S
SPH1
Guest
You’re joking…right?
- Status
T
The_Iambic_Pen
Guest
Then, at the very end of the Middle Ages, Protestantism came along. I think it’s safe to say that most of the ancient heresies which were condemned in the past have arisen again within the various Protestant bodies. I don’t think the argument that the West is more correct because more heresies arose in the East is that convincing, as those heresies were dealt with, whereas Protestantism is alive and well.
M
Mickey
Guest
Amen, brother, amen.
M
Mickey
Guest
Slava Isusu Christu!
God bless you on your journey. I converted to OCA in September 2007 for many of the same reasons and more–I was Byzantine Catholic prior to that.
F
FCEGM
Guest
True. But, considering a) that Islam is really a Gnostic form of Syrian Christianity and b) the only reason why Islam succeeded and took over the East was because of the Monophysite majority among the native Christians in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Anatolia, who welcomed the Muslims as “liberators” from the “oppressive” Melkite (a.k.a. Greek Orthodox) bishops and imperial magistrates from Constantinople, the reality is that the East still holds the title for most rampant problem with heresy.
1/2 billion disunited Protestants isn’t much of a problem compared to 1.2 billion Muslims, and about 60 million non-Chalcedonian (a.k.a. Monophysite and Nestorian) heretics. We can thank the Eastern Church/Empire for this. So, when that good Russian Orthodox, Dostoevsky, said that “Roman Catholicism is an error, and Protestantism is the error of the error,” he should have taken a better look at his own backyard. What’s more, if you look at the REAL reason behind Protestantism, it was essentially a back-lash against the wealth, power, and imperial-style pomp of the Roman Papacy; and the only reason that the Roman Papacy adopted this wealth, power, and pomp in the first place was to contend with the Byzantine Emperors (those “Christs on earth”/ “heads of the Church”), who were constantly leading the Church into heresy. It was because of the caesaro-papism in the East that the Bishops of Rome (who, in the early days, acted as final courts of appeal and not hands-on autocrats) were forced to behave like emperors and to wield their Christ-given authority in ways that the secular “Christian” Empire could understand, appreciate, and take seriously.
If you think about it, this is the only way to be a primal shepherd in a theocratic Empire, and a pastor for an emperor who considered himself God’s representative over the temporal realm. But, among the late medieval N. Europeans - the non-Roman/Byzantine “barbarians” (who became the first Protestants) - this “style of Papacy” (which was designed to operate in the realm of Byzantine “Romanitas”) seemed haughty, sinful, and unbiblical; and it was this style of Papal authority that the Protestants “protested” against. Once one realizes this, then suddenly the Byzantines can even be blamed for Protestantism! …because the Protestant revolt was indirectly the Eastern Church’s fault too, since the “imperial-style Papacy” that the Protestants called “the Beast” and “the Whore of Babylon” came into existence (as a necessary evil) to counter the immense influence of heretical Byzantine Emperors. And, in Revelation, it is the Emperor who is “the Beast.” Let those with understanding take heed.
A
Alexios
Guest
Isu,
I’m a little confused. If you’re under the Pope of Alexandra, Shenouda, then you’re Oriental Orthodox. And your communion of Churches is not in communion with Eastern Orthodoxy. Am I missing something?
I’m a little confused. If you’re under the Pope of Alexandra, Shenouda, then you’re Oriental Orthodox. And your communion of Churches is not in communion with Eastern Orthodoxy. Am I missing something?
Y
yeshua
Guest
I would appreciate an explanation of this statement. Thank you.
V
VARC
Guest
His beatitude Theodoros II is the pope of alexandria and all africa who is in the EO communion.
greekorthodox-alexandria.org/index.php?lang=en
Shenouda is the coptic pope.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
Lol!We have the popemobile.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
God bless him
.
A
angelheart
Guest
Hello,
As someone here mentioned that one shouldn’t look at the behaviors of people when trying to find assurance within a church, I say one should also avoid asking for enlightnment from humans (like on this forum)…until now I’ve only seen bashing of the Orthodox Church…imagine how confused Spilkman is.
God bless!
As someone here mentioned that one shouldn’t look at the behaviors of people when trying to find assurance within a church, I say one should also avoid asking for enlightnment from humans (like on this forum)…until now I’ve only seen bashing of the Orthodox Church…imagine how confused Spilkman is.
