My apologies to Orthodoxs & Protestants...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nicea325
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi, Trebor.

Thanks so much for answering. I hope you finally get your books (and that they help).
Well, thanks for your kind, thoughtful response. I hope for the same thing too, haha. šŸ˜›
Might I suggest this, Trebor? That you commit this search for the fullness of Truth to prayer and that you ask God and lean on him, to guide you? Think about it- God knows ALL! 😃 If you trust him with your search and your journey, somehow he’ll find a way to point you in the right direction at every juncture.
Indeed. That’s the approach I’ve been seeking to employ.
Since you are looking into these two churches with great Marian traditions, might I suggest that you devote yourself in a special and personal way to Our Holy Mother? Speak to her as a small child and ask her to take you to Heaven- Do this everyday, my friend. Sometimes when we can’t find the truth using our limited abilities, all God expects from us is that we do our best and that we do it all for him, with him and in him.
The timing of this paragraph is uncanny. Just a few hours before you wrote these words a couple days ago, I was saying this and this. I struggle to maintain concentration in prayer longer than five minutes or so, had never recited the Divine Mercy Chaplet before, and within the preceding six months had attempted the rosary only twice.

St. Mary the Theotokos has a special place in my heart, so I’m going to keep asking for her intercession. I went to an Eastern Orthodox liturgy yesterday (it was breathtaking in its splendour), in fact, where I lit a candle near her icon and requested my heavenly mother’s prayers.
Another thing- Every time you embark on this scholarly search for the truth, take time to say a prayer to God to guide you and to show you the truth and commit yourself to follow the Truth WHEREVER it may be. Reflect on the purpose of your search, which is (ought to be) to be fully in union with God in all the fullness that he intended for us- That is, to become a Saint.
Very good advice.
God always answers such prayers and he’ll answer you. Perhaps you can’t get a break-through right now, because God wants you to give up self-reliance and start searching with him.
Very true–my (former Catholic, now) Pentecostal friend I mentioned previously has said the same thing. The intellectual side of this journey can very easily overshadow the spiritual.
Please don’t let the search for the fullness of Truth discourage you from the true faith. Jesus Christ is the only way, the only truth and the only life- None come to the Father, except by him.
I would say that I believe that deep down. All the doubt and skepticism around me, ranging from family to acquaintances, forces me to stop and ponder whether having faith in Christ isn’t just some nice story that could be disproven if we had more first-century evidence to rely on…
Will be saying a prayer for you. šŸ™‚
Thank you. Please add my Pentecostal friend and her family if you would–to find the truth, wherever it is. (It would take too long to explain this.)
 
Searching for the truth can be hard. Know that you are definitely not alone, as quite a few other posters here are in the same boat, trying to discern whether the Catholic Church or Holy Orthodoxy contains the truth. Have faith in the Lord that He in his compassion and loving kindness will lead you where you need to be.
The greatest day of all history, apart from the incarnation, passion, and resurrection of Christ, will be when the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church (and maybe even the Anglican churches) come into full communion with one another, once again. I can’t help but wonder if that might mark the beginning of the ā€œgreat catchā€ that Peter will haul into his boat. How wonderful to ponder… but alas, we can’t get caught up in sensationalism!

