I am considering the Orthodox Church

[dzheremi]

While I am not particularly Catholic or Orthodox at the moment, I do feel compelled to speak out against some of the incredibly bizarre arguments found here.

The idea that someone would not speak against the Catholic Church unless they are deeply unhappy in their own non-Catholic church strikes me as ludicrous, particularly when the person this charge is leveled against spent so much time actually being a Catholic, as Mickey has. I know it is tempting to think that no one would ever leave the Catholic Church just because you’re convinced there’s no reason to or that you never would, but obviously there are more than enough people here who have looked at the same evidence that you have and come to a very different conclusion. This involves, I am learning, looking outside the sort of arguments we see here repeated ad nauseum for the supremacy of the Roman Pope, Peter as the “Rock”, etc. As I was not raised in the Roman Catholic Church, I personally find them easier to count only as one interpretation out of many, but I know there are also several born-Catholics here who have similarly come to reject the RC interpretation for a more collegial interpretation of these key issues and passages. It does the Catholic side a serious disservice to dismiss out of hand the viewpoints of ex-Catholics as sour grapes. Far be it for me to point fingers (read: Lapell, even though this was inspired by your comment, it is not directed at you personally), but it is sufficient to say that not only one side of the argument can be said to be arrogant or rude here, and if you won’t recognize your own argumentation as coming from any residual unhappiness about your personal religious choices (no matter what they are), then it is incredibly misguided to try to pin such a charge on other people for the way they have argued their points.

This thread and basically every other thread I have seen that contains the word “Orthodox” on this board is a perfect example of why the Great Schism will remain unhealed long after all of us and all our children have passed away.

 

[Lapell]

It grieves me that you could say such a thing. You do not know me. Happy is an emotion.

I am filled with the joy of Christ.

Sorry if it hurt you, I meant to tell you what I felt was your actual state of mind. I don’t know why I said it. What I meant was, if you are happy, you won’t need to act as though to be happy at the expense of other people. Such happiness would be false. (I was under the impression that you sounded like someone who was shouting: I and those on my side are happy, and you on the other side are not!)
I meant to tell you that I wish you to be truly happy. With that Joy of Christ that nothing else can surpass. That’s all there was to what I said.

 

[Lapell]

Have a wonderful, blessed and fruitful Holy Week, Pascha and Paschal Time (including Bright Week… that’s the days in the Octave of Pascha, isn’t it?)!
Peace to you and all your family and relatives and friends!
Denis

 

[Mickey]

While I am not particularly Catholic or Orthodox at the moment, I do feel compelled to speak out against some of the incredibly bizarre arguments found here.

The idea that someone would not speak against the Catholic Church unless they are deeply unhappy in their own non-Catholic church strikes me as ludicrous, particularly when the person this charge is leveled against spent so much time actually being a Catholic, as Mickey has. I know it is tempting to think that no one would ever leave the Catholic Church just because you’re convinced there’s no reason to or that you never would, but obviously there are more than enough people here who have looked at the same evidence that you have and come to a very different conclusion. This involves, I am learning, looking outside the sort of arguments we see here repeated ad nauseum for the supremacy of the Roman Pope, Peter as the “Rock”, etc. As I was not raised in the Roman Catholic Church, I personally find them easier to count only as one interpretation out of many, but I know there are also several born-Catholics here who have similarly come to reject the RC interpretation for a more collegial interpretation of these key issues and passages. It does the Catholic side a serious disservice to dismiss out of hand the viewpoints of ex-Catholics as sour grapes. Far be it for me to point fingers (read: Lapell, even though this was inspired by your comment, it is not directed at you personally), but it is sufficient to say that not only one side of the argument can be said to be arrogant or rude here, and if you won’t recognize your own argumentation as coming from any residual unhappiness about your personal religious choices (no matter what they are), then it is incredibly misguided to try to pin such a charge on other people for the way they have argued their points.

This thread and basically every other thread I have seen that contains the word “Orthodox” on this board is a perfect example of why the Great Schism will remain unhealed long after all of us and all our children have passed away.

Thank you dzheremi. As usual, your responses are charitable and intelligent. I always enjoy reading your posts because your perspective is refreshing.

A blessed Pascha to you!

 

[Lapell]

While I am not particularly Catholic or Orthodox at the moment, I do feel compelled to speak out against some of the incredibly bizarre arguments found here.

