Orthodoxy, Papacy

[Ferde_Rombola]

The Orthodox Church does believe in original sin, however what we believe is different from the Roman Catholic church. Correct me if I am wrong but the RC believe all humans share in the guilt of the original sin of Adam and Eve. The EO however do not believe share any guilt but only suffer the consequences of the original sin, such as death and disease, etc.

That’s fundamentally what the Catholic Church teaches, but in many more words.

“… original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin contracted, not committed – a state, not an act.” CCC 404.

"Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice…[it is] an inclination to evil that is called ‘concupiscence.’ " CCC 405

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I am not so sure that it isn’t doing this. If we only look to say “substance” in an everyday kind of way, you might be right. But it isn’t an everyday word, it is technical language and means something quite specific. I t seems to me that it is exactly saying how the change happens - the substance - the essential form and matter - change - but the accidents do not. What is that except saying how the change happens? It is surly more than saying simply that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood.

I think transubstantiation is a nice theory, and I like Aristotle and I think his categories have a lot going for them. But I think perhaps too much emphasis is put on transubstantiation by the CC. It becomes a road block, and can even make people think they know more than they do, or make them think they can trap God in their definitions. But it doesn’t have any real advantages that outweigh these things.

I’m sorry, but that smacks too much of disagreement just because a Catholic said it.

“Transatlantic” means across the Atlantic. It doesn’t say whether we crossed by boat, airplane of swam. Therefore, it means ‘what,’ not ‘how.’ It’s not a theory.

“Transcontinental” means across the continent. It doesn’t say whether we crossed by covered wagon, train, plane walked or ran. It means ‘what,’ not ‘how.’ It’s not a theory.

‘Transubstantiation’ means ‘a cross’ from one substance to another. It means ‘what,’ not ‘how.’ It’s a simple word with a simple meaning. It’s NOT a theory.

All the emphasis put on ‘transubstantiation’ is being put there by you and others, not the Catholic Church.

I apologize if this sounds a little testy, but I’m beginning to lose patience with some of you.

I apologize also to Nine-Two for so many posts in a row.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Point taken, but even then, it seems that some Orthodox (perhaps it’s just the polemicists?) strongly dislike putting a label on something like the consecration. Though, thinking about it, perhaps calling it the consecration alone is enough? Your thoughts?

The consecration is the process, transubstantiation is the result of the process. They are what they are whether we call them what they are or not.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Actually it DOES take intellectual honesty to say what you did in that many people in here think all Anglicans are lost souls without a clue, with no real orders, no real Eucharist, no real succession, no real sacraments, no commitment to the true Gospel, and no hope. The mere fact you consider them following Christ is refreshing in here!

And again you’re correct that there ARE Episcopalians like Mark Lawrence’s diocese and good people in here at CAF like Anna Scott and Solder X, both friends of mine, who are in TEC and have nothing to do with the wackitude of Schiori and her minions.

And have no fear. I’m not a Tim Lincecum worshipper. Just a fan …my Giants are on a roll and I don’t want to jinx them with blasphemies LOL…I’m a wandering soul in between Catholicism and Anglicanism not totally thrilled with either, not sold on several Catholic teachings and certainly not sold on Anglican polity and some of the chaos and women’s ordination in some parts either!

Thanks for the prayers, brother. boy do I need 'em!

Thank you for your message. It doesn’t take much intellectual honesty to discern the difference between those who follow Christ and those who don’t.

We should note, there are many faithful, conservative Episcopalians who are in dismay at what has happened to them. It’s heartbreaking to see their faith torn up by the roots and the churches where they and their families have worshipped for many years taken away from them by heretics who worship at the feet of homosexuality and secular feminism. Satan is ever at work in the entire family of God.

As for Edwin, I agree he’s a very intelligent – and honest – man.

As for you, anyone who worships at the feet of Tim Lincecum is automatically suspect. I will pray for you, too.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

So your argument IS about names! Busted! :bluelite:

Zzzzzzzzzzzz…

"The Church is called Catholic or universal because it has spread throughout the entire world, from one end of the earth to the other. Again, it is called Catholic because it teaches fully and unfailingly all the doctrines which ought to be brought to men’s knowledge, whether concerned with visible things or invisible things, with the realities of heaven or the things of earth. Another reason for the name Catholic is that the Church brings under religious obedience all classes of men, rules and subjects, learned and unlettered…Of this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy: “That you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar ad bulwark of the truth.” St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. 18, 23-25.