God bless!
H
Hesychios
Guest
Hello FCEGM,
Please provide references.
But while I am here I can state that Mohammed was not a Christian of any sort when he had his visions and auditory phenomena. Neither his parents nor wife nor any of his first followers were Christians and they resided hundreds of miles from Syria.
There apparently was a gnostic monk (possibly an Arab) in Mecca who declared that Mohammed must be a Prophet, but no one knows the origin of his sect. It apparently was a remnant of ancient gnostic groups that could not be suppressed because they were so far from the Christian Roman empire and could not be encountered any more easily than Hindus and Buddhists.
Monotheism, as you know, is not unique to Christianity. Already at the time of Christ there were a couple of versions of it monotheism spreading in the Roman empire, and several philosophical theories about it. So there were pagan monotheists outside of Christianity from the beginning, as well as Judaism and Samaritanism.
Islam inherited none of the fundamental theology of Apostolic Christianity. It does not seem to have a concept of sacraments and has no sacerdotal priesthood. Mohommed was apparently aware of the Holy Scripture of the Jews and the Christians and pronounced it suitable for his people, although he did not accept it as the Christians or the Jews do. Islam was, in fact, just another form of pagan monotheism that did not arise from any prior existing group.
So it isn’t comparable to…Congregationalism (for example), which has clear roots in the Roman Catholic church, nor Mormonism, which has clear roots in other Christian groups that originated from the Roman Catholic church.
I suggest that you reference support for your outrageous statement above, or explain how you made such a mistake. Or you might as well accept the fact that people here will consider that you are spreading lies to manipulate their thinking.
Pax et Bonum,
For an otherwise intelligent sounding post you lead off with such a piece of garbage (which, by the way, is the kind of assertion I have only read on Roman Catholic forums and no place else…I have to wonder why).
Please provide references.
But while I am here I can state that Mohammed was not a Christian of any sort when he had his visions and auditory phenomena. Neither his parents nor wife nor any of his first followers were Christians and they resided hundreds of miles from Syria.
There apparently was a gnostic monk (possibly an Arab) in Mecca who declared that Mohammed must be a Prophet, but no one knows the origin of his sect. It apparently was a remnant of ancient gnostic groups that could not be suppressed because they were so far from the Christian Roman empire and could not be encountered any more easily than Hindus and Buddhists.
Monotheism, as you know, is not unique to Christianity. Already at the time of Christ there were a couple of versions of it monotheism spreading in the Roman empire, and several philosophical theories about it. So there were pagan monotheists outside of Christianity from the beginning, as well as Judaism and Samaritanism.
Islam inherited none of the fundamental theology of Apostolic Christianity. It does not seem to have a concept of sacraments and has no sacerdotal priesthood. Mohommed was apparently aware of the Holy Scripture of the Jews and the Christians and pronounced it suitable for his people, although he did not accept it as the Christians or the Jews do. Islam was, in fact, just another form of pagan monotheism that did not arise from any prior existing group.
So it isn’t comparable to…Congregationalism (for example), which has clear roots in the Roman Catholic church, nor Mormonism, which has clear roots in other Christian groups that originated from the Roman Catholic church.
I suggest that you reference support for your outrageous statement above, or explain how you made such a mistake. Or you might as well accept the fact that people here will consider that you are spreading lies to manipulate their thinking.
Pax et Bonum,
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It does seem the OP has already made up his mind. But in the event he hasn’t, I suggest that he has not studied the question sufficiently.
The existence of Protestantism no more proves the falsity of Catholicism than the divisions within Orthodoxy prove its falsity. And, depending on one’s point of view, how is the existence of protestantism really different from the persistence of the Eastern Schism or, for that matter, from the persistence of the schisms within Orthodoxy itself? From the Catholic point of view, that is a “near-protestant phenomenon” in itself. From the EO perspective, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. So, would one become Methodist because of the reformation? From the Catholic point of view, becoming Orthodox because of the schism is not terribly different. In saying this, I am in no way inviting all the EO arguments. I think everyone knows them by now, and the counter-arguments, and the counter-counter arguments, ad infinitum. My only point is that if the OP is basing his decision on this kind of thing, he needs to study it more, and INDEPENDENTLY. Coming here or going to EO sites for affirmation are exactly the wrong things to do. The OP will exit through the same door from which he entered. At minimum, any Catholic thinking of changing churches needs to discuss it with a priest of significant scholarship, and at great length.
