orthodox or catholic?

[guanophore]

The first half of this statement is largely true. The second half simply proves my point; yes, “parts” of Catholicism are ethnically based, but these are just that - “parts” of a much larger whole. Thus, the ethnic groups of Catholicism are analogous to the “eyes” or “ears” of the body which is much greater than the sum of those parts.

I think this description fits the Eastern Orthodox very well.

There is unity of doctrine, but differences of language, culture, etc.

But let’s not get too far afield: Casilda reported that an Orthodox priest told her that being anti-Catholic was part and parcel of Orthodoxy, and it seems to be a common experience.

This is not something that one would typically hear from a Catholic priest because Catholics do not feel threatened by the existence of other patriarchs.

Well, maybe that is because none of the other Patriarchs have claimed to have sole jurisdiction over the whole flock, or that ever single soul must be subject to them in order to be saved!

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ve seen some Catholics define “anti-Catholicism” as not listening to the Pope. Ever since then I’ve always taken anyone claiming it with a grain of salt, especially when you have Catholics like Randy preaching anti-Orthodox rhetoric to applause.

If I am “anti-Orthodox” it is because I am “pro-truth” first. As a Catholic, it is my belief that only Catholicism is free from doctrinal errors; thus, in an apologetics forum, I would oppose ALL non-Catholics. Period.

Consequently, when I observe a group masquerading as the one, true Church (such as the Orthodox or the Mormons) to the spiritual detriment of those who are ignorant of the truth, I feel some obligation to point out the errors commonly spouted in defense of that group’s beliefs. (They usually do the same in return. Or have you noticed that?)

Now, if the dysfunctional little group of Christians currently participating in this thread (that includes you and me) were magically transported en masse to a forum hosted by an atheist or Muslim organization, then you would find me to be a most loyal comrade in arms because in *that *environment, I would be able to recognize that we have more in common with each other than we would with our hosts.

However, while we *are *in the Non-Catholic Religions subforum, it remains true that this is still a Catholic website and that the playing field is *not *level. But you knew that when you signed up.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Except that it is not true. In the old world (where most Orthodox Christians exist), it is based on geography. It is precisely not ethnic in this sense, because (to give a specific example) the Greeks may not create a Greek church with Greek hierarchs for Greeks in Russia (that would be phyletism). They may create agreements with the local bishops to help minister to Greeks living in Russia more effectively in their mother tongue (by providing Greek-speaking priests or other accommodations), but only under the aegis of the local bishop. Autocephalous churches have traditionally been created along national or provincial but not ethnic lines. The Church of Cyprus (one of the oldest autocephalous churches) for example, is independent of the Church of Greece, even though both serve primarily Greeks. Conversely, we see that there is a Church of Greece, but no Arvanitic Church (the Arvanites being an ethnic group in Greece which speaks the dialect of Albanian, Arvanitika).

The only place where this is conceivably true is in the diaspora, but that is because of the poor and uncoordinated way in which ministering to the diaspora was carried out. The problem now is rather complex, but in general, it has proved difficult to solve because it is much harder to consolidate overlapping jurisdictions than it was to create them.

An Important Challenge for Greek Orthodox Christianity
goarch.org/archdiocese/departments/marriage/interfaith/guest-writers/challengeforGOC

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, maybe that is because none of the other Patriarchs have claimed to have sole jurisdiction over the whole flock, or that ever single soul must be subject to them in order to be saved!

And it is understandable why they have made no such claims since Jesus established Peter, and no other, as the rock upon which His Church would be built.

 

[Nine_Two]

in *that *environment, I would be able to recognize that we have more in common with each other than we would with our hosts.

This really puts your posts on “unity” in perspective.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This really puts your posts on “unity” in perspective.

Absolutely.

Jesus prayed that the Apostles might have the depth of unity that He shares with the Father. Was He praying for unity among his Apostles only? No! He prayed for all who would hear and believe these Apostles:

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:20-23)

Jesus is saying that the unity of a single, visible church would be proof that He really was sent into the world by the Father. The unity of the church is supposed to be a witness to this fact. In order for the world to know the truth, it must be able to see a visible, unified church.