instead.pray
 
(Khalid: see also post #60.)
Warren Carroll fits the bill extraordinarily well, but is very long - it would take over a thousand hours to listen to, I think (I am thinking of ā€œA History of Christendomā€, five vol.). Probably well over a hundred just to read.
Haha, that’s good to know. Have you read ā€œThe Building of Christendomā€ by the same author?
Leo Donald Davis, SJ has ā€œThe First Seven Ecumenical Councilsā€, which is decent, but not nearly as comprehensive. Jaroslav Pelikan has ā€œThe Christian Traditionā€, five volumes written from a Protestant-ecumenical perspective.
But do these works focus on the theology (Christian Monotheism vs. Marcionism, Trinitarianism vs. Arianism, Diaphysitism vs. Monophysitism) or the ecclesiology (Clement vs. the Corinthian church, Meletius vs. Paulinus, Vigilius vs. the emperor vs. the Fifth Ecumenical Council)?
Orthodox dissident theologian Vladimir Solovyev has ā€œRussia and the Universal Churchā€ (which deals with more than just Russia, but the entire Orthodox tradition), and an abridgment, ā€œThe Russian Church and the Papacyā€, which are those parts that deal with the papacy.
Wasn’t Soloviev a Gnostickizing heretic? And didn’t this ā€œRussian Newmanā€ receive his last rites from an Eastern Orthodox priest?
He’ll shove you firmly in to one camp or the other, and gets to the center of important issues about valid church government, namely, how can a church have government, if it subscribes to the conciliar model, but can not call a council?
Also, I do not know books on the issue, but look in to the major changes in Orthodox doctrine and practice that have been made since the schism (which occurred over about 700 years, starting with the Photian schism and completing in the 1450s, not 1054 like is always said), and the semi-ecumenical councils that have been convoked - the Hesychast councils, the Synod of Jerusalem, the Pan-Orthodox Synod of 1872 (which declared what is heresy if practiced by Slavs is orthodox if practiced by Greeks), etc.
If the bishop of Rome called none of the seven councils which the Catholic and Orthodox Churches both recognize as ecumenical, wouldn’t it be innovative for him to convoke these gatherings in the second millennium?

And are you saying that no one held to Hesichasm in any way, shape, or form prior to 800-1500 AD?

I’ll have to look into the question of those councils. I had never heard of the 1872 gathering–can you elaborate on what happened there?
 
(Khalid: see also post #60.)

Haha, that’s good to know. Have you read ā€œThe Building of Christendomā€ by the same author?

But do these works focus on the theology (Christian Monotheism vs. Marcionism, Trinitarianism vs. Arianism, Diaphysitism vs. Monophysitism) or the ecclesiology (Clement vs. the Corinthian church, Meletius vs. Paulinus, Vigilius vs. the emperor vs. the Fifth Ecumenical Council)?

Wasn’t Soloviev a Gnostickizing heretic? And didn’t this ā€œRussian Newmanā€ receive his last rites from an Eastern Orthodox priest?

If the bishop of Rome called none of the seven councils which the Catholic and Orthodox Churches both recognize as ecumenical, wouldn’t it be innovative for him to convoke these gatherings in the second millennium?

And are you saying that no one held to Hesichasm in any way, shape, or form prior to 800-1500 AD?

I’ll have to look into the question of those councils. I had never heard of the 1872 gathering–can you elaborate on what happened there?
He’s talking about the condemnation of phyletism, which applies to all of Orthodoxy, not just one segment of it.
 
Searching for the truth can be hard.
No kidding, haha. šŸ˜›
Know that you are definitely not alone, as quite a few other posters here are in the same boat, trying to discern whether the Catholic Church or Holy Orthodoxy contains the truth.
Indeed, I’ve definitely noticed at least a few of them. šŸ™‚
Have faith in the Lord that He in his compassion and loving kindness will lead you where you need to be.
It’s difficult… but worth a shot. šŸ˜›

Do you have any good Eastern Orthodox devotions akin to the rosary to recommend, apart from the Jesus prayer? šŸ™‚
He’s talking about the condemnation of phyletism, which applies to all of Orthodoxy, not just one segment of it.
Ahh, I see. What’s being done these days to implement the council’s decision on this issue?
 
  1. How did your family and friends react to your conversion and then reversion to Islam?
  2. How did an Egyptian living in his homeland, as I deduce you were doing, encounter Mormonism at all?
  3. What are ā€œthose questions that are forbiddenā€? What do you mean by Islamic ā€œdogmatismā€?
  4. How does ā€œChristian history… [hold] up much better than its Islamic counterpart under scrutinyā€?
  5. What led you to believe that ā€œā€˜non-Chalcedonianism’ was not orthodox religionā€?
  6. What books or historical events caused you to see that ā€œthe Bishop of Rome, was, and is, the Pope, with complete jurisdiction, at least in theory, from the New Testament times onwardā€?
  7. What elements manifest the great ā€œIslamic influence [you] saw in Orthodoxy of both stripesā€?
  8. What sort of ā€œanti-Western rhetoricā€ did you hear from both Orthodox and Muslims? Do you hold that the energies/essences distinction is an Orthodox borrowing from Islam? How would you differentiate the Orthodox view of essences/energies from the Latin Catholic view of God?
  9. How did ā€œthe Hesychast councils and Synod of Jerusalemā€ bring about harmful innovation in Orthodoxy?
No doubt dialect is the term used - just as it is used of entirely separate Chinese languages. Now:

1. Conversion to, poorly but accepted it, friends loved it. Parents were more like, ā€œhe bought in to any religion, poor fool, he’ll grow out of it and see the light of distributed ownership of means of production.ā€ Conversion out of: poorly, but my family was all dead for several years by that point, and I was in America (I didn’t flee for my life from Egypt or anything romantic like that), so there wasn’t much they could do. Got a little bit of vandalism, no death threats or, ā€œGee, I wish we lived in KSA so I could turn you over to the Ministry for Islam!ā€ (although a few invocations of Allah’s wrath).

2. I was living in America by that point. I went to a different masjid after my Islamic piety became resurgent, which had more Blacks and Americans at it, and taught a less strict creed (just because there aren’t many masjids around; my creed became stricter), and less immigrants.

3. Questions which are forbidden: anything that questions the Qur’an as being absolutely perfect, that God spoke in Qurayshi Arabic, that there are textual variants, that the Koran is uncreated, that Reason has a place in Faith, that the ahadith seem to be forgeries and contain plain contradictions, noting how the Koran tells people not to collect Hadith, the wrongness of the doctrine of jihad, freedom of conscience, Muhammad’s less-than-sinless life (some hadith say he prayed 70 times a day for forgiveness, but the position is that he was impeccable), Islamic history, stagnation of Islamic culture, the need for philosophy, why is al-Ghazali considered a hero? etc. Dogmatism: the set-in-stone answers to those questions that can not be asked.

4. It is more what it says it is. It whitewashes much less. Even being 600 years older, there’s more evidence for Christ than there is for Muhammad. Better sources, as well. It doesn’t yearn for the glory days of a millennium ago. Christian history generally meshes with what actually happened with little mental gymnastics. Islamic history, not so much. One example: the composition and compilation of the Koran. Second example: the transmission and compilation of ahadith.

5. Studying the Early Church Fathers (especially Cyril, a favorite of Coptic Orthodox) and first four Ecumenical Councils, which was started by a general statistical method I devised for looking in to religion when I first looked at Christianity - essentially by unity and numbers of adherents. That the Monophysites schismed within themselves so early and so often is a powerful indicator, as is the behavior of ones such as Timothy ā€œthe Catā€ and Dioscorus, and the monophysite Patriarchs of Alexandria. Also, plain theology: ā€œGod can not redeem that which was not assumedā€, so God must have been fully God and fully Man according to the Chalcedonian formula; anything else would result in a Jesus who was less than God, or who didn’t redeem all aspects of mankind.

CONTINUED BELOW
 
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE

6.
Studying the Early Church Fathers. The involvement in councils. The appeal of Byzantines to Papal authority and approval. The incident of the Three Chapters. The incident of the Henotikon. The Tome of Leo the Great. The fact that the Bishop of Rome never descended in to heresy, whereas the Byzantine court and church always had a heretical faction - sometimes larger than the Orthodox - for over 700 years, and chased after heresy - even skipping between two opposite ones, such as Nestorianism and Monophysitism - before settling on orthodoxy. This seemed consistent with our Lord’s promise to Peter, ā€œon this Rock I shall build…and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail…to you I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavenā€¦ā€

7. Elements of Islamic architecture (which was first ripped off from the Byzantines, altered, and was then re-ripped off by the Byzantines). Hesychasm and certain modes of prayer that are eerily similar to dhikr, or even salat, with very ritualized movements. The complete unknowability of God in any sense (this is why they developed the essence-energy distinction). Disdain for reason, philosophy, and things Western. Lack of any substantial tradition of thinking, complete lack of philosophising, and almost complete lack of theology after Gregory Palamas. Ossified tradition, hatred and suspicion of any ā€œinnovationā€. Reliance on negative theology for what little there is.

