Help! Im turning orthodox!

[The_Iambic_Pen]

“Orthodox”

Matt16_18:

Only in Protestantism and Orthodoxy is it “hard” to determine when something is binding on the whole Church. It just isn’t rational to think that Christ would give his life for the truth, and then leave us with no way of knowing what that truth is.

And yet, even if the Orthodox can’t seem to explain their system, it still seems to work.

…But if you believe both the Catholic Church and the EO are in schism and teaching error, then Satan has prevailed against Christ’s Church.

That may be a bit alarmist. And I’m not saying both Churches are teaching error. I’m saying both Churches bear a portion of the responsibility for the Schism, and both sides need to humbly acknowledge this.

You must decide which Church is in schism - there is no option for believing both the Catholic Church and the EO are teaching error…

Like I said, I don’t think both Churches are teaching error. I think one of them is in a few select areas (though I don’t know which Church is the wrong one yet). Of course, I also don’t think wrongdoing by a Church (such as participating in the Schism, whether by departing or pushing the others away) automatically removes God’s blessing from it. None of us are perfect, and we won’t be while we are here.

How can you possibly know that there is a “surprising amount of unity” among the Orthodox if it is hard to know what the Orthodox believe is binding on the whole Church?

Difficult to say. It seems, though, that you’ve seized on a few statements made by some in the Eastern Christianity forum and are basing your attack on a misunderstanding between you and the Orthodox. The Orthodox don’t see the same disunity that you do, and they don’t seem to insist on absolute uniformity on everything among all the Churches. Some issues take time to resolve, I suppose.

Besides the first seven Ecumenical Councils, what other sources can you quote that clearly states what ALL Orthodox churches confess? There is nothing you can quote.

I suppose the Orthodox would say that there’s nothing else you need to quote. Other than that, you’d have to ask someone who’s Orthodox. I’m just the curious outsider.

Trent is a valid Ecumenical Council…Here we see the church founded by Christ doing exactly what she must do when confronted with widespread heresy…Much “theological opinion” in the EO is heresy, but the EO have no way of correcting it, since again, they do not know what it means when they say the “whole church” must “approve” the teachings of their bishops.

This “whole Church approval” idea you’re quoting from (I believe) Fr. Ambrose is confusing to me, too, but I have a feeling there is still some miscommunication going on.

…Satan did prevail against the entire Northern Kingdom. Only a remnant faithful survived in Judah. Jesus has only promised that a remnant will survive among his Church, because during the great apostasy, many will fall away – just as many fell away in Israel.

1Kings 19:18 (DRB) And I will leave me seven thousand men in Israel, whose knees have not been bowed before Baal, and every mouth that hath not worshipped him, kissing the hands.

The greatest proof that the Catholic Church is the true church is her unbending stand on divorce and artificial sterilization. She is the ONLY institution that continues to teach against these evils, even though at one time EVERY Christian body, Orthodox and Protestant, taught divorce and artificial sterilization were evils.

That does seem to be the case, though, of course, the allowance of divorce in the East did happen while the Church was still united…

The Catholic Church teaches the hardest, most uncompromising moral doctrine, and that means she must be Christ’s church, since Christ taught the we must be perfect (Matt 5:48)…

There are Protestant sects that say people can’t drink alcohol or dance, and even tell people how long their hair can be. I don’t think strictness in doctrine automatically equals truth.

Schismatic bishops have no authority from God to excommunicate the faithful bishops.

True enough. The question is, of course, who were the schismatic bishops and who were the faithful ones?
Catholic Dude:

Doctrinal development is not a bad thing, the issue is the extent of that development.
The truth is major development really exists in early Christian history and there are many examples, just off the top of my head

Sounds good. The thing is, though, that these developments happened during the days of the united Church. I guess the Orthodox would say that those early developments were legitimate, but the later ones (by the Catholic Church) were not. Trying to decide which developments were legitimate, of course, is one of my greatest struggles lately.

God bless!

 

[DeFide]

[regarding excommunication]

True enough. The question is, of course, who were the schismatic bishops and who were the faithful ones?

The unreconcilable thing is if Eastern Orthodox don’t believe that heads of individuals churches have the authority to impose themselves on other churches, what business do the Eastern Orthodox have excommunicating the Catholic Church and other apostolic churches? It’s a very Catholic mode of operation. Kicking out communities is the ultimate in imposition. It’s the ultimate exercise of authority.

 

[bluezone7]

Why don’t you look into the EASTERN RITE of the Roman Catholic Church … before jumping off the ship. “My friend you don’t leave the church because of Judas” …

Magicsilence:

I dont know why but im feeling a pull towards orthodoxy.