This thread was begun by a man trying to discern whether the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church is the true ancient Church. If you know a way to distinguish one from the other without using their names, please let me in on it. Or do you contend their names are irrelevant to the discussion?

Part of the discussion involves who separated from the other. My argument, using the name of the Catholic Church and all that name implies, is NOT about names per se. My argument contends the Catholic Church is the Church descended from Pentecost and is the Church the Lord came to build. I don’t know how to make the case without referring to “The Catholic Church” by name. Demonstrating that the name, and the Church, has been in existence continuously since the 2nd Century is part of the argument. If you know a way I can make the argument without using the name, please tell me. Thanks.

 

[Bluegoat]

I’m sorry, but that smacks too much of disagreement just because a Catholic said it.

“Transatlantic” means across the Atlantic. It doesn’t say whether we crossed by boat, airplane of swam. Therefore, it means ‘what,’ not ‘how.’ It’s not a theory.

“Transcontinental” means across the continent. It doesn’t say whether we crossed by covered wagon, train, plane walked or ran. It means ‘what,’ not ‘how.’ It’s not a theory.

‘Transubstantiation’ means ‘a cross’ from one substance to another. It means ‘what,’ not ‘how.’ It’s a simple word with a simple meaning. It’s NOT a theory.

All the emphasis put on ‘transubstantiation’ is being put there by you and others, not the Catholic Church.

I apologize if this sounds a little testy, but I’m beginning to lose patience with some of you.

I apologize also to Nine-Two for so many posts in a row.

Um, you realize that the idea of transubstantiation is based on Aristotelian categories, right? It isn’t the same as saying “transcontinental”.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Or Pontiac Trans Am. Now I’m in the mood to watch Smokey and the Bandit! “This is Sheriff Beauford T. Justice!!”

Um, you realize that the idea of transubstantiation is based on Aristotelian categories, right? It isn’t the same as saying “transcontinental”.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I read Contarini’s post that this conversation has reached an impasse.

So, here’s a little something to liven it up - Russian Orthodox jokes!

angelfire.com/pa3/OldWorldBasic/Top_Ten_Signs_You_Might_Be_Russian_Orthodox.htm

Orthodox ‘Survivor’

Robinson Krusovsky was shipwrecked on an empty Pacific island. When after a long time a rescue ship came to pick him up, the rescue party found two churches Robinson had built, complete with domes and three-bar crosses on top. ‘Why two?’ they asked. ‘One is the church I go to,’ Robinson explained. ‘The other is the church I don’t go to!’

Train Tale

Two people meet on a train. After some introductory chat, they discover both are Orthodox and of Russian descent.
Vlad: Old Calendar or New Calendar?
Alex: Old.
Vlad: Very good. Do you have a three-hour Vigil in church every Saturday night and before every holy day, even if the holy day is on a Monday?
Alex: Yes.
Vlad: Excellent. Pews or no pews?
Alex: No.
Vlad: Clean-shaven or bearded priest?
Alex: Bearded.
Vlad: Does he wear his cassock and cross on the street?
Alex: Da.
Vlad: Is your jurisdiction ecumenist or non-ecumenist?
Alex: Non.
Vlad: Do you have an old-man Trinity icon?
Alex: Uh, yes.
Vlad: Aha! Heretic!

The Light-Bulb Joke: наша версия

OK, how many Russian Orthodox does it take to change a light bulb?
None. Orthodoxy never changes, and, in addition to burning candles like the Roman Catholics, uses oil-burning lamps. ‘Electricity is for those Gregorian calendar-using, liberal ecumenist jurisdictions.’

Is It Really an ‘All-Night Vigil’?

No, it only feels that long.

The Wild World of Bogus Churches (The Joy of Sects)

The One and Only, Genuinely Holy, Really, Really True, Authentically Genuine, Orthodox, Greco-Russian, Apostolic, Catholic Church of the Upper Cumberlands — Baxter Patriarchate, Inc.

The scary thing is there are lots of little churches just like this parody name: a display of the pathologies that come from schism. They’re not really Orthodox, of course, but like to say they are. What’s even scarier is when real Orthodox sometimes resemble them.