8. No, the essence-energies distinction is not borrowed from Islam, but derives from a view of God that I feel is ultimately heavily influenced by the Islamic Ashari/Ghazalite view that God is absolutely transcendent, but less immanent; more alien, and less human. So, the ā€œenergiesā€ of God needed to be separated off in order to have some part of God remain knowable - as his being was so alien as to be alien - and remain Christian in essence, introducing at the time a ā€œsecond Trinityā€ that we have access to, while the original Trinity sits in Heaven, completely cut off from Man in every sense, being so alien no interaction is possible except through the energies - ā€œanother mediatorā€ between God and Man.

**8.1. **Things such as, ā€œthe West plots, the West corrupts, the West is full of hereticsā€, ā€œthe ecumenical movement is a Papist plot to destroy usā€, ā€œthe materialistic and decadent West, which shall be judgedā€, ā€œthe West relies on useless reason and innovates endlessly, while we remain Orthodox/orthodox by doing nothing that the Early Fathers did not state directly [even though they do], and refusing logic and argumentation in place of Patristic proof-textingā€, ā€œthose damned legalistic Westerners, leading everyone to Hell one Friday without meat at a timeā€, ā€œOur Holy Orthodoxy is organic, not legalisticā€ (i.e. you only have to fast two days a week instead of only Friday) more of those in Egypt than in America, and very loosely quoted - general sentiments. Some were repeated in both states. All I can say is that Rome-bashing and anti-Papalism seem to have been an Eastern tradition long before Martin Luther lost his virginity.

**8.1. **But, at the Orthodox church I attended in America, one is very memorable, to the point I can almost quote it verbatim: ā€œWhat lead the Western church astray? I tell you what led her astray: Augustine. Augustine and his introduction of Platonism beguiled the Western church with the vain whisperings and philosophies of men, and set the Latin Church on the path to Hell. The Scholastics like Thomas Aquinas opened the gates of Hell and locked them from the inside, with all the Latins with him, chopping logic like he did and changing the faith of the Apostles by introducing purgatory…[cue litany of standard Rome-bashing]ā€ (even though the Orthodox do teach purgatory, but not by that name).

Too much typing, too long for one post, fingers cramped, neck and eyes hurting, attention span wandering. I’ll get 8.2 (the Catholic v Orthodox concept of God), 9 and 10 tomorrow (those are probably the ones you’re most waiting for, and they’ll be the longest by far, as they deal with theology and philosophy and history, not just simple statements of my actions).
 
St. Mary the Theotokos has a special place in my heart, so I’m going to keep asking for her intercession. I went to an Eastern Orthodox liturgy yesterday (it was breathtaking in its splendour), in fact, where I lit a candle near her icon and requested my heavenly mother’s prayers.
The Orthodox liturgy is nicer than anything but the Tridentine High Mass, and the Byzantine church architecture on even a mediocre or average church is more beautiful than all but the most elaborate Catholic churches, and, I believe, in most cases, nicer still, due to the tradition of covering the entire space with symbolic paintings, lots of gold and gilt, marble, the three doors, the iconostasis, etc. (you can look up ā€œAnnunciation Greek Orthodox Cathedral Columbus Ohioā€, I think there are pictures: I attended there as my Orthodox Orthodox Church). Orthodox Churches in the ā€œworship areaā€ (nave and altar, etc.) have a characteristic glow to them from all the gold and polished marble, and stained glass, instead of just a normal light. Heavenly looking.

If you’ll be converted on the beauty of the liturgy and Church architecture alone, Roman Catholicism has not a waterdrop’s chance in Hell against Orthodoxy. (Some Eastern Catholic Churches are nicer than almost all Latin Catholic ones, but still not as nice as full-on Orthodox ones - like a mix of the two.

Edit: I read the rest of this thread, or most of it, and I’ll respond some tomorrow, and probably some the day after that or Thursday, as there is so much questions asked.
But do these works focus on the theology (Christian Monotheism vs. Marcionism, Trinitarianism vs. Arianism, Diaphysitism vs. Monophysitism) or the ecclesiology (Clement vs. the Corinthian church, Meletius vs. Paulinus, Vigilius vs. the emperor vs. the Fifth Ecumenical Council)?
Leo Donald Davis focuses on both, probably 65%? ecclesiastical politics. Warren Carrol is an entire history of the Church, several thousands of pages in length, but deals more with the history than the theology, but deals with the early councils in a few hundred pages at most. He deals with the theology extensively as well, but the work is not focused on it, but only includes it: it is a general history.

