Orthodox Vs. Catholic

[TriuneUnity]

I agree with Triune on this one.

And about the scientists.

Do you think they intentionally lie though?

I am sure they consciously believe their own propaganda. One of those tell the lie enough times and you’ll believe it situations. A few of them are at least intellectually honest. One noted French evolution-touting biologist stated he believed in evolution so he wouldn’t have to feel guilty about sleeping around.

 

[Nicholas82]

I agree with Triune on this one.

And about the scientists.

Do you think they intentionally lie though?

Takes all kinds I guess…

 

[Matariel]

I am sure they consciously believe their own propaganda. One of those tell the lie enough times and you’ll believe it situations. A few of them are at least intellectually honest. One noted French evolution-touting biologist stated he believed in evolution so he wouldn’t have to feel guilty about sleeping around.

Well, let’s look on the bright side; at least he’s honest about sleeping around…

(Crickets chirping in background)

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well, let’s look on the bright side; at least he’s honest about sleeping around…

(Crickets chirping in background)

LOL Yeah. I dunno…I try not to be a fundamentalist about the issue. I just believe the literal six day creation to be an article of faith. It is a continuous statement of the prophets and apostles all the way from Genesis to Revelation. To try and abrogate that witness due to the findings of scientific inquiry is to try to cater divine revelation to the mortal intellects of man. Dangerous stuff.

 

[Matariel]

Takes all kinds I guess…

Hey, Nicholas, how does Holy Orthodoxy feel about evolution?

 

[Matariel]

LOL Yeah. I dunno…I try not to be a fundamentalist about the issue. I just believe the literal six day creation to be an article of faith. It is a continuous statement of the prophets and apostles all the way from Genesis to Revelation. To try and abrogate that witness due to the findings of scientific inquiry is to try to cater divine revelation to the mortal intellects of man. Dangerous stuff.

I agree, but I think it’s ok that some people have the opinion that these days may be loger time periods than 24-hours. Although, methinks they are.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I agree, but I think it’s ok that some people have the opinion that these days may be loger time periods than 24-hours. Although, methinks they are.

Still…the reason for interpreting the “days” that way is to try and fit some form of scientific justification for believing in creation. The “yom” of Genesis 1 is 24-hour day. There is no exegetical reason to interpret it otherwise.

How are you on your whole Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican verklempt thing?

 

[panoikei]

The World would be in so much greater shape, especially here in America, if Holy Orthodoxy and Holy Catholicism were united… we all, Catholic and Orthodox, need to push for this.

There is such a deep rooted culture divide. I considered both for quite a while but much of what I learned verified I have a Latin Understanding of the Church that is really difficult to undo. Not that I want to but I learned so much about Orhtodoxy that I also learned enough to know that I would love to tranfer my rite from Latin Catholic to Byzantine Catholic… I’d love to be at least a deacon in the Eastern Church. I really feel called to the priesthood but I can not do that as a Latin Catholic. So I am discerning the diaconate in the Latin Rite.

Very difficult. Orthodoxy is beautiful, but you might run into a lot of cultural problems that may be an issue later on in your conversion. Catholic Parishes are all over America. Orthodoxy has so many rites that it is really cultural lines that separate them. I’ve spoken with many priests on both sides. That is what you must do…read the historical accounts from both sides. I can’t get past Papal suprimacy as valid. The immaculate conception and original sin just makes sense to me now that I have a grip of both of them.

Think of Original Sin as the wrong words for a moment. Try replacing the word “Sin” with “Woundedness”. Our abiliity to resist sin has been wounded because of Adam and Eve’s sin, not that their sin is conveyed to us. Just for bigginers…something to think about…from my perspective.

 

[Matariel]

Still…the reason for interpreting the “days” that way is to try and fit some form of scientific justification for believing in creation. The “yom” of Genesis 1 is 24-hour day. There is no exegetical reason to interpret it otherwise.

How are you on your whole Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican verklempt thing?

Struggling.

You see, the issue is complacated, because I am so involved in my Anglican Church, and I am an acolyte (crucifer and part-time thurifer). It’s a wonderful church with a growing and vibrant congregation, and the worship is awesome, very beautiful, traditional, and most-importantly, God-honouring and Christ-centered.

I really love and admire the traditionalist faction of the Anglican Church. But their branch theory doesn’t coincide with the Orthodox and Catholic. Also, unicity, one of the four holy marks of the Church, is overthrown by this, which greatly disturbs me.

I think I’m leaning Catholic, due to the Petrine Primacy issue and evidence I’ve looked at. But it’s unbelievably frustrating, as this issue is not clear cut.