Which Is The Tradition?

In the village of Omsk all was not well in the local Pokrov Parish. Every year, during Lent, at ‘Blessed art Thou, O Lord, teach me Thy statutes’, half of the congregation would make a metany at the waist, and half would make a full prostration. The little metanists would start whispering sharply, ‘No! No! From the waist!’ To which the great metanists would hiss back even louder, ‘Wrong! Full prostration! Who are you following, the Devil?!’ And fistfights would break out and the service could not even be completed.

Finally the war-weary parishioners decided to ask their priest, Fr Veniamin. ‘Batiushka, what is the tradition? In Lent, at “Blessed art Thou”, do we make a little metany, or a great metany?’ Knowing the rancour attached to the dispute, poor Fr Veniamin trembled, grew pale, then fainted dead away and fell backwards.

So next they went to the Skete of the Forerunner, and asked Fr Onouphry: ‘Batiushka, we want to know, we have a terrible argument at Omsk–what is the tradition? Because half the people say to make small metanies at “Blessed art Thou” now, and half say great metanies. And we start fighting, terrible, terrible. So, tell us, what is the Tradition?’ Seeing the ferocity in their faces, poor Hieromonk Anatoly simply fainted dead away.

Then someone shouted, ‘Let’s go to Elder Ioann and ask him!‘ It was a marvellous idea. Surely the elder’s answer would bring peace, for he was respected by all, a native of Omsk, and his hoary 94 years guaranteed a knowledge of what the old tradition had been.

So a large crowd gathered at the elder’s dacha on the outskirts of town. Some 15 men from both sides entered the dacha, and found frail Elder Ioann lying on his bed. As he struggled to draw himself up and offer tea, they cut him off: ‘Elder Ioann, you have to help us! What is the Tradition? Every year in Lent, at “Blessed art Thou, O Lord”, half of the people at Pokrov make little metanies, and half the people great metanies, and we start to argue, and the service doesn’t even finish because of the fistfight!’ Then Elder Ioann said firmly, in his voice shaking with age, and with tears streaming down his joyful face, ‘That… is… the Tradition!’

The part I bolded in the last joke, is very authentically Russian, according to my Russian acquaintances. If you don’t follow the Tradition, whatever that may be in my book, then you are probably following the Devil!

 

[Shiranui117]

Zzzzzzzzzzzz…

"The Church is called Catholic or universal because it has spread throughout the entire world, from one end of the earth to the other. Again, it is called Catholic because it teaches fully and unfailingly all the doctrines which ought to be brought to men’s knowledge, whether concerned with visible things or invisible things, with the realities of heaven or the things of earth. Another reason for the name Catholic is that the Church brings under religious obedience all classes of men, rules and subjects, learned and unlettered…Of this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy: “That you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar ad bulwark of the truth.” St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. 18, 23-25.

This thread was begun by a man trying to discern whether the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church is the true ancient Church. If you know a way to distinguish one from the other without using their names, please let me in on it. Or do you contend their names are irrelevant to the discussion?

Part of the discussion involves who separated from the other. My argument, using the name of the Catholic Church and all that name implies, is NOT about names per se. My argument contends the Catholic Church is the Church descended from Pentecost and is the Church the Lord came to build. I don’t know how to make the case without referring to “The Catholic Church” by name. Demonstrating that the name, and the Church, has been in existence continuously since the 2nd Century is part of the argument. If you know a way I can make the argument without using the name, please tell me. Thanks.

The teachings are what we should primarily focus on, and, as I’m sure we’ve all observed, discerning between the two is honestly about impossible. In the end, we DO have to leave it up to God to show us. But we should not say that because the early Church was called Catholic and that the RCC is also called Catholic, that the RCC is automatically the ancient Church. The EO also call themselves the Orthodox Catholic Church, as has been repeated at least twice in this thread and perhaps more. In addition, if we were to judge solely on St. Cyril’s quote, both Churches have a vast variety of people under their belts, each have rich histories that are far too long to discuss in their entirety in this topic alone, each have a number of theological and cultural traditions. Though, the Catholic Church does have more of these traditions, especially liturgical, so that gives us a point in this area. But the Orthodox CATHOLIC Churches also have points that can go to them as well.