I guess i have never really researched it before, but the more i read the more it seems like what they preach as doctrine is what the disciples believed.

Does anyone know how i feel?

Power hungry popes perhaps have jarred my confidence.

I dont really know much about the schism, except an article ive read from the Catholic encyclopedia which as far as i can tell is very biased.

Help!

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[Scholastic17]

Matt16_18:

That is Satan trying to get you to commit the mortal sin of schism. Resist this temptation!

Retroactive mortal sin, no less.

 

[Georgess]

The Dogma of Immaculate Conception and Assumption,the increase in the devotion of Eucharistic Adoration and the theology of the body - don’t we see a distinct pattern in how The Spirit has led the Church …to help the faithful in these perilous times !

Many mourn over the high number of marital breakups in our church ; these were likely mariages that never had a good foundation of total commitment - on the sanctity of marital act etc:and where use of artificial contraception or the life shattering truama of abortion were too much for the weak foundation!

Yet we can be thankful that it is only The Church that shows the safe passage in this difficult strait ; again we can look at history - Russia was the first ‘civilised country’ to legalise abortion, in 1921 and the words of Fatima - Russia will spread her errors …and we also know the tragic state of affairs there - esp in this area !

So, it would seem those Dogmas were all part of heaven’s plan …too bad the whole Church could not have embraced it together ! Yet signs of hope - the Orthodox also recognise the good in the Theology of The Body teachings …and The Catholic Church in making efforts to enhance the experience of Liturgy !

 

[TobyLue]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but if I understand the Orthodox correctly as far as defining doctrine the way the CC does, i.e. the changing the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ which the CC calls “transubstantiation”, they just call it a “mystery”. I would say that is the easy way of explaining doctrine. Instead of making something definitive let’s just say it’s a “mystery” and that’s it. No further discussion.

In regard to divorce in the OC, I have difficulty with this. They **oppose **divorce but permit individuals to marry a second or third time. Huh, does it make sense to oppose but permit? And the statement “Second or third marriages are performed by “economy” – that is, out of concern for the spiritual well being of the parties involved….” To me thats like a lady I knew once who objected to her son, after three children from three different women, living with a fourth, had him move in to her house with his new girlfriend and having their own bedroom, because “at least this way, I have them here where I can watch them”. Or as was stated at another thread by a non-catholic, that they approved of gay marriages because “at least that way they will be committed to each other and not living in sin if we approve the marriage”. Huh!!!

As far as abortion and artificial contraception, my understanding here again is that they are against it, but will allow it as long as the ones involved have talked with their spiritual father and it has been decided that that is the best course to take. Could it be that they will later agree to gay marriages as long as it has been discussed with their spiritual father and that is the best thing to do?

 

[Matt16_18]

The Iambic Pen:

… I’m not saying both Churches are teaching error. I’m saying both Churches bear a portion of the responsibility for the Schism, and both sides need to humbly acknowledge this.

Thanks for the clarification. The Catholic Church does acknowledge what you saying about both sides bearing responsibility for the great eastern schism.Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.

DECREE ON ECUMENISM - *UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO *

I also don’t think wrongdoing by a Church (such as participating in the Schism, whether by departing or pushing the others away) automatically removes God’s blessing from it.

Agreed. To me, the EO worship services have the feel of old timey Protestant Holiness worship services that have added the “smells and bells” of ancient liturgy. This is not a bad thing by any means. Some people are quite comfortable in a church that is extremely conservative in its worship discipline. No doubt, Spirit of God is found among the sincere worshippers of both the Holiness sects and the ethnic churches of the EO.

But presence of God among sincere believers gathered in his name doesn’t make either the Holiness sects nor the EO pure in the doctrine that they teach.

The Orthodox don’t see the same disunity that you do, and they don’t seem to insist on absolute uniformity on everything among all the Churches.

The Orthodox dare not admit that disunity exists in matters of faith and morals, since they need to maintain the façade of doctrinal unity to bolster their claim that there has been no need to hold an Ecumenical Council for 1200 years.

As far as church discipline goes, there is a great variety found in the sanctioned rubrics of liturgy among the various Eastern Churches of the Catholic Church – which the Catholic Church recognizes as a good thing, a patrimony that should be preserved. Unity in doctrine does not mean uniformity of worship. Unity in doctrine is the recognition that there is only one truth.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Magicsilence:

I dont know why but im feeling a pull towards orthodoxy.

I guess i have never really researched it before, but the more i read the more it seems like what they preach as doctrine is what the disciples believed.