Can the world look at the state of Christianity today and see one unified church? Do they say, “Yep, those Christians are certainly unified, that is plain to see. By looking at them, we can believe that Jesus was sent by God”? Not at all! The world cannot see an “invisible” unity of all true believers because what it sees instead is 25,000+ denominations bickering and fighting amongst themselves over doctrinal differences.

Just as Jesus and the Father are perfectly united, so God desires for the Apostles and those who come to believe in Jesus through them to be united. The reason for this unity is clear: to let the world know that you sent me”. Without this unity, the witness of the Christian Church to the world is weakened and as a result, the souls who fail to recognize the truth may be lost. Thus, the world must be able to see the unity of a visible, authoritative Church and hear the truth it proclaims. What are signs of this unity that the world should see?

One of the signs must be doctrinal unity on matters of faith and morals. In the pages of Scripture, we read:

“All the believers were one in heart and mind.” (Acts 4:32)

“There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Eph 4:4-6)

“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.” (1 Corinthians 1:10)

No. Divisions. Perfect. Unity.

The Father desires that the Church should be of one mind regarding the faith and doctrinal matters such as the “one baptism” just as He and the Son are one. The Father and the Son do not disagree on any issue. Does the Father prefer infant baptism while the Son does not? In the same way, we should have no divisions, no denominations, that separate us from one another. Paul’s appeal is not about some idealistic, invisible unity but a real, visible, tangible unity.

Schism maintained by disagreements over the primacy of Peter and the *filioque *is not of God.

 

[Peter_J]

Glad you decided to stay Catholic.

Please don’t take offense, but it sounded like you needed to do more research before you could honestly make a decision to become Orthodox.

I’m fine with Eastern Catholics calling themselves “Orthodox in Communion with Rome,” but just know that the Orthodox do not consider Eastern Catholics a part of their communion. They consider them a part of the Roman Catholic Church, which comprises 22 self-governing Churches (including Eastern Churches, not “rites”).

The Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox are separate communions comprised of their own churches.

I encourage you to continue to explore Eastern Christianity in time. For now, keep up a healthy prayer life and pray for me that I may do the same.

Roman Communion, you mean. I hope I won’t sound like I’m nitpicking (or knowitallist), but the truth is that there is no Roman Church.

 

[Cavaradossi]

An Important Challenge for Greek Orthodox Christianity
goarch.org/archdiocese/departments/marriage/interfaith/guest-writers/challengeforGOC

That article basically backs up what I wrote, though I suppose that someone blinded by bigotry would be oblivious to that fact. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (so-called not because membership in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese is exclusive to Greeks, but because the hierarchy operates under the aegis of the Ecumenical Patriarchate) faces several challenges because of its ethnic composition (being primarily, but not exclusively, made up of Greeks), mainly that as Greeks become more American they tend to become more irreligious or more indifferent (similarly with Latinos). This is, just as I said, a problem unique to the diaspora.

The Churches in traditional Orthodox lands do not face the same problems as the diaspora, as there is no absence of a native Orthodox culture in places like the Levant, Greece, Russia, Georgia, Serbia, Bulgaria, etc., whereas in America, an American expression of Orthodoxy does not exist. It in fact seems somewhat impossible that it should because America is so saturated by Protestant ideals (Enlightenment era philosophy and whatnot) that the culture seems rather opposed to the basic tenets of Orthodoxy. Similarly, because many aesthetic elements of Protestant worship (such as the use of pianos and guitars, the use of hymns selected from a hymnal rather than hymns based on a liturgical calendar, the lack of images, or the use of hymns composed in the style of popular music) are unacceptable for Orthodoxy, we cannot appropriate them. At any rate, an American Orthodox identity eventually will come to be, but only after a long and organic process of interaction with the dominant culture here, taking from it those elements which are not opposed to Orthodoxy. It cannot be rushed, and until then, retaining aspects of traditional Orthodox cultures will be indispensable in preventing American culture from influencing Orthodoxy (rather than the other way around).