The idea that someone would not speak against the Catholic Church unless they are deeply unhappy in their own non-Catholic church strikes me as ludicrous, particularly when the person this charge is leveled against spent so much time actually being a Catholic, as Mickey has. I know it is tempting to think that no one would ever leave the Catholic Church just because you’re convinced there’s no reason to or that you never would, but obviously there are more than enough people here who have looked at the same evidence that you have and come to a very different conclusion. This involves, I am learning, looking outside the sort of arguments we see here repeated ad nauseum for the supremacy of the Roman Pope, Peter as the “Rock”, etc. As I was not raised in the Roman Catholic Church, I personally find them easier to count only as one interpretation out of many, but I know there are also several born-Catholics here who have similarly come to reject the RC interpretation for a more collegial interpretation of these key issues and passages. It does the Catholic side a serious disservice to dismiss out of hand the viewpoints of ex-Catholics as sour grapes. Far be it for me to point fingers (read: Lapell, even though this was inspired by your comment, it is not directed at you personally), but it is sufficient to say that not only one side of the argument can be said to be arrogant or rude here, and if you won’t recognize your own argumentation as coming from any residual unhappiness about your personal religious choices (no matter what they are), then it is incredibly misguided to try to pin such a charge on other people for the way they have argued their points.

This thread and basically every other thread I have seen that contains the word “Orthodox” on this board is a perfect example of why the Great Schism will remain unhealed long after all of us and all our children have passed away.

My remarks about Mickey probably not being happy wasn’t about those who are in the Orthodox Church, neither was it addressed about all those who leave the Catholic Church. I gathered it from the posts I read from him, and from the way he was speaking. And I made them before his saying to me that if he offended me, he apologizes. I didn’t expect it. That being said, I don’t doubt that he is even better than we may think.

 

[Lapell]

It grieves me that you could say such a thing. You do not know me. Happy is an emotion.

I am filled with the joy of Christ.

Can’t I speak like this out of love to a brother in Christ? Don’t hold anything against Marlo, your sister in Christ, she probably felt hurt by what you had said just before. As for myself, my aim was not to hurt you. Don’t hold it against me. If I hurt you, I apologize. Good Holy Week, good Pascha and good Paschal Time to you and all your loved ones! Peace be with you, Mick!
Denis

 

[dzheremi]

Okay. Again, it’s nothing personal against you, Lapell. I generally find your posts very informative and interesting. My only point was that in different circumstances any one of us could find ourselves in a different church.

 

[Lapell]

It is sufficient to say that not only one side of the argument can be said to be arrogant or rude here, and if you won’t recognize your own argumentation as coming from any residual unhappiness about your personal religious choices (no matter what they are), then it is incredibly misguided to try to pin such a charge on other people for the way they have argued their points.

To pin what charge exactly, dzheremi?

 

[Mickey]

Can’t I speak like this out of love to a brother in Christ? Don’t hold anything against Marlo, your sister in Christ, she probably felt hurt by what you had said just before. As for myself, my aim was not to hurt you. Don’t hold it against me. If I hurt you, I apologize. Good Holy Week, good Pascha and good Paschal Time to you and all your loved ones! Peace be with you, Mick!

I do not hold anything against you Denis. We are called to love our neighbor. If I held any kind of resentment or anger against you or marlo or anyone else, I would not be able to receive Holy Communion–else it would be unto my condemnation.

Did you know in the early Church, the people would walk on their knees shouting out their sins at the top of their lungs!

 

[Lapell]

Okay. Again, it’s nothing personal against you, Lapell. I generally find your posts very informative and interesting. My only point was that in different circumstances any one of us could find ourselves in a different church.

Yes, I know the motivations differ from some to others. Marcus Grodi once said that one can be tempted to leave the Catholic Church because of the way many Catholics act like. But as for leaving the Catholic Church because of their dogmas being wrong, have you heard of such a thing?

 

[josie_L]

Yeah. That’s used often here. And the only source I have ever read who tries to connect that to St Peter—is Scott Hahn. In fact, Scott has lots of “different” theology–even by Roman Catholic standards.

St Ephraem the Syrian

“In his homily “On Our Lord” ([Ephraem]) Post Nicene Fathers, xiii, p. 329) he says: ’ And that our Lord might show that he received the keys from former STEWARDS, he said to Simeon, “To the will I give the keys of the doors.” But how would He have given them to another had He not received from Simeon the priest, He gave to another, Simeon the Apostle, that even though the people had not hearkened to the former Simeon, the people might hearken to the latter Simeon.’” S. Herbert Scott, The Eastern Churches and the Papacy, (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928), 62.

"And commenting on the Transfiguration he [Ephraem] speaks of Peter as "the Second Moses.’

“’ There were both the prince of the Old and the prince of the New Testament confronting one another. There the saintly Moses beheld the sanctified Simon the STEWARD of the Father, the procurator of the Son. He who forced the sea asunder to let the people walk across the parted waves, beheld him who raised the new tabernacle and built the Church.” (Ephraem, Sermo de Transfig. Dom., Sec. IV. Edit. Rom. Syro-Graecolatina Vol. II).

Edit: Even during the reformation, Luther and Calvin spoke of the keys in connection to Isaiah 22:22 (the steward/prime minister of the King of Israel/Judah).

 

[dzheremi]

To pin what charge exactly, dzheremi?

The idea that Mickey is speaking against the Catholic Church out of unhappiness with his current religious affiliation.