I am aware that EO claim Orthodoxy is not divided, and all of the arguments about that, but if a person really investigates, one finds that there are divisions. But they are divisions that do not have a precise western parallel. Nor, do the divisions within Christianity in the west have a precise eastern parallel. Again, one should not base one’s decision on that, but if one deems it important, then he should INDEPENDENTLY investigate it in a serious manner.
It is far easier to find writings about the misdeeds committed by western churchmen than it is to find them about the misdeeds of eastern churchmen, for two reasons. First, the Catholic Church is not hostile to the Orthodox churches, and criticism of Orthodoxy is not encouraged among Catholics. The reverse is not true. Further, since a western person’s sources are going to be western writers, one could expect more information to be available about the Church in the west than about the Churches in the east. It takes more digging to know the history of the Eastern Churches.
One should realize that the EO Church is composed mainly of the Russian Orthodox Church. While, in a theological sense, the monks at a place called Mount Athos seem to have an almost Papal influence on EO theology, the ROC exercises the power politically. A very careful study of the ROC yields some information that is quite favorable to it. Some is distinctly unfavorable, and in a way that, today (not some ancient time) invites unfavorable comparison with the Catholic Church. One can attack or defend Patriarch Alexei as one’s point of view leads one. But some of the information from Russian sources does give one reason for pause.
This is not a beauty contest. Nor is it an adventure in historical muckraking. Nor should it be. But if one insists on basing one’s decision on such things, then one should not be superficial about it, but dedicate a very significant amount of time to INDEPENDENT study, preferably from sources that do not have an obvious axe to grind.
But again, if the OP came here for affirmation of a decision he has already made, or if he came here to start an argument for purposes of display, it’s mission accomplished, I expect. But if it really is a quest for truth, I think I can assure him that he has only scratched the surface, and that a website, the limitations of which allow for not much more than “talking points” is not the right place to conduct that search.
The existence of Protestantism no more proves the falsity of Catholicism than the divisions within Orthodoxy prove its falsity. And, depending on one’s point of view, how is the existence of protestantism really different from the persistence of the Eastern Schism or, for that matter, from the persistence of the schisms within Orthodoxy itself? From the Catholic point of view, that is a “near-protestant phenomenon” in itself. From the EO perspective, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. So, would one become Methodist because of the reformation? From the Catholic point of view, becoming Orthodox because of the schism is not terribly different. In saying this, I am in no way inviting all the EO arguments. I think everyone knows them by now, and the counter-arguments, and the counter-counter arguments, ad infinitum. My only point is that if the OP is basing his decision on this kind of thing, he needs to study it more, and INDEPENDENTLY. Coming here or going to EO sites for affirmation are exactly the wrong things to do. The OP will exit through the same door from which he entered. At minimum, any Catholic thinking of changing churches needs to discuss it with a priest of significant scholarship, and at great length.
I am aware that EO claim Orthodoxy is not divided, and all of the arguments about that, but if a person really investigates, one finds that there are divisions. But they are divisions that do not have a precise western parallel. Nor, do the divisions within Christianity in the west have a precise eastern parallel. Again, one should not base one’s decision on that, but if one deems it important, then he should INDEPENDENTLY investigate it in a serious manner.
It is far easier to find writings about the misdeeds committed by western churchmen than it is to find them about the misdeeds of eastern churchmen, for two reasons. First, the Catholic Church is not hostile to the Orthodox churches, and criticism of Orthodoxy is not encouraged among Catholics. The reverse is not true. Further, since a western person’s sources are going to be western writers, one could expect more information to be available about the Church in the west than about the Churches in the east. It takes more digging to know the history of the Eastern Churches.
One should realize that the EO Church is composed mainly of the Russian Orthodox Church. While, in a theological sense, the monks at a place called Mount Athos seem to have an almost Papal influence on EO theology, the ROC exercises the power politically. A very careful study of the ROC yields some information that is quite favorable to it. Some is distinctly unfavorable, and in a way that, today (not some ancient time) invites unfavorable comparison with the Catholic Church. One can attack or defend Patriarch Alexei as one’s point of view leads one. But some of the information from Russian sources does give one reason for pause.