 

[Randy_Carson]

That article basically backs up what I wrote, though I suppose that someone blinded by bigotry would be oblivious to that fact. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (so-called not because membership in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese is exclusive to Greeks, but because the hierarchy operates under the aegis of the Ecumenical Patriarchate) faces several challenges because of its ethnic composition (being primarily, but not exclusively, made up of Greeks), mainly that as Greeks become more American they tend to become more irreligious or more indifferent (similarly with Latinos). This is, just as I said, a problem unique to the diaspora.

Implicit in the article is the idea that as Greek Orthodox intermarry with non-Greeks, they tend to become not only less Greek but less Orthodox. Now, this would be true of Catholics intermarrying with Protestants and Jews intermarrying with Catholics, also, but that is not the point.

The reason I brought this article to your attention is that what is implicitly stated by the author of that article has been explicitly stated by me repeatedly in this forum; namely, that Orthodoxy tends to follow geographic and ethnic lines, and these boundaries, while providing a strength in some quarters, has limited Orthodoxy’s appeal to a broader, more universal audience.

Thus, the article unintentionally supports my argument that Orthodoxy cannot be the one, true Church.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Implicit in the article is the idea that as Greek Orthodox intermarry with non-Greeks, they tend to become not only less Greek but less Orthodox. Now, this would be true of Catholics intermarrying with Protestants and Jews intermarrying with Catholics, also, but that is not the point.

The reason I brought this article to your attention is that what is implicitly stated by the author of that article has been explicitly stated by me repeatedly in this forum; namely, that Orthodoxy tends to follow geographic and ethnic lines, and these boundaries, while providing a strength in some quarters, has limited Orthodoxy’s appeal to a broader, more universal audience.

Thus, the article unintentionally supports my argument that Orthodoxy cannot be the one, true Church.

Cute, but that is what you read into the article which actually in several places qualifies that it is referring to interfaith marriages and families. A marriage between say a Greek and a Syrian who are both Orthodox would not be considered intermarriage. In fact, this article was posted by the Office of Interfaith Marriage. Your reading of the article is simply incorrect, probably as a result of being twisted by your own ideological biases.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Cute, but that is what you read into the article which actually in several places qualifies that it is referring to interfaith marriages and families. A marriage between say a Greek and a Syrian who are both Orthodox would not be considered intermarriage. In fact, this article was posted by the Office of Interfaith Marriage. Your reading of the article is simply incorrect, probably as a result of being twisted by your own ideological biases.

Of course it is.

So, why do you think that the Office of Interfaith Marriage felt compelled to sound the alarm? They wrote:

In a startling find, statistics disclose over 60% of Greek Orthodox families of the last generation and 90% of Americans with Greek roots are no longer in communion with the Church. It is a concern shared by learned religious leaders who understand the need for a compassionate outreach towards intermarried families with sensitivity to differences among intermarried couples and the problems they face as a family. In the transition, as each population passes into successive generations, growing numbers of families move further from their origins, with the probability that our beloved Greek Orthodox Church in America will become moribund in the very near future.

Moribund? MORIBUND???

The one, true Church founded by Jesus and preserved in all its purity in the patriarchs of the East is at risk of becoming moribund in America?

So, like I’ve said many times, the EO cannot qualify as the Church which would make disciples of all nations and with which Jesus would remain until the end of time if that Church itself is moribund in at least one nation “in the very near future.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Because my REAL point was contained in the next paragraph of my post.

 

[Peter_J]

Implicit in the article is the idea that as Greek Orthodox intermarry with non-Greeks, they tend to become not only less Greek but less Orthodox.

Never, never, never let anyone to tell you in order to be Orthodox you must also be Eastern." - St. John Maximovitch

That’s a favorite quote, I believe, among Western-Rite Orthodox.

 

[RyanBlack]

Of course it is.

So, why do you think that the Office of Interfaith Marriage felt compelled to sound the alarm? They wrote:

In a startling find, statistics disclose over 60% of Greek Orthodox families of the last generation and 90% of Americans with Greek roots are no longer in communion with the Church. It is a concern shared by learned religious leaders who understand the need for a compassionate outreach towards intermarried families with sensitivity to differences among intermarried couples and the problems they face as a family. In the transition, as each population passes into successive generations, growing numbers of families move further from their origins, with the probability that our beloved Greek Orthodox Church in America will become moribund in the very near future.

Moribund? MORIBUND???