Perhaps I will give up and become Lutheran.

By the way, what Lutheran Church do you go to? Curious, sorry.

Anyway, what do you think of the Unicity Doctrine?

 

[Matariel]

Think of Original Sin as the wrong words for a moment. Try replacing the word “Sin” with “Woundedness”. Our abiliity to resist sin has been wounded because of Adam and Eve’s sin, not that their sin is conveyed to us. Just for bigginers…something to think about…from my perspective.

That’s a very good point.

I understand, though, that this is mostly an Eastern way of looking at it. The Western view seems to be more of transgression thing. Not that they necessarily contradict, but…

 

[TriuneUnity]

Struggling.

You see, the issue is complacated, because I am so involved in my Anglican Church, and I am an acolyte (crucifer and part-time thurifer). It’s a wonderful church with a growing and vibrant congregation, and the worship is awesome, very beautiful, traditional, and most-importantly, God-honouring and Christ-centered.

I really love and admire the traditionalist faction of the Anglican Church. But their branch theory doesn’t coincide with the Orthodox and Catholic. Also, unicity, one of the four holy marks of the Church, is overthrown by this, which greatly disturbs me.

I think I’m leaning Catholic, due to the Petrine Primacy issue and evidence I’ve looked at. But it’s unbelievably frustrating, as this issue is not clear cut.

Perhaps I will give up and become Lutheran.

By the way, what Lutheran Church do you go to? Curious, sorry.

Anyway, what do you think of the Unicity Doctrine?

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. I can’t proselytize you LOL so if you wanted to learn more about what we teach feel free to PM me.

I am not familiar with the Unicity Doctrine. Foreign to our concepts I suppose.

 

[Alexius]

Sorry for backtracking…

Oh, I get it… Is this why the Catholic Church tends to favour a Creationist/non-Traducian view, because it calls into question the Immaculate Conception? Isn’t it true that Orthodox believe holy Mary lived without actual sin, at least?

No, I wouldn’t think so. Whether the view is Creationist or Traducian, I can see a way to believe in the Immaculate Conception. Also, the West had generally settled on the Creationist view well before the dogmatization of the IC.

As for the Orthodox, there is no dogma related to the Blessed Virgin’s sinlessness; however, it is just as strongly affirmed in the Liturgy and the Patristic testimony. Most believe in her freedom from personal sin, or atleast that is the truly orthodox position. There are some who attribute lesser sins to her, but this is not common. As for freedom from Original Sin (Immaculate Conception), that is generally rejected by Orthodox, though some theologians in the past have accepted it.

You must’ve studied this a lot. You know this well.

Thanks. I have so much to learn, though…

Yeah, it would! I think it is quite necessary. That would be amazing, especially if it happened in my lifetime. With Holy Orthodoxy and Holy Catholicism united, we’d be able to get so much evangelization and humanitarian work done, as well as being a louder, united voice against modernism and secularism, even the secularism and anti-sacramentalism which is invading the Protestant communities.

It would be good for everyone.

How interesting. Mine was born Wesleyan, then we became Baptists for a short time, then Nazarenes, then independent, then when I was old enough to drive I became Anglican (Traditional, conservative). My parents are Nazarene now. My sister was also Old-Order Amish for 4 years.

I’m glad you left Islam! You make a great Orthodox believer, and you explain Holy Orthodoxy’s positions well. Keep up the good work.

Old-Order Amish? I don’t hear that one very much…

Alexius, Buddy List?

Sure!

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Peter_J]

Those poll results are interesting. Frankly, I was never too enamored of the Eastern liturgy. It’s a little over the top. The Latin form of the liturgy just makes a lot more sense.

Maybe cause the West is over-rational

Hmm. Lutherans and Latin Catholics teaming up against the East. I thought that sign was supposed to come after the four horsepeople?

 

[Matariel]

Sorry for backtracking…

No, I wouldn’t think so. Whether the view is Creationist or Traducian, I can see a way to believe in the Immaculate Conception. Also, the West had generally settled on the Creationist view well before the dogmatization of the IC.

I guess accepting the Creationist or Traducian view is a matter purely of personal opinion, although the West generally believes the creationist view. Which one do you hold to?

As for the Orthodox, there is no dogma related to the Blessed Virgin’s sinlessness; however, it is just as strongly affirmed in the Liturgy and the Patristic testimony. Most believe in her freedom from personal sin, or atleast that is the truly orthodox position. There are some who attribute lesser sins to her, but this is not common. As for freedom from Original Sin (Immaculate Conception), that is generally rejected by Orthodox, though some theologians in the past have accepted it.