Inevitably, it boils down to which of the Churches in question is more faithful to the teachings of the early Church, and both are better and worse than each other in different areas, and each can make the writings of the early Fathers, and make the writings of Scripture itself, suit one’s argument. When someone points you to a bible verse to back up their argument, that person’s opponent may very well have the same verse in mind to back up THEIR argument, as I have actually seen happen on these forums.

The continuing use of a name has been partially (okay, hardly-ever) used to justify the existence of FYROM, but we all see the chickenstorm of controversy that has started. But it is not the name of the country that matters, it is the history and culture behind it. If there is a continuity back to the origins that the country claims, then that country is legitimate. It is the same thing with the question over which Church is truly catholic. We have seen Germany be called the Holy Roman Empire before, does that mean that Germany doesn’t sit on the same soil that the Holy Roman Empire once encompassed?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Um, you realize that the idea of transubstantiation is based on Aristotelian categories, right? It isn’t the same as saying “transcontinental”.

Did Aristotle use the word? His theory uses the words ‘accidents’ and ‘substance.’ I’m not aware he called it transubstantiation. If he did, you’re right.

 

[Nine_Two]

First of all let me THANK YOU for being intellectually honest enough to differentiate between the conservative Anglicans and the Episcopalians. You’re part of a huge minority of Catholics in here that do not smear Anglicans and join them at the hip with Episcopalians as being “all the same thing.” I appreciate you pointing that out, even if you do disagree with Anglican spirituality being a Catholic.

What is interesting is that this distinction is only present, and maybe even possible, in the United States. Here in Canada our branch of that Communion has gone as far as the Episcopal Church, yet because it is called the Anglican Church of Canada we can’t distinguish between the two groups. I met my first American “Anglican” not all that long ago and was amused that she found it offensive to be called Episcopalian, not because I don’t agree with her, but because from the Canadian perspective they’re the same thing. I work with a couple of dissident Anglicans whose parish broke from the Communion several years ago, and recently voted to join Rome, and they are just fine calling themselves by the same name as that large body from which they split.

 

[Nine_Two]

Did Aristotle use the word? His theory uses the words ‘accidents’ and ‘substance.’ I’m not aware he called it transubstantiation. If he did, you’re right.

Aristotle spoke Greek, not Latin.

 

[Bluegoat]

Did Aristotle use the word? His theory uses the words ‘accidents’ and ‘substance.’ I’m not aware he called it transubstantiation. If he did, you’re right.

The use of transubstantiation you see now was defined by Thomas, who was the premier medieval interpreter of Aristotle. He used the newly recovered works of Aristotle to revolutionize systematic theology in the Western Church. Which is why when you look up the doctrine of transubstantiation you will see it talking about substance and accidents. And if you read Aristotle, you see that even the word substance is not meant in a simple way.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

The use of transubstantiation you see now was defined by Thomas, who was the premier medieval interpreter of Aristotle. He used the newly recovered works of Aristotle to revolutionize systematic theology in the Western Church. Which is why when you look up the doctrine of transubstantiation you will see it talking about substance and accidents. And if you read Aristotle, you see that even the word substance is not meant in a simple way.

All that is true, but calling it ‘the doctrine of transubstantiation’ is begging the question. The Catholic teaching is:

"To the revealed Word that “my flesh is true food, my blood is true drink”** the Church labeled the belief “Transubstantiation.**” Transubstantiation reflects Roman Catholic faith in the literalness of the words of the Bible.

Transubstantiation means the substance part of the bread and wine elements changes; but the accidental parts–sight, taste, smell, touch–do not. Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. They believe! “Transubstantiation" merely labels it.”

                     Catholic Bible Apologetics, Flanagan & Schihl

As I’ve said, the doctrine is the consecration. Transubstantiation is the result. I contend it’s just a word in the same class as transcontinental.

 

[steve_b]

No. I was going off the word erred.

You tied error by the Catholic Church, with giving up Christianity. Ergo that would have to be a HUGE error. What error would this be?

 

[steve_b]

That’s fundamentally what the Catholic Church teaches, but in many more words.

“… original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin contracted, not committed – a state, not an act.” CCC 404.

"Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice…[it is] an inclination to evil that is called ‘concupiscence.’ " CCC 405

I would hope the EO response to this is…Agreed.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

LOL

Aristotle spoke Greek, not Latin.