The one, true Church founded by Jesus and preserved in all its purity in the patriarchs of the East is at risk of becoming moribund in America?

So, like I’ve said many times, the EO cannot qualify as the Church which would make disciples of all nations and with which Jesus would remain until the end of time if that Church itself is moribund in at least one nation “in the very near future.”

There is more to the EO presence in the USA than the Greek Orthodox. Also, what of those places where Catholicism once thrived but could now be considered moribund?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Of course it is.

So, why do you think that the Office of Interfaith Marriage felt compelled to sound the alarm? They wrote:

In a startling find, statistics disclose over 60% of Greek Orthodox families of the last generation and 90% of Americans with Greek roots are no longer in communion with the Church. It is a concern shared by learned religious leaders who understand the need for a compassionate outreach towards intermarried families with sensitivity to differences among intermarried couples and the problems they face as a family. In the transition, as each population passes into successive generations, growing numbers of families move further from their origins, with the probability that our beloved Greek Orthodox Church in America will become moribund in the very near future.

Moribund? MORIBUND???

Nice change of topic. Now that it has become clear that your previous reading of the article was untenable, you now have grasped for some new straws, since you previously came up empty-handed.

The one, true Church founded by Jesus and preserved in all its purity in the patriarchs of the East is at risk of becoming moribund in America?

There is such a thing as being sensationalistic. The author is in fact extrapolating, so we have no reason to believe that such a doomsday scenario will play out, especially with the growth of the Antiochian Archdiocese, which saw over a three-fold increase in parishes over the lifetime of its previous metropolitan, Philip of blessed memory.

So, like I’ve said many times, the EO cannot qualify as the Church which would make disciples of all nations and with which Jesus would remain until the end of time if that Church itself is moribund in at least one nation “in the very near future.”

Like how Latin Christianity went moribund and then extinct in the Levant after the fall of the crusader kingdoms? And what about Scandinavia during the reformation? Well, I guess there goes your true church claim too, but hey, it was worth a shot, since your previous appeal to numbers went up in flames after people pointed out that the Church of the East was in fact once the largest.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Moribund? MORIBUND???

The one, true Church founded by Jesus and preserved in all its purity in the patriarchs of the East is at risk of becoming moribund in America?

So, like I’ve said many times, the EO cannot qualify as the Church which would make disciples of all nations and with which Jesus would remain until the end of time if that Church itself is moribund in at least one nation “in the very near future.”

http://m.ibtimes.com/church-decline-frances-vanishing-catholics-1125241

"But now in the second decade of the 21st century, with the College of Cardinals having elected a new Pontiff in the Vatican – Pope Francis of Argentina – France’s Catholic Churches are increasingly bereft of parishioners.

The numbers are grim. Last year, according to reports, more than one-third (35 percent) of France’s population and almost two-thirds (63 percent) of youth said they belonged to “no religion.”

Very few people, an estimated 1-in-20 of the French, regularly attend Mass anymore."

GRIM!!?? IN FRANCE???

No true church for you!

 

[Casilda]

http://m.ibtimes.com/church-decline-frances-vanishing-catholics-1125241

"But now in the second decade of the 21st century, with the College of Cardinals having elected a new Pontiff in the Vatican – Pope Francis of Argentina – France’s Catholic Churches are increasingly bereft of parishioners.

The numbers are grim. Last year, according to reports, more than one-third (35 percent) of France’s population and almost two-thirds (63 percent) of youth said they belonged to “no religion.”

Very few people, an estimated 1-in-20 of the French, regularly attend Mass anymore."

GRIM!!?? IN FRANCE???

No true church for you!

The obviously, horrendously bias ‘journalist’, who wrote that article was both a hater of Catholics and France. I did catch these references in the same article:

“France is an overwhelmingly Catholic country – up to 88 percent of the population belongs to the Roman Catholic church…”

“Young people have different aspirations,” Feugna stated. “Their interests lie elsewhere. The Church perhaps doesn’t have the right message for young people here.” (My opinion, I see this jargon used against nominal Christians in the US, like why only elderly attend Lutheran churches.)

“The Catholics are dispersed throughout the country, more heavily in the rural areas than in the urban centers, but nevertheless geographically omnipresent,” said Yates."