Does anyone know how i feel?

Help!

In Christ.

Andre.

Magicsilence,

Your concerns are legitimate. Especially if you’ve been looking into the EO with anything more than loose curiosity. What have you been reading?? Or maybe you’re talking with some EO people, in which case, no need to say who they are, we probably wouldn’t know them.

I haven’t read the whole thread, but I see in your profile that you say you trust in the Church, and you’re a Maronite Catholic. Don’t rush into anything major like this, you don’t have to solve the Pope’s problems for him, or the EO Patriarch’s problems for that matter, you know

If you’re gonna be pulled from Eastern Catholicism to Eastern Orthodox, be very careful to not turn a cynical ear to pro-Roman arguments. That’s very hard to do, I know, but for most of us converts to Catholicism here, we can probably p(name removed by moderator)oint a time when things started “clicking” for us, and the apologetics for Catholicism made sense, and the Protestant things didn’t. Be very careful, because that can lead to a clouding of your judgement.

 

[Matt16_18]

The Iambic Pen:

This “whole Church approval” idea you’re quoting from (I believe) Fr. Ambrose is confusing to me, too, but I have a feeling there is still some miscommunication going on.

Fr. Ambrose says I made up the EO “whole church approval” doctrine, but that is just Fr. Ambrose being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

If one searches EO websites, it is not difficult to unearth this EO doctrine of no-Ecumenical-Council-is-valid-until-it-is-approved-by-the-whole-church. For example, this was written by EO bishop Bishop Kallistos Ware in his book fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_2.htm]Orthodox Church: But councils of bishops can err and be deceived. How then can one be certain that a particular gathering is truly an Ecumenical Council and therefore that its decrees are infallible? … What, then, is the criterion for determining whether a council is ecumenical? [Yes, bishop Ware, what ARE the criteria?]

This is a more difficult question to answer than might at first appear… All Orthodox know which are the seven Councils that their Church accepts as ecumenical, but precisely what it is that makes a council ecumenical is not so clear. There are, so it must be admitted, certain points in the Orthodox theology of Councils which remain obscure …

To the question how one can know whether a council is ecumenical, Khomiakov and his school gave an answer which at first sight appears clear and straightforward: a council cannot be considered ecumenical unless its decrees are accepted by the whole Church. …. This emphasis on the need for councils to be received by the Church at large has been viewed with suspicion by some Orthodox theologians, both Greek and Russian, who fear that Khomiakov and his followers have endangered the prerogatives of the episcopate and ‘democratized’ the idea of the Church. But in a qualified and carefully guarded form, Khomiakov’s view is now fairly widely accepted in contemporary Orthodox thought.As you can see, I certainly did not make up this EO doctrine of “whole church” approval.

Here is a task that I think that you should take seriously if you are thinking about becoming Orthodox. Talk to the Orthodox and see if you can get anyone to give you the criteria that determines when the “whole church” has approved or disapproved an Ecumenical Council. How do the laity become informed about the issues debated at an Ecumenical Council? Are infants, toddlers, children and teenagers included among the “whole church” when it comes to approving the teachings of their bishops? Are any women vested with authority to sit in judgement of the teachings of bishops at an Ecumenical Council? How is known when the laity have approved or disapproved the teachings of an Ecumenical Council? How long does this process of whole church approval take? If this whole church approval process was always the teaching of the church, then where is the scriptural support for it? Where do the Apostles show that they needed the converts to “approve” their teachings before that teaching could be considered valid by the whole church? ( A really screwy idea when you think about it). Where do the Fathers of the first seven Ecumenical Councils give even a hint that they believed that the laity needed to “approve” of their teachings? These are the kind of questions that the EO should be able to answer to clarify their nebulous whole church approval doctrine. I have written hundreds of posts in dialog with the ordinary members of the EO trying to get clarification to these kinds of questions, and I have never once received anything but evasion and weasal-speak in response.

If you can find out what the criteria that the EO acknowledge for determining how the “whole church” approves or disapproves the teachings of their bishops at an Ecumenical Council, then please start a thread and share your findings with all us Catholics! We would all like to know what the criteria are, including our Pope and all our bishops.

I bet you won’t uncover anything except extremely trite statements such as “valid dogmas express truths that were handed on by the Apostles.” If all you are going to get from the EO is this kind of drivel, then what have you gained from converting from Protestantism to Orthodoxy? If you can’t know for sure if there are seven valid Ecumenical Councils and not twenty-three, why bother converting?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

The Iambic Pen:

And yet, even if the Orthodox can’t seem to explain their system, it still seems to work.

The Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians could say the same thing… Also, I am not sure how you can say it works, because they can’t even decide when a council has become Ecumenical. Last century, some patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Church professed the belief that there might even be 8 or 9 Ecumenical Councils. Now they all agree that there were 7, but that was not the case in the past. None of these Eastern Orthodox patriarchs were schismatics from their Church either though.

Ask yourself why it took till 1054 a.d. for the easterners to decide that the Pope really wasn’t a Pope even though Popes centuries before have claimed the exact same thing the Pope today claims. Check out the political climate of the time, as that was the major reason. Orthodox and Catholics both agree that the filioque is no longer a dividing issue.

God bless!

 

[Wisdom]

Semper Fi:

The Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians could say the same thing… Also, I am not sure how you can say it works, because they can’t even decide when a council has become Ecumenical. Last century, some patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Church professed the belief that there might even be 8 or 9 Ecumenical Councils. Now they all agree that there were 7, but that was not the case in the past. None of these Eastern Orthodox patriarchs were schismatics from their Church either though.

Ask yourself why it took till 1054 a.d. for the easterners to decide that the Pope really wasn’t a Pope even though Popes centuries before have claimed the exact same thing the Pope today claims. Check out the political climate of the time, as that was the major reason. Orthodox and Catholics both agree that the filioque is no longer a dividing issue.

God bless!

Good point let me add another why have the Ortodox not have had another ecunemical council since the split and the catholic church still does? Perhaps because the charism for an ecunemical council to be valid exist still in the catholic church but not in the Orthodox Church. Could that charsim be the bishop of Rome? Its hard to vision a council without St Peter or later on Pope Leo but its not hard to vision one without St Andrew or one of the lesser bishops. Even the orthodox will grudginly admit a primacy alone given to the Bishop of ROme of course what they say contradicts what the Eastern Fathers pre-schism says.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Was Peter the first Pope? You decide!

cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Semper Fi:

Was Peter the first Pope? You decide!

cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm

Honestly the evidence is damming against anyone who claims to subscribe to the Scriputres, ECF’s, etc and yet denounce the primacy of the See of Peter or in any way claim it fell into error and was lost. There are some things which Our Lord established to be screaming the Truth and the significance of Peter, especially in comparison to all others is one of these key Truths.

 

[Magicsilence]

Semper Fi:

Was Peter the first Pope? You decide!

cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm

Amen, you have put the doubts to rest at last.

Thankyou!

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Magicsilence:

Amen, you have put the doubts to rest at last.

Thankyou!

In Christ.

Andre.

Glory be to Jesus Christ!

Have a good Holy Week brother.

 

[Leon_Miguel]

jimmy:

I am going to start another thread on the atonement. I would like to see you guys over there to help answer my points.

Hi Jimmy

Did you see this thread on atonement forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=107044

 

[jimmy]

Leon Miguel:

Hi Jimmy

Did you see this thread on atonement forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=107044

Thankyou, that thread does help. Ghosty did help with it, even though I have read that before. I sometimes get so focused on an idea that I lose site of the rest. I become so myopic. The same thing happens with the support for the pope too. I have felt a little more comfortable over the last couple days because I have remembered the more broad perspective. Matt16_18 helped too with his post quoting Kailistos Ware. It made me think.

 

[Yerusalyim]

I would be VERY CAREFUL about pointing to Schism as mortal sin. You’re setting yourself up as a judge. It would also do you good to remember that it wasn’t just the Orthodox who were guilty of Schism, the Western Church bore much of the guilt as well.

 

[Mickey]

The Iambic Pen:

So, I honestly think that Orthodoxy has had a more difficult time of it than Catholicism has. Of course, I don’t think this proves anything either way. Persecution does not equate to legitimacy.

You are correct. Persecution does not equate to legitimacy. However it should be pointed out that Catholics were persecuted, martyred, and suffered horribly under the communist regime in Ukraine.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Mickey:

You are correct. Persecution does not equate to legitimacy. However it should be pointed out that Catholics were persecuted, martyred, and suffered horribly under the communist regime in Ukraine.

Of course, and we should remember these brave Christians who died for their faith. It has also been pointed out that many Orthodox were persecuted, martyred, and suffered horribly under the Communist regime throughout the Soviet Union. Communism was (is) an atheistic, anti-Christian ideology, which has a tendency to persecute Christians severely. The long-established nature of the Orthodox Church in Russia may have spared them some of what the Catholics went through, but they too suffered. Please understand I’m not saying this is what you’re suggesting, but I have seen people try to blame the Orthodox Church for actions taken by the anti-Christian Communist government.