Jaroslav Pelikan was a Lutheran ā€œPriestā€ (he actually converted to Greek Orthodoxy as a layman later in life) when he wrote his history, so he’s Protestant-sympathetic and actually quite Eastern-sympathetic, but relatively ecumenical, relatively orthodox, and focuses almost entirely on doctrine/theology, probably nine parts out of ten.

The best place I think to learn early historical theology after something like Pelikan in a good manner is to hear it straight from the camel’s mouth by reading the Early Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Cyril, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, John Chrysostom, John Damascene, Clement of Rome, Bernard, Clement of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor, Gregory Nazianzus, Gregory Nyssa, Basil, Gregory the Great, Hilary, Ambrose, Polycarp, Jerome, Cyprian, Dionysius the Areopagite, etc. - the writings of men involved in the controversies in the first place, and the Acts of the Councils. Not all were involved in the controversies, not all were completely orthodox by today’s standards, but all are incredibly important.

You can get excerpts of their writings in English in ā€œThe Faith of the Early Fathersā€ by Jurgens, and the Apostolic Fathers by Penguin, and the Apothegmata Patrum by Penguin too, I think. The most complete collection that is easily available is a very biased one - the text seems good, but it includes copious footnotes to try to steer the reader away from the obviously Catholic interpretation, called ā€œEarly Church Fathers 38 volumesā€.You can get individual works in such series as ā€œClassics of Western Spiritualityā€, ā€œAncient Christian Writersā€, ā€œFathers of the Churchā€, etc.; the best collection is JP Migne’s, which is over 300 volumes and ridiculously expensive, and ridiculously complete. You can get it in Greek and Latin, or Greek and Latin with Latin translation of the Greek (additional 80 volumes). It is the ā€œPatrologiae cursus completusā€, comprised of the ā€œPatrologia latinaā€ (221 volumes) and the ā€œPatrologia graeceā€ (85 volumes, I’m supposing it’s 160-180 - roughly double - with Latin translation). Published in America by the University of Michigan. You can get the set used for maybe $3-8k (without Latin translation, mine was $4,200) depending on condition and printing (probably $6-11k with the Latin translation), and new, $17,500 without Latin and $27,000 with.

I think it is somewhere between 135,000 and 175,000 pages, of which I have read roughly one in ten to twelve.
 
The greatest day of all history, apart from the incarnation, passion, and resurrection of Christ, will be when the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church (and maybe even the Anglican churches) come into full communion with one another, once again. I can’t help but wonder if that might mark the beginning of the ā€œgreat catchā€ that Peter will haul into his boat. How wonderful to ponder… but alas, we can’t get caught up in sensationalism!

Let us pray instead.
Sounds good. šŸ‘

Trial and persecution brings truth by Gods will. So too we see this happening today. Its always amazed me how men place their differences aside in conflict and turmoil. It is all vanity.

Tragic the cost is so many Souls, Often we look at the persecuted and our heart bleeds for them. Truth is they are with God, its all the others whom are lost to God because mankind drifts from virtue/truth which is most disturbing. When we stop following in humility and cease learning and transmitting that knowledge, then sin results in loss souls.

Penance… is the path with a constant outreach to the community and those misguided. People know something is wrong.

Peace
 
I forgot one of the best books on the subject, the most concise, and the most immediately relevant to the topic: John Henry Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.
 
