Questions about Orthodoxy

[slh3016]

What was the name of the book they placed in your mailbox?

I tend to look for the best in a persons actions and words. In this case I would place myself in your Orthodox friends shoes and imagine what I would say to if my Baptist friend or god forbid a Catholic friend who was leaning towards JW or atheism. I wouldn’t be as forceful but I would try to convince them to stay/swim over. Why? Because I truly and honestly believe that that person is placing their soul in mortal danger. Maybe your O friend honestly and truly believes, however misguided, that your soul is in danger?

Thirsting for God in a Land of Shallow Wells by Matthew Gallatin.

Yes, the bolded is what I’m trying to ascertain as to whether this IS the prevalent Orthodox believe or just that of a small minority.

It’s just ironic that we’ve known this person for YEARS and never once has he tried to share his faith with us UNTIL he thinks we are about to become Catholic

 

[wynd]

Thanks for explaining that. However, I wonder what happens if a bishop/synod in one geographic area differs in opinion from a bishop/synod in another geographic area Does this happen and if so, how is that handled? Surely, there has to be some way to resolve theological differences or differences on moral practice.

The bishops or local churches can talk to each other or come together in a council, either regionally or worldwide, to discuss things. We look to the first 7 ecumenical councils as clarifying and defending the major points of the faith (Christology, the role of icons, etc.), and have had countless other councils at every level.

 

[slh3016]

The bishops or local churches can talk to each other or come together in a council, either regionally or worldwide, to discuss things. We look to the first 7 ecumenical councils as clarifying and defending the major points of the faith (Christology, the role of icons, etc.), and have had countless other councils at every level.

Is this done just between each Metropolitan See or between Sees (forgive me for probably not using the correct terminology)?

In other words, do just the Greek Orthodox have their own councils and the Antiochian Orthodox have their own councils or do all the Orthodox churches in communion with each other come together?

 

[Rohzek]

Does Orthodoxy promote the concept of a “between state” or a “purification” upon death?

Yes, there is a tradition of such a basic belief, but it isn’t as codified or specified as Roman Catholicism’s beliefs. A lot of Orthodox do believe in some form of what you speak, but have serious issues with Catholicism’s understandings of Purgatory. In other words, the Orthodox mostly don’t reject the general concept of Purgatory, but rather reject Catholicism’s interpretation of it.

So, in your opinion, though, does Orthodoxy hold both Catholicism and Protestantism to be equally heretical? I know that Catholics definitely hold a more higher view of Orthodoxy than of Protestantism but I didn’t know if the feeling was mutual.

In some sense yes. Orthodox generally see Catholicism and Protestantism as two sides of the same coin, but in general agree that Catholicism has held on to more of the same basic traditions than Protestantism has.

As for Catholics being too deferential, what is the Orthodox stance on that? Are Orthodox free to disagree with the doctrine and dogma of Orthodoxy or do they have to agree to it all to convert?

There is nothing wrong with being deferential, but when it dulls critical thought, then there is a problem. Orthodox have to agree with all of the Orthodox dogmas. That being said, there are many many schools of thought within Orthodoxy that conflict with each other on matters such as birth control, women in the priesthood, the Filioque, etc. There is no rush to reach a final definitive conclusion on these matters until everyone feels that the matter has been sufficiently debated.

So does Orthodoxy have a defined position on moral issues or is that relative to each person and their circumstance? For instance, where does one go to find its beliefs on things such as birth control, family planning, IVF, etc.? I ask with legitimate curiosity.

Orthodoxy does not have an official position on birth control. Many Orthodox feel that most forms of birth control are okay, with the exception of abortificants. Many also feel the same way as Catholics in that only Natural Family Planning is okay. However, despite these differences in schools of thought, all Orthodox believe that the point of marriage is to raise a child, either through adoption or the normal means. So you won’t find any Orthodox who would be okay with two people marrying, and then intentionally never having kids. They would find that to be really selfish and counter-intuitive to marriage.

I’d like to research this more for a better understanding…thanks!!

As for the book, it is “Thirsting for God in a Land of Shallow Wells” by Matthew Gallatin.

A good book on Orthodoxy, which also happens to draw comparisons between Catholicism and Protestantism is Timothy Ware’s The Orthodox Church. I highly recommend it. Whether the book you have now is sufficient or good I do not know.

I know Orthodoxy has the Eucharist, but I can’t seem to wrap my head around the authoritative structure (or possibly, the lack of one)……can you explain that to me, please?

Thanks so much!

So here is how the authoritative structure of Orthodoxy works. First off, Orthodoxy believe that the only structures established by the apostles are bishops, deacons/deaconesses, and priests. All bishops are equal. However, due to the growing complexity of the church, it has become necessary to develop more hierarchy. So thus the church body agrees on appointing archbishops, patriarchs, and metropolitans. So the basic structure is treated as doctrinal, but the additional hierarchy is treated as canonical, which can be amended as circumstances demand.

