, I’m not in full understanding of why they have a clergy, or go to church at all. They are adherents of once saved, always saved, and Luther taught to “sin bravely”. It is only faith which accounts for your salvation, and sinning is unimportant, if you believe on Christ. They dropped the sacraments of reconciliation, extreme unction, marriage, and Holy orders. The only sacraments are baptism and Eucharist. In Eucharist, they have consubstantiation vs. transubstantiation. The presence of Jesus goes away after the Sacrament is administered, so they don’t maintain a tabernacle containing the blessed sacrament. My first dealings were all Lutheran, and it was the programming of my early life. All of my relatives, (we are a German American Family), save for a Mexican sub-branch are Lutheran as both an expression or religion and nationalism. It’s kind of like being an ethnic Jew. The religion isn’t that important to my people. It’s more of an identity. I didn’t convert directly to Catholicism from Lutheranism. I was a new ager, and spent most of my life trying to say that all religions are the same, and identifying most strongly with Buddhism. In fact I took vows in Jodo Shinshu. It was the study of history in later years, and my meditiation on Christ and the Gospels that led me to the Church.

It is definitely true what they say. If you study the history of Christendom, (and study it honestly), you will find yourself Catholic. It is what is. Just as God is who am. To study history is to become a Catholic.

If you’re searching for a justification for immoral behavior without guilt, then the Lutherans would be the way to go. You need not perform works of mercy and love, or follow Christ’s commandments at all. Your baptism and confirmation predestined you for heaven.

In conclusion - The truth is Jesus Christ

You find Him in his purest form in the universal Church which Jesus established on Peter.
You get pretty darn close in the Eastern Orthodox Churhes. We will be one again. I believe it with my entire heart and soul. We’re already on our way.

Lutheranism didn’t come about until the “reformation”. They lack Holy orders, Apostolic Succession, the necessity of faith AND works for salvation, and are moral relativists, and democrats (small d), in their Church government. Each adherent is encouraged their own interpretation of Holy Scripture, and nothing can be true about Christianity which doesn’t appear in scripture.

Recommended reading: The Catholic Encylopedia, available for free right here at CA. Any papal encyclicals, the CCC, the Holy Bible, and Church history, (which is really just World history) They are one and the same.

My prayers are with you during your conversion process. God bless you,

Steven

 

[steve_b]

The evidence you presented actually points in exactly the opposite direction. The splits you describe are not “deep” at all, and the fact that they are centuries old undercuts, perhaps even demolishes your position.

Compare Protestantism. In Protestantism splits routinely lead to other splits in an almost exponential fashion. And once splits happen, they are very hard to heal. The Orthodox have been excommunicating and quarreling with each other ever since–well, ever since the early Church. The kind of behavior you describe happened in the centuries of the “undivided” Church quite frequently. The Meletian schism is one famous example, in which Rome turned out to be on the “wrong” side (if you don’t believe me, check the Catholic Encyclopedia).

If a time traveler could hop through the history of the Church centuries at a time, he/she would find in the fourth century quarreling Christians who more or less acknowledged each other as part of one Catholic Church but had a rather creaky system for enforcing this unity. The traveler could then hop to the seventh century–same thing. Then to the eleventh–same thing, and one of the big quarrels (not for the first time) would be between East and West. Then to the fifteenth, in which it looked as if that quarrel was being made up. Then to the nineteenth, by which time it would be clear that the Western Catholic Church had not only divided from the East but had itself divided into a monolithic, ultra-centralized structure and an abundance of quarreling sects. The Orthodox, on the other hand, would be functioning much as their forebears had done back in the fourth century.

I’m putting the Orthodox case. I recognize that there’s a case on the other side. For instance, one can question whether this “creaky” jurisdictional structure is a good thing in itself, and one can certainly question whether it is more important than union with the See of Rome.

Furthermore, it is certainly conceivable that some of the current quarrels in Orthodoxy will turn out to be genuinely “deep cracks” of the kind that opened in the early second millennium between East and West, even though initially it looked like just another temporary quarrel. But a case could be made that that particular crack was so deep because of the intransigent, legalistic absolutism of the Western Church.

My point in all of this is that the unity of the Orthodox, in spite or because of their habitual quarrelsomeness, is impressive. They have maintained recognizably the same Faith, and with the exception of the Old Believers’ schism and possibly the Old Calendar schism (I think the jury is out on how deep that one goes) recognizably a united faith, for nearly a thousand years without Rome. The fact that they have been excommunicating each other right left and center for much of that time is distressing, but only underlines their immense difference from Protestantism and the fact that something keeps them together in spite of all the tiffs.

Edwin

 

[wynd]

Also, as an Anglican, I can be expected to side with you guys on this issue. Although I see a lot more need for the primacy of Rome than most Anglicans or Orthodox do, which is the main reason I’m not Orthodox.

My (uneducated) view on this is that yes, there was undeniably an emphasis placed on the importance of being on communion with Rome in the early days of the Church. However, Rome is not part of the church at this point and we have to deal with that reality. We place the purity of the faith above communion with a certain bishop (whoever it may be), so if that bishop leaves the faith then obviously it’s not as important to be in communion with them.

 

[Lypher]

My (uneducated) view on this is that yes, there was undeniably an emphasis placed on the importance of being on communion with Rome in the early days of the Church. However, Rome is not part of the church at this point and we have to deal with that reality. We place the purity of the faith above communion with a certain bishop (whoever it may be), so if that bishop leaves the faith then obviously it’s not as important to be in communion with them.

Wynd

In what why has he left the Church? If in the past communion with Rome was important, how come? Did Jesus lie? He said he would build his Church and it would stand? Either they followed Rome in the past because they knew it was important due to Christs teachings, or they do not follow Rome in which case what did Christ mean or did he lie or was he mistaken?

For myself what Christ said only makes sense if you believe that he Placed the Church in Peters hands. He wanted someone to lead it so I am having trouble understanding what Protest movement is left for the Orthodox that is not fundamentally the same as Luther? He did not like authority either… Kind of like my teenage son…

 

[Contarini]

It’s hard to respond to an emoticon. I assume that you don’t see how the underlined statements can be reconciled? Note that the first one “excommunicating each other left right and center” is massive hyperbole.

My point is that if you look at the Orthodox Church at any one moment in its history, you can usually find some kind of quarrel going on, and often you may even find that one of the autocephalous churches has excommunicated another one. I think that this is deplorable. But if you fast-forward another few centuries, you find that that particular quarrel has been mended and another one has broken out.

In other words, where the Roman Communion relies on central authority to maintain unity and Protestants have lost any pretense of visible unity long ago, the Orthodox keep quarreling, but the quarrels rarely lead to permanent splits.

The most recent example is ROCOR. If the Catholic characterization of the Orthodox were true–if the Orthodox were more or less like the Protestants when it comes to unity–you would expect ROCOR to go on entrenching itself as an independent church long after the issue of Communism had been resolved. You would expect it to give rise to a number of independent churches of its own, and so on. In fact what happened is that some years after the fall of Communism, ROCOR was reunited to the majority Russian Church. And that’s generally what happens in Orthodox schisms.

Edwin