Thanks for your responses, kKhalid. Some further questions:
3. Questions which are forbidden: anything that questions the Qur’an as being absolutely perfect, that God spoke in Qurayshi Arabic, that there are textual variants, that the Koran is uncreated, that Reason has a place in Faith, that the ahadith seem to be forgeries and contain plain contradictions, noting how the Koran tells people not to collect Hadith, the wrongness of the doctrine of jihad, freedom of conscience, Muhammad’s less-than-sinless life (some hadith say he prayed 70 times a day for forgiveness, but the position is that he was impeccable), Islamic history, stagnation of Islamic culture, the need for philosophy, why is al-Ghazali considered a hero? etc. Dogmatism: the set-in-stone answers to those questions that can not be asked.
What are the set-in-stone answers that you would have given when you were a Muslim?
4. It is more what it says it is. It whitewashes much less. Even being 600 years older, there’s more evidence for Christ than there is for Muhammad. Better sources, as well. It doesn’t yearn for the glory days of a millennium ago. Christian history generally meshes with what actually happened with little mental gymnastics. Islamic history, not so much. One example: the composition and compilation of the Koran. Second example: the transmission and compilation of ahadith.
How, in your view, do the two examples you mention lead Muslims to whitewash history?
5. Studying the Early Church Fathers (especially Cyril, a favorite of Coptic Orthodox) and first four Ecumenical Councils, which was started by a general statistical method I devised for looking in to religion when I first looked at Christianity - essentially by unity and numbers of adherents.
Basing a decision about the truth of a religion on ā€œunity and numbers of adherentsā€ seems arbitrary. Before Christianity, most inhabitants of this planet were pagans/animists, but paganism/animism isn’t proven to be true by its onetime popularity. Likewise, in the present day, large swathes of Asia and Africa encompassing many hundreds of millions of people–from Indonesia and Bangladesh to Egypt and North Nigeria–are Sunni Muslims, but Sunni Islam isn’t proven to be true by its (relative) unity. The Christian faith was just as true on Pentecost with a tiny number of adherents as it is today with two billion followers scattered across thousands of denominations.
That the Monophysites schismed within themselves so early and so often is a powerful indicator, as is the behavior of ones such as Timothy ā€œthe Catā€ and Dioscorus, and the monophysite Patriarchs of Alexandria.
Where are all the schismatic monophysites today? Have they disappeared since the fifth century?

Couldn’t this particular criterion for determining truth do damage to the Catholic claim to be the church founded by Christ, given the thousands of Protestant denominations which have, directly or indirectly, split from this much larger group?
Also, plain theology: ā€œGod can not redeem that which was not assumedā€, so God must have been fully God and fully Man according to the Chalcedonian formula; anything else would result in a Jesus who was less than God, or who didn’t redeem all aspects of mankind.
Did you make this overall evaluation before the 1994 Coptic-Catholic christological agreements demonstrating that Pope Shinuda III was not in fact teaching monophysitism after all?
 
6. Studying the Early Church Fathers. The involvement in councils. The appeal of Byzantines to Papal authority and approval. The incident of the Three Chapters. The incident of the Henotikon. The Tome of Leo the Great.
I shall have to investigate these episodes further.

I should note, however, that in this thread an Eastern Orthodox poster has been in the process of demonstrating how circumstances around the Fifth Ecumenical Council severely damage the plausibility of a Catholic-style papacy in the Early Church. I would be interested to hear your comments on the issue in that thread.
The fact that the Bishop of Rome never descended in to heresy, whereas the Byzantine court and church always had a heretical faction - sometimes larger than the Orthodox - for over 700 years, and chased after heresy - even skipping between two opposite ones, such as Nestorianism and Monophysitism - before settling on orthodoxy. This seemed consistent with our Lord’s promise to Peter, ā€œon this Rock I shall build…and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail…to you I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavenā€¦ā€
This is definitely interesting, although proving that Honorius did not teach heresy ex cathedra through his letters to the patriarch of Constantinople is a difficult case to make. Given that the incident happened so long ago, and because the Sixth Ecumenical Council did not have the opportunity to examine Honorius in person (he had died forty years prior), it seems that we may never be able to know for sure.
7. Elements of Islamic architecture (which was first ripped off from the Byzantines, altered, and was then re-ripped off by the Byzantines). Hesychasm and certain modes of prayer that are eerily similar to dhikr, or even salat, with very ritualized movements. The complete unknowability of God in any sense (this is why they developed the essence-energy distinction). Disdain for reason, philosophy, and things Western. Lack of any substantial tradition of thinking, complete lack of philosophising, and almost complete lack of theology after Gregory Palamas. Ossified tradition, hatred and suspicion of any ā€œinnovationā€. Reliance on negative theology for what little there is.
But similarities with Islam don’t affect Orthodoxy’s truth claims. Protestant fundamentalists frequently connect Catholic beliefs and practices to paganism–the Eucharist, holy water, the communion of saints–but neither of us find these objections compelling.