This is not a beauty contest. Nor is it an adventure in historical muckraking. Nor should it be. But if one insists on basing one’s decision on such things, then one should not be superficial about it, but dedicate a very significant amount of time to INDEPENDENT study, preferably from sources that do not have an obvious axe to grind.
But again, if the OP came here for affirmation of a decision he has already made, or if he came here to start an argument for purposes of display, it’s mission accomplished, I expect. But if it really is a quest for truth, I think I can assure him that he has only scratched the surface, and that a website, the limitations of which allow for not much more than “talking points” is not the right place to conduct that search.
M
Mickey
Guest
When I was Byzantine Catholic in communion with Rome, I witnessed many divisions between Eastern Catholic Churches and the Latin Church. And also sniping amongst the various Eastern Catholic Churches. Rome says it has universality–in name–but the friction is there.
Yet I have seen many such criticisms.
You have not seen my library.
Look hard enough and you will find criticisms everywhere about anything and everything. If we paused at every such source, we would be paralyzed.
You are danderously close to accusing the OP of being superficial.
Agreed. There is a wealth of information available for his edification.
A
Alexios
Guest
Oh, I’m sorry, I thought you were Coptic!
H
Hesychios
Guest
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Hello Ridge,
We cannot know but I don’t really think people are ever capable of studying these questions sufficiently. Decisions have to be made, and sometimes it amounts to a leap of Faith.
Unless he has dialogued with a lot of individuals he knows here there does not seem to be much reason to announce the conversion in this place.
Orthodoxy it is not without it’s own warts and pimples, I can tell you that. We can spend endless hours picking churches apart, you and I. So no, it is not really possible to study the question sufficiently for an absolute certainty, no one has a life long enough. It may have more to do with trust and hope than reason.
Michael
Hello Ridge,
I will not disagree with this.
We cannot know but I don’t really think people are ever capable of studying these questions sufficiently. Decisions have to be made, and sometimes it amounts to a leap of Faith.
I don’t know the history of this individual, but it does seem that he has made his mind up.
Unless he has dialogued with a lot of individuals he knows here there does not seem to be much reason to announce the conversion in this place.
Orthodoxy it is not without it’s own warts and pimples, I can tell you that. We can spend endless hours picking churches apart, you and I. So no, it is not really possible to study the question sufficiently for an absolute certainty, no one has a life long enough. It may have more to do with trust and hope than reason.
Michael
2
2ndGen
Guest
If you want the Christian church with the most “unblemished history, i.e., no crusades, inquisition, misappropriation of funds [think abuse of “indulgences”], etc…”, fine the newest Protestant Denomination.
The truth is, the longer a Church has been around, the more “history” both good and bad it will have.
Of course, all the attacks upon The Church from both wthout and within could be seen as signs that She is a Prime target of Satan. When you’re doing bad and worshipping wrong, Satan will not interfere with your downfall and will even help you grow in leading people into error.
When you’re The Church established by Jesus Christ, you are #1 on his hitlist. You will be under constant attack and discreditation by him and by those who serve him (knowingly or not).
So when judging The Church’s past, what’s your measuring standard? That she had issues?
Why not use the measuring standard that she actually overcame these attacks from Satan and not only survived them, but grew stronger and in numbers as a testiment that “…the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Ultimately, if God is calling you to become an Orthodox Christian, by all means, go. But if you’re trying to use logic as a reference by which to go by, then your spirituality will be a logical conclusion.
Allow The Holy Spirit to guide you, not any historical evidence (for evidence is not needed in matters of faith), nor any of our suggestions (both pro & con).
“Submit” your will to God and the rest will take care of itself.
Good luck in your decision.
youtube.com/watch?v=k5r_9_y6rl0
Great advice at that link.