 

[Lapell]

Okay. Again, it’s nothing personal against you, Lapell. I generally find your posts very informative and interesting.

Thank you, dzheremi.

 

[Lapell]

The idea that Mickey is speaking against the Catholic Church out of unhappiness with his current religious affiliation.

It was not that, dzheremi, don’t worry. Now, have a nice Palm Sunday! This computer is at the shelter where I work, so if you’ll excuse me… God bless you all!!

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, I know the motivations differ from some to others. Marcus Grodi once said that one can be tempted to leave the Catholic Church because of the way many Catholics act like. But as for leaving the Catholic Church because of their dogmas being wrong, have you heard of such a thing?

Not only have I heard of it, I am experiencing it right now, as I have been for quite some time. In fact, I would add to that that this is the ONLY legitimate reason to ever leave one church for another.

 

[Mickey]

St Ephraem the Syrian

I am not seeing that St Ephrem is saying that the keys are given exclusively to St Peter. Mr Hahn uses the Isaiah passage in that way–St Ephrem does not. In fact St Ephrem says (in another place) that the keys are given to us all.

Even during the reformation, Luther and Calvin spoke of the keys in connection to Isaiah 22:22 (the steward/prime minister of the King of Israel/Judah).

But are they saying that this translates to St Peter’s exclusivity to the keys and proof that he is the first Pope? I think not.

 

[Mickey]

Not only have I heard of it, I am experiencing it right now, as I have been for quite some time. In fact, I would add to that that this is the ONLY legitimate reason to ever leave one church for another.

Glory be to God!

It is the reason that I felt there was no other choice but to convert to Holy Orthodoxy!

 

[josie_L]

I am not seeing that St Ephrem is saying that the keys are given exclusively to St Peter. Mr Hahn uses the Isaiah passage in that way–St Ephrem does not. In fact St Ephrem says (in another place) that the keys are given to us all.

Mickey, honestly, he states quite clearly that Peter is the Steward (and there was only one in the Kingdom of Israel/Judah), but if you wish for more, here goes:

“Hail! Peter, tongue of the disciples, voice of the preachers, eye of the apostles, guardian of Heaven, first-born of those who bear the keys! (Ephraem, Encom. S.S. Petri et Pauli).” S. Herbert Scott, The Eastern Churches and the Papacy, (London: Burns & Oates, 1879), 41.

“He was the prince of the Apostles, and had received the keys, and was accounted the shepherd of the flock.” (Ephream, Tom, ii. Syr, ivi, Adv. Haer.) in Charles F. B. Allnatt, ed., Cathedra Petri - The Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, (London: Burns & Oates, 1879),41.

"Blessed are you also, Simon Kepha, who hold the keys of which the Spirit forged. (Ephraem, HVirg. 15, 6, CSCO 223, Syr. 94, p. 53) Robert Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition, (London: Cambridge, 1975), 183.

But are they saying that this translates to St Peter’s exclusivity to the keys and proof that he is the first Pope? I think not.

Read “The Keys to the Kingdom” by Stanley Jaki for more information (I’m not up to summarizing two chapters).

 

[Mickey]

Mickey, honestly, he states quite clearly that Peter is the Steward

You did not answer my question. The Fathers of the Church loved and venerated St Peter as we all do. We have a feast day dedicated to St Peter and Paul preceded by a four week Lenten fast. But your quotes do not make your case. Sorry.
Of course St Peter received the keys–nobody disputes that. But they were not exclusive to him. Do you understand?

In times of temptation
console yourselves with God’s promises,
for there is no deceit
in the word of Him who repays all,
and His treasure house is not so paltry
that we should doubt His promise;
He has surrendered His own Son for us
so that we might believe in Him;
His Body is with us, His assurance is with us,
**He came and gave us His keys,
**since it is for us that His treasures lie waiting.

Blessed is He who, with His keys,
has opened up the Garden of Life

St. Ephrem The Syrian

 

[josie_L]

You did not answer my question. The Fathers of the Church loved and venerated St Peter as we all do. We have a feast day dedicated to St Peter and Paul preceded by a four week Lenten fast. But your quotes do not make your case. Sorry.
Of course St Peter received the keys–nobody disputes that. But they were not exclusive to him. Do you understand?

In times of temptation
console yourselves with God’s promises,
for there is no deceit
in the word of Him who repays all,
and His treasure house is not so paltry
that we should doubt His promise;
He has surrendered His own Son for us
so that we might believe in Him;
His Body is with us, His assurance is with us,
**He came and gave us His keys,
**since it is for us that His treasures lie waiting.

Blessed is He who, with His keys,
has opened up the Garden of Life

St. Ephrem The Syrian

St. Ephraem does not mention that the apostles were key bearers or that they were stewards, moreover, as Peter is the steward of the Kingdom/Church, then the keys which he held were indeed given to the Church, i.e., “upon this rock I will build my Church”.