Also, aren’t Catholics by definition against innovation too? They deny the sixteenth-century doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide partly because they aren’t found in the Early Church.

And what do you mean by ā€œnegative theologyā€?
**8.1. **Things such as, ā€œthe West plots, the West corrupts, the West is full of hereticsā€, ā€œthe ecumenical movement is a Papist plot to destroy usā€, ā€œthe materialistic and decadent West, which shall be judgedā€, ā€œthe West relies on useless reason and innovates endlessly, while we remain Orthodox/orthodox by doing nothing that the Early Fathers did not state directly [even though they do], and refusing logic and argumentation in place of Patristic proof-textingā€, ā€œthose damned legalistic Westerners, leading everyone to Hell one Friday without meat at a timeā€, ā€œOur Holy Orthodoxy is organic, not legalisticā€ (i.e. you only have to fast two days a week instead of only Friday) more of those in Egypt than in America, and very loosely quoted - general sentiments. Some were repeated in both states. All I can say is that Rome-bashing and anti-Papalism seem to have been an Eastern tradition long before Martin Luther lost his virginity.
Haha, I get what you’re saying. But what, in your view, are the gravest unpatristic innovations of the Orthodox? And how do they ignore Western ā€œlogic and argumentationā€ while committing ā€œPatristic proof-textingā€?
**8.1. **But, at the Orthodox church I attended in America, one is very memorable, to the point I can almost quote it verbatim: ā€œWhat lead the Western church astray? I tell you what led her astray: Augustine. Augustine and his introduction of Platonism beguiled the Western church with the vain whisperings and philosophies of men, and set the Latin Church on the path to Hell. The Scholastics like Thomas Aquinas opened the gates of Hell and locked them from the inside, with all the Latins with him, chopping logic like he did and changing the faith of the Apostles by introducing purgatory…[cue litany of standard Rome-bashing]ā€ (even though the Orthodox do teach purgatory, but not by that name).
In saying that the Orthodox actually believe in purgatory, are you referring to the notion of the soul traveling through toll houses after death?

Isn’t it left up to the Orthodox faithful to decide if they will accept or deny that doctrine? And how does it resemble purgatory?
 
Well, thanks for your kind, thoughtful response. I hope for the same thing too, haha. šŸ˜›

Indeed. That’s the approach I’ve been seeking to employ.

The timing of this paragraph is uncanny. Just a few hours before you wrote these words a couple days ago, I was saying this and this. I struggle to maintain concentration in prayer longer than five minutes or so, had never recited the Divine Mercy Chaplet before, and within the preceding six months had attempted the rosary only twice.

St. Mary the Theotokos has a special place in my heart, so I’m going to keep asking for her intercession. I went to an Eastern Orthodox liturgy yesterday (it was breathtaking in its splendour), in fact, where I lit a candle near her icon and requested my heavenly mother’s prayers.

Very good advice.

Very true–my (former Catholic, now) Pentecostal friend I mentioned previously has said the same thing. The intellectual side of this journey can very easily overshadow the spiritual.

I would say that I believe that deep down. All the doubt and skepticism around me, ranging from family to acquaintances, forces me to stop and ponder whether having faith in Christ isn’t just some nice story that could be disproven if we had more first-century evidence to rely on…

Thank you. Please add my Pentecostal friend and her family if you would–to find the truth, wherever it is. (It would take too long to explain this.)
Just wondering, Trebor, Are you anywhere near finding answers in your journey? Unfortunately, the Rapture didn’t occur on 21st March like you hoped :p! So I guess you have to keep working at it, tooth and nail :sad_yes:- Any progress one way or the other?

Blessings,
From She who loves Mary
 
Just wondering, Trebor, Are you anywhere near finding answers in your journey? Unfortunately, the Rapture didn’t occur on 21st March like you hoped :p! So I guess you have to keep working at it, tooth and nail :sad_yes:- Any progress one way or the other?

Blessings,
From She who loves Mary
Haha, thanks very much for making this inquiry. At the moment I must say that the historical record seems to favour the view that the pope didn’t have nearly as much authority before the Great Schism as he has claimed since then. (See this CAF thread for a discussion on the matter between a Latin Catholic and an Episcopalian; the latter might as well have been an Eastern Orthodox instead, given his belief in a (more limited) papacy.)