 

[rinnie]

The consecration is the process, transubstantiation is the result of the process. They are what they are whether we call them what they are or not.

Exactly Ferde. The early Church used a certain Greek word to describe this reality. oarousis whech means presence, arrival coming or advent.

Many non-Catholics use it to denot the so-called 2nd comming of Christ at the end of time, distinct from his daily coming in the Eucharist.

The historian Jaroslav Pelikan writing as a Lutheran observed of the Early Church. The coming of Christ was already and not yet!

He HAD COME ALREADY in the incarnation and on the basis of the incarnation would come in the Eucharist. He would come already in the Eucharist and would come at the last in the new cup that he would drink with them in His Fathers kingdom.

He concludes The Eucharistic Liturgy was not a compensation for the postponement of the Parouisa, but a way of celebrating the PRESENCE of the ONE who PROMISED TO RETURN.

Through a final parousia will one day come, the Eucharist is here and now!!

What the ancients saw in the Parousis is what we today should see as the REAL PRESENCE.

That is the presence we know in the Eucharist. It is a poweful reality full of Christ heavenly GLORY though we cannot SEE HIM in ALL his Glory. THIS REAL, Substantial DIVINE PRESENCE is what makes our OATH our SACRAMENTUM POSSIBLE AND VALID!!

That is why the Eucharist is a Sacrament left here for us by Christ. Although it is not the ONLY Sacrament we find him present it is one that ties into the Sacrament of Marriage alot also.

Because the parousia of Christ in the Eucharist is something many need to discover. It is the marriage supper of the Lamb. Something that consummates a ONE-Flesh Union that is lasting and life-giving.

Just like a Marriage is sacrament that unites Man and Wife together and is everlasting.

That is why Jesus is one with his CHurch through the Eucharist the same as Man and Wife become one through marriage. ANd how we become one in CHrist through the Eucharst we become one in CHrist with eachother through marriage.

Very few can understand this.

 

[Nate_J]

JimCBrooklyn,

This thread appears to have gone all over the place and may perhaps now be slowing down. I’m not particularly well educated on the issues, but I have a couple questions that I figure I’ll throw out that may end up helping you as well. I’m coming from an evangelical background and have been moving towards the Catholic Church, but feel obligated to examine the Orthodox claims. I’ve been reading a book by the Orthodox Bishop Ware (mentioned in an earlier post) so that’s my main source for knowledge of Orthodoxy.

Question 1: Why didn’t the Orthodox (eastern) Churches accuse the Pope of heresy earlier than they did? In my own search into the origins of the papacy, it seems to me that what start out as quotes more open to interpretation soon move into less ambiguous statements later on. Popes were claiming they had to confirm the decisions of any counsel and that everyone should agree with them at least by Leo I in the mid fifth century. I’m assuming that these claims only increased in tone. If this really constituted a true novelty wouldn’t it have been sufficient enough to provoke immediate (or whatever passed for rapid in the time period) responses from all the other patriarchs?

Question 2: I would appreciate it if any Orthodox posters could provide me with some links to materials by the early church fathers that point to the infallibility of church councils (and especially to only church councils). I don’t doubt that they’re out there, but am unfamiliar with them.

Right now I’m ok with the idea that the Papacy has developed. The Orthodox alternative in terms of church structure is still somewhat hazy to me. Both models obviously represent some level of development, and after that’s acknowledged the Catholic model certainly still seems appealing especially because of its ability to function independent of governmental authorities.

I wish you and all others well and thank anyone able to provide useful information for me. May God guide us all to mutual love, truth, and unity.

Peace,

Nate

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Especially since, as the poster noted, ROCOR at that time was not on good terms with the other Orthodox churches, and was not recognized as being Orthodox by most. It only makes sense that they would feel likewise. The poster is basically saying that if there is one break away group that doesn’t recognize the main body, they both must be wrong. By this logic the Catholic Church is also wrong.