“One of the most visible showings of French Catholics were the public protests against gay marriage that filled the streets of Paris this winter. If those crowds are any indication, French Catholics have a voice equal to other social forces.”

At least he was stating some facts but definitely came to the wrong conclusions with this las snippet:

“One could say that while the French are no longer a practicing country, they remain nominally Catholic, and retain something of this in their national identity,” he noted.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is more to the EO presence in the USA than the Greek Orthodox. Also, what of those places where Catholicism once thrived but could now be considered moribund?

There are areas where Catholicism (indeed Christianity in general) has faded dramatically; however, saying that Catholicism is no longer a thriving force in those regions does not diminish the fact that at one time, Catholicism had made disciples of those nations…a fulfillment of the Great Commission which Orthodoxy has never achieved.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is more to the EO presence in the USA than the Greek Orthodox. Also, what of those places where Catholicism once thrived but could now be considered moribund?

Nice change of topic. Now that it has become clear that your previous reading of the article was untenable, you now have grasped for some new straws, since you previously came up empty-handed.

There is such a thing as being sensationalistic. The author is in fact extrapolating, so we have no reason to believe that such a doomsday scenario will play out, especially with the growth of the Antiochian Archdiocese, which saw over a three-fold increase in parishes over the lifetime of its previous metropolitan, Philip of blessed memory.

Like how Latin Christianity went moribund and then extinct in the Levant after the fall of the crusader kingdoms? And what about Scandinavia during the reformation? Well, I guess there goes your true church claim too, but hey, it was worth a shot, since your previous appeal to numbers went up in flames after people pointed out that the Church of the East was in fact once the largest.

http://m.ibtimes.com/church-decline-frances-vanishing-catholics-1125241

"But now in the second decade of the 21st century, with the College of Cardinals having elected a new Pontiff in the Vatican – Pope Francis of Argentina – France’s Catholic Churches are increasingly bereft of parishioners.

The numbers are grim. Last year, according to reports, more than one-third (35 percent) of France’s population and almost two-thirds (63 percent) of youth said they belonged to “no religion.”

Very few people, an estimated 1-in-20 of the French, regularly attend Mass anymore."

GRIM!!?? IN FRANCE???

No true church for you!

There are areas where Catholicism (indeed Christianity in general) has faded dramatically; however, saying that Catholicism is no longer a thriving force in those regions does not diminish the fact that at one time, Catholicism had made disciples of those nations…a fulfillment of the Great Commission which Orthodoxy has never achieved.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nice change of topic. Now that it has become clear that your previous reading of the article was untenable, you now have grasped for some new straws, since you previously came up empty-handed.

Nope. At least, I don’t think so. If a Greek marries a Syrian, and they are both considered Orthodox, then that wouldn’t be an interfaith marriage but an intrafaith marriage, wouldn’t it?

Seriously, what do you think the Office of Whatever Marriage is concerned about? If a Greek marries a Syrian and then severs communion with the Greek Orthodox Church but remains Orthodox, why is this a problem? If an Italian Catholic marries an Irish Catholic, do you think Rome is in a panic? No, because that is not an interfaith marriage. However, if the Catholic girl marries the Baptist boy, and then leaves the Catholic Church - that would be a concern because that IS an interfaith marriage.

So, back to my original point…why do you think the author(s) of the article are sounding this alarm concerning “interfaith” marriages and the grim future of the Greek Orthodox Church in America?

And more to my overall point, doesn’t the article’s main premise (namely, that Greek Orthodoxy in America could be in serious trouble “in the very near future”) suggest to you that Orthodoxy’s claim to be the one, true Church cannot be true?

I’m not expecting a very thoughtful answer on the spot, because the implications for you are enormous. But just think about it.

Like how Latin Christianity went moribund and then extinct in the Levant after the fall of the crusader kingdoms? And what about Scandinavia during the reformation? Well, I guess there goes your true church claim too, but hey, it was worth a shot, since your previous appeal to numbers went up in flames after people pointed out that the Church of the East was in fact once the largest.

I asked Ryan Black this previously: could you please specify the century or centuries to which you are referring when you claim that the the “Church of the East” was the largest?

Thanks.