I still have yet to read the books I had mentioned, however, and plan to continue discussing these issues with a couple Eastern Catholic priests, who should be able to give the strongest rationale for being in communion with Rome.

Now is a very trying time given that (1) I’m presently enrolled in university, and (2) my soul and potentially those of some around me are on the line.

I just want to make sure that I understand the real Catholic teachings on the papacy before making a decision–it seems that those who oppose it may sometimes/often be fighting a straw man. Still, given that Catholicism holds to Sacred Tradition, thus requiring history to line up with its teachings, if a great breach with the past occurred in the eleventh century and actually transformed the papacy into an innovating and overbearing centre of power, the Eastern Orthodox today appear to resemble the Early Church far more closely.

Blessed Theotokos, pray for us!
 
I don’t post that often, but I must say, this thread is a breath of fresh air amongst the many heated discussions that can go on here.
Although, I’m a bit saddened that the topic of buttery creamy goodness that is frosting stopped being mentioned. I am more partial to cream cheese frosting myself or that marshmallow fluff stuff when used as icing on a cake. 😃
 
I don’t post that often, but I must say, this thread is a breath of fresh air amongst the many heated discussions that can go on here.
Although, I’m a bit saddened that the topic of buttery creamy goodness that is frosting stopped being mentioned. I am more partial to cream cheese frosting myself or that marshmallow fluff stuff when used as icing on a cake. 😃
When lent ends for the Orthodox, I’m going to eat meat, chocolate and cake in celebration. 😃
 
Haha, thanks very much for making this inquiry. At the moment I must say that the historical record seems to favour the view that the pope didn’t have nearly as much authority before the Great Schism as he has claimed since then. (See this CAF thread for a discussion on the matter between a Latin Catholic and an Episcopalian; the latter might as well have been an Eastern Orthodox instead, given his belief in a (more limited) papacy.)

I still have yet to read the books I had mentioned, however, and plan to continue discussing these issues with a couple Eastern Catholic priests, who should be able to give the strongest rationale for being in communion with Rome.

Now is a very trying time given that (1) I’m presently enrolled in university, and (2) my soul and potentially those of some around me are on the line.

I just want to make sure that I understand the real Catholic teachings on the papacy before making a decision–it seems that those who oppose it may sometimes/often be fighting a straw man. Still, given that Catholicism holds to Sacred Tradition, thus requiring history to line up with its teachings, if a great breach with the past occurred in the eleventh century and actually transformed the papacy into an innovating and overbearing centre of power, the Eastern Orthodox today appear to resemble the Early Church far more closely.
Obviously,I don’t agree that they do (resemble the early church better than us)! šŸ˜› Certainly not the church of the Apostles that had a visible head and also because I don’t see who in their communion presently does what St. Clement or St. Leo or St. Gregory did vis-a-vis the rest of the church in the first millennium church or holds his place and by what tradition they do so. Also, there’s lots of threads at CAF about it, I’m pretty sure you can find numerous that answer to everything Contrarini says on that thread you linked. Sometimes arguments are worn and lost not on objective truth but on the talents and preparation of the parties debating. šŸ˜‰ And while it’s true that Sacred Tradition is crucial to the CC, we Catholics expect that it holds truths even in germane form not necessarily fully defined forms- Kinda like the Trinity in the first centuries before the Conciliar debates and formulations of the nature of God. But I’m Catholic, so obviously you know where my leaning is :p!

Just checking on you though. By the way, did you try to follow lent either Catholic or Orthodox at this time? How was it? For some reason fasting on Good Friday this year was so difficult for me! I think I may not having been really fasting these past several years no matter what I convinced myself about it! šŸ˜‰

Blessings,
Signed: She who loves Mary and you too!
 
I just want to apologize to all Orthodoxs and Protestants,if I have ever offended you or your respective faiths in any manner. It is not my goal or intent to put-down anyone’s faith or tradition you follow. I know at times I may be a bit ā€œhardā€ but I really mean no harm or malice. I know we all cannot agree on everything. So that being said…I apologize,God Bless
This is good. It reminds me of the Latin Mass when I served Mass during the Confiteor…thumping on my chest saying "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpaā€¦šŸ™‚
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top