Still, ROCOR had good relations with the following Churches:
-the Russian Catacomb Church, i.e. the fraction that has not gone into apostasy like the Moscow Patriarch did, by making statements supportive of Communism
-with the MP, their only beef was that the Patriarch came out in 1927 with a public statement supporting the Bolshevik, Communist regime. Other than that, they still appreciated that the MP did not adopt the New Calendar, pews in the church buildings (something present in Greek and Antiochian EO churches), and musical instruments (some Greek EO churches have musical instruments).
-they had a good relation with the monasteries on Mount Athos. These monasteries, and their monks, are Old Calendar, and stopped remembering the EP in protest for his involvement in ecumenism.
-they would heartily approve of the Old Calendar fractions in Greece (Churches established by Bishops Matthew and Florin, i.e. Matthewites and Florinists)
-they regarded the Serbian EO Church as having stayed true to the Old Calendar.

Having learned about the Calendar issue, my problem was that 90-150 million Russian Orthodox, as well as millions of Serbian Orthodox and the very important monks of Athos, use the Old Calendar, and many of them regard the New Calendar Churches, accounting for other tens of millions under the EP, in Romania, and elsewhere, as heretics. According to the Old Calendar Churches, the Gregorian calendar was condemned three times by pan-Orthodox councils, starting with the 16th century. The date of Pascha was set by an Ecumenical Council (probably Nicaea, but I’m not sure), and could only be changed by an Ecumenical Council, according to them. Thus when the EP of Constantinople changed the calendar, on his own authority, without an Ecumenical Council, that was regarded by millions of Orthodox, in Russia, Greece, Mount Athos, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania, as illegitimate. Eventually the Metropolitan of the Church of Greece, and Patriarchs of Bulgaria and Romania adopted the New Calendar, and that lead to schisms in Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania. The EO Bishops in Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania, who went into schism, and the faithful laity rejecting the New Calendar, regarded their Metropolitans and Patriarchs as heretics. Under the EO ecclesiological model, i.e. “all Bishops are equal”, I can see how it’s perfectly reasonable for a Bishop to reject the authority of his Patriarch/Metropolitan, if he thinks that the latter has fallen into heresy. Moreover, the Orthodox ecclesiological model allows the laity to reject the decisions of their Patriarchs, Metropolitans, and Bishops, see the widespread rejection of the Unions of Florence and Brest, by the laity. Thus, when the laity in Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania rejected the New Calendar, they acted in accord with this Orthodox model of ecclesiology. Moreover, the present-day Russian Orthodox laypeople I know would not accept the New Calendar. They celebrate Christmas on January 7, and they wouldn’t want to move that to December 25. This is part of their Russian identity, and you could travel from Karelia and St. Petersburg in the West, all the way to Siberia, the Kamchatka Peninsula and the Kuryl Islands in the East, accross the great Russian fatherland, and it’s all Old Calendar, and they celebrate Christmas on January 7. Not only do they stick to their own Calendar, the majority of Russian laypeople I knew regarded the New Calendar as un-Orthodox. If the MP wanted the change the calendar, the laypeople would riot. Like they rioted after the Unions of Florence and Brest.

The clergy’s and laypeople’s role in Orthodox and Catholic ecclesiology seems different. When Pope Paul VI wrote the encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968, there was open revolt among the Catholic clergy (Bishops, Priests), and laity, against his condemnation of artificial birth control. Yet this is of no consequence to the clarity of Catholic teaching. All clergy and laity must agree with Peter’s successor, according to Catholic ecclesiology. There’s no doubt as to what’s the Catholic teaching, even if there are still dissenting priests who refuse to address the issue of ABC from the pulpits. Even if there are many Catholic laypeople who disobey the Chuch and use ABC, the teaching of the Catholic Church is clear, and those who want to obey, will not be left among doubts, without guidance.

When I was considering Orthodoxy, I fealt very much among doubts, without guidance, regarding the Calendar issue. I grew up in New Calendar Romania, I never met a Romanian who celebrated according to the Old Calendar (there is an Old Calendar Romanian Church, and Old Calendar Romanian Bishops not in communion with the Romanian Patriarch, I learned later. But I haven’t met them in my life). I knew millions of Romanians celebrated according to the New Calendar, but then I started dating a Russian woman, and alas, the Russians I met regarded the New Calendar as a heresy. And the monks of Mount Athos, and others, agreed with them.

I bolded the following in Nine_Two’s post: [ROCOR]** “was not recognized as being Orthodox by most”**. Yet, ROCOR and the monks of Mt. Athos would turn the table, and would not recognize the New Calendar Churches as Orthodox. I never found a solution to this dilemma, under the Orthodox model of ecclesiology.