M
Mickey
Guest
F
FCEGM
Guest
References for what, Michael? That Islam is based upon Gnostic Christianity? Even the Muslims themselves admit that Mohammed’s uncle was a Syrian Christian monk who was influential in Mohammad’s acceptance of the One God. Many Muslim beliefs (e.g. the idea that Christ was not really crucified, but that another man was mistakenly crucified in His place) are identical to Gnostic doctrines cited by St. Ireneaus as early as A.D. 180 in his famous work “Against the Heresies.” St. John Damascene (an Islamic political subject who was intimately acquainted with Muslim belief) realized this and mentions it in many places, e.g, example, he writes:
He was not formally a Christian (i.e., not baptized or part of a particular church), that’s true; but, he (and, more importantly, his theological associates - the guys who really wrote the Koran) were almost certainly Gnostic Christians, or deeply influenced by Gnostic Christianity. This is quite apparent if one does not accept the Muslim myth that the content of the Koran comes directly from Mohammed via Divine revelation. Whoever really wrote the Koran, clearly had a comprehensive understanding of the Gospels and the Hebrew Scriptures, and held to an “alternative reading” (i.e., a Gnostic reading) of them.
Again, you are buying into the Muslim mythos. I deny that this mythos is true, except for certain details. While Mohammed and his immediate family were not Baptized Christians, they clearly had Christian associates (even Muslims confess this), and their caravan business took them into Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and maybe even Anatolia, where they would have been exposed to both Christian and Jewish societies. Islam is clearly based upon this. Like Joseph Smith (the founder of the Mormons) centuries later, Mohammed was a self-appointed “reformer” of what we might call the “monotheistic faith” (the Faith of Abraham). Like Smith, who decided that the Church of Jesus Christ had been “taken from the earth” because of all the competing Christian sects (Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, etc.), Mohammed (coming from the perspective of a semi-pagan Arab) saw the belief in Allah (the “one God” of Arabic mythology; the equivalent of the Hebrew “Yahweh” and the Canaanite “El”) divided and disputed among various Jewish sects and various Christian sects (e.g. the Catholics/Orthodox, Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites, lingering Arians, and a variety of Gnostic cults …some of which existed within the bigger “orthodox” Churches).
continued. . .
F
FCEGM
Guest
Unable to see one “orthodox” continuity among these competing “sects” (i.e., as a Semite, he certainly would not have been comfortable with the Catholic/Orthodox Church because it was dominated by non-Mid-Eastern Greco-Romans …for Abraham had been a Semite, and the Greco-Romans belonged to an alien culture), Mohammed decided that all of these sects must be wrong; and so he set out to re-construct the “pure” faith of Abraham, incorporating all of the “best parts” of Judaism and Christianity, as he and his associates saw fit. This is the actual, historical genesis of Islam; and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see it - just like it’s not hard to figure out what Joseph Smith’s raison etre was in establishing Mormon “theology.” From a pro-Muslim website:
continued. . .
This is not a sect. I am referring to Islamic tradition which says that Mohammed’s uncle was a Syrian monk, thus accounting for the sections of the Koran which promote veneration and respect for Christian monks in particular. Also, the story of the Syrian monk who supposedly prophesied Mohammed’s destiny (this may or may not have been the same person as his Christian uncle), was clearly a resident of Syria, not Mecca. From the same pro-Islamic website cited above:
Again, this took place in Syria, according to Islamic legend.
I’m afraid that’s wrong. The pagans were NEVER monotheists. Rather, they were occassionally henotheists which is the covenantal acceptance or worship of one god while believing in the existence of other (or lesser) gods (as with the Mormons). The Israelites were also henotheists in the early days - that is, prior to the Babylonian exile. The idea that there were no other gods but the God of Israel developed relatively late in Old Testament theology. Islam is clearly based on this development, i.e., the monotheistic perspective of late Jewish and Christian theology, since it directly confesses that “There is no God but Allah …” This is a monotheistic perspective based entirely on post-exilic Judaism.
Again, I’m afraid you are in error. As an example, go read what the Muslims believe about the Virgin Mary. Not only did they unquestionably accept the Virgin Birth and Mary’s bodily assumption (taken directly from Apostolic Christianity), but they also committed themselves to her Immaculate Conception (a strong theologoumenon in the Syrian-speaking Church) over 1,200years before it was finally defined as a dogma by the Catholic Church!
But it did adopt Christian moral theology and numerous other elements. The reason that there are no clear sacraments or priesthood in Islam is because a) those things depend on some kind of incarnational connection to God and Muslims do not have that understanding of Him; and b) the rite of animal sacrifice (and the Eucharistic Sacrifice of Apostolic Christianity, which is intrinsically related to it) was replaced in Islam by an overall “submission,” which is what animal sacrifices pointed to and implied in the old, pre-Christian religious behavior of the Semitic peoples.
continued. . .
- Status