Hm. I guess that’s because Catholics view sin as an injustice, whereas Orthodox tend to view sin as a spiritual disease?

Old-Order Amish? I don’t hear that one very much…

Yeah. She lived with them the majority of the time I was a teenager. She’s even thinking about going back to it.

Sure!

 

[TriuneUnity]

Hmm. Lutherans and Latin Catholics teaming up against the East. I thought that sign was supposed to come after the four horsepeople?

“And the eighth seal was opened and the seas roiled and a large plate of lutefisk burst from the depths and on its back was a rider dressed in black with a pointy hat and it consumed an eighth of Greece…”

 

[johnnykins]

I think you would do well to consider the posting of Alvin Kimel on the subject. begin with:
pontifications.wordpress.com/road-to-rome/

and then review his other posts

 

[Alexius]

I guess accepting the Creationist or Traducian view is a matter purely of personal opinion, although the West generally believes the creationist view. Which one do you hold to?

Correct, though the Catholic Church is fairly decided on Creationism (it isn’t de fide, though). I believe most Orthodox theologians have also been Creationists. Most of the Fathers were Creationists, while some were either undecided or tried to find some middle ground. Protestants are likewise mixed. Luther, like Augustine, was undecided. Lutherans are generally Traducian. Calvin preferred Creationism.

Hm. I guess that’s because Catholics view sin as an injustice, whereas Orthodox tend to view sin as a spiritual disease?

Well, the Western tradition (Roman Catholic/Protestant) tends to view sin in a more “legal” frame, whereas the East (Eastern Catholic/Orthodox) tends to view sin as sickness. Both are equally valid and neither is necessarily exclusive. In both traditions, sin is always negative (obviously), so Original Sin, though not a personal fault, is an impurity. The Blessed Virgin, being pure and without sin, was free from sure impurity. That does not exclude the consequences of an Adamic nature (sickness, physical death, concupiscence, etc.), but these are not impurities in spiritual character.

Yeah. She lived with them the majority of the time I was a teenager. She’s even thinking about going back to it.

It’s very close-knit and family-like, so I can see why…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Peter_J]

LOL Yeah. I dunno…I try not to be a fundamentalist about the issue. I just believe the literal six day creation to be an article of faith. It is a continuous statement of the prophets and apostles all the way from Genesis to Revelation. To try and abrogate that witness due to the findings of scientific inquiry is to try to cater divine revelation to the mortal intellects of man. Dangerous stuff.

This is one thing I’ve never really understood: why so many Christians insist that the “six days” had to be six 24-hour periods?

 

[TriuneUnity]

This is one thing I’ve never really understood: why so many Christians insist that the “six days” had to be six 24-hour periods?

Mainly because anything other is not a faithful rendition of the creation passages.

 

[Matariel]

Correct, though the Catholic Church is fairly decided on Creationism (it isn’t de fide, though). I believe most Orthodox theologians have also been Creationists. Most of the Fathers were Creationists, while some were either undecided or tried to find some middle ground. Protestants are likewise mixed. Luther, like Augustine, was undecided. Lutherans are generally Traducian. Calvin preferred Creationism.

I see. To tell you the truth, I think I believe the Traducian view. But I really don’t know. I guess I should accept the Creationist view, since it seems to be favoured by both of the apostolic Churches.

Well, the Western tradition (Roman Catholic/Protestant) tends to view sin in a more “legal” frame, whereas the East (Eastern Catholic/Orthodox) tends to view sin as sickness. Both are equally valid and neither is necessarily exclusive. In both traditions, sin is always negative (obviously), so Original Sin, though not a personal fault, is an impurity. The Blessed Virgin, being pure and without sin, was free from sure impurity. That does not exclude the consequences of an Adamic nature (sickness, physical death, concupiscence, etc.), but these are not impurities in spiritual character.

I totally agree that the two views are not exclusive of each other. Also… why do you say they (the consequences of Adamic nature) are not impurities in spiritual character? If not, then what are they? Noetic (Is this the right word?)?

It’s very close-knit and family-like, so I can see why…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Actually, you’d be surprised how their order-of-service is. They have a very primitive liturgy, but it is still basically a rudimentary form of the Catholic Mass (at least their Communion services).

But to tell you the truth, I wish she wouldn’t. If you look at Holy Orthodoxy or Holy Catholicism and realize that these are authentic Christian faith and practice (or to some people, at least one of them) and then compare them to the Amish Faith, it’s so far different that you’d wonder if they’re the same religion.