In Orthodoxy, there are two types of churches: autocephalous and autonomous. Autocephalous churches have a council or synod of bishops who elect the head of the church in a certain geographic area, which is either an archbishop or patriarch. In some of these autocephalous churches, archbishop is the highest rank rather than patriarch. Autonomous churches are also self-governing, but they have their heads appointed by the leader of a nearby autocephalous church. For example, the monastery at Mt. Sinai in Egypt is an autonomous self-governing church. But the patriarch of Jerusalem appoints it leader. Another example is the Church of Cyprus. It is self-governing, but the Patriarch of Constantinople appoints its archbishop.

When some sort of disciplinary problem arises, with let’s say a priest, and that priest does not agree with the ruling of the head of his church, then the priest can take his case to a nearby autocephalous church for an outside opinion. For example, a priest dislikes the ruling of his Patriarch of Alexandria. So he then appeals to the Patriarch of Jerusalem for an outside judgment. These appeals are not always granted, and when they do the outcome might very well remain the same.

Another point you might be interested in is the fact that the autocephalous churches are ranked in honor. So something along the lines of 1.) Constantinople, 2.) Alexandria, 3.) Antioch, 4.) Jerusalem, etc. These are merely honorifics, and do not imply superiority or jurisdiction over the other. For example, the Patriarch of Constantinople cannot tell the Patriarch of Antioch what he can or cannot do within his jurisdiction and vice versa.

 

[Rohzek]

Maybe the posters who participate in this Catholic forum are not representative of the EO as a whole, but as we have seen in the past (and may again in this thread), the sample set of EO here at CAF has a LOT of issues with Catholicism: our baptisms are not full immersion, our creed is corrupted, Mary is not the Immaculate Conception, the pope has no universal jurisdiction, etc, etc. I do appreciate that you think they have a few of those things right.

I would like to point out that when I converted to Orthodoxy from Catholicism, my Catholic baptism was accepted as legitimate. I only underwent the holy oil ceremony during my conversion. What most Orthodox tend to focus on is whether or not the person was baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity.

Is this done just between each Metropolitan See or between Sees (forgive me for probably not using the correct terminology)?

In other words, do just the Greek Orthodox have their own councils and the Antiochian Orthodox have their own councils or do all the Orthodox churches in communion with each other come together?

Councils defining doctrine are held by a gathering of all the churches. So people gather from the Church of Antioch, Moscow, Constantinople, Jerusalem, etc. Bishops attend for the most part, but often other people attend as well historically, such as monks, politicians, etc. They can all speak, but only the bishops vote.

There are smaller and more local councils that might discuss doctrinal stuff, but their rulings are not binding on all Orthodox peoples. In other words, if it is just a very localized heresy being discussed, then no one feels the need to have a worldwide gathering to settle the matter.

 

[slh3016]

Yes, there is a tradition of such a basic belief, but it isn’t as codified or specified as Roman Catholicism’s beliefs. A lot of Orthodox do believe in some form of what you speak, but have serious issues with Catholicism’s understandings of Purgatory. In other words, the Orthodox mostly don’t reject the general concept of Purgatory, but rather reject Catholicism’s interpretation of it.

How does Orthodoxy see or define Catholicism’s view of purgatory because, the last I knew, it really wasn’t defined. For instance, some have proposed it was a “place” while others in history say it’s a “process.”

In some sense yes. Orthodox generally see Catholicism and Protestantism as two sides of the same coin, but in general agree that Catholicism has held on to more of the same basic traditions than Protestantism has.

There is nothing wrong with being deferential, but when it dulls critical thought, then there is a problem. Orthodox have to agree with all of the Orthodox dogmas. That being said, there are many many schools of thought within Orthodoxy that conflict with each other on matters such as birth control, women in the priesthood, the Filioque, etc. There is no rush to reach a final definitive conclusion on these matters until everyone feels that the matter has been sufficiently debated.

So, in the absence of a definitive conclusion, how does a practicing Orthodox ascertain what God allows and doesn’t allow? At what point, does “everyone” feel it’s sufficiently debated? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years?

I’m not trying to be snarky but it seems to me that this indefinite period of debate can muddy the waters and end up making a decision “relative” when absolute truth is anything but “relative”

Orthodoxy does not have an official position on birth control. Many Orthodox feel that most forms of birth control are okay, with the exception of abortificants. Many also feel the same way as Catholics in that only Natural Family Planning is okay. However, despite these differences in schools of thought, all Orthodox believe that the point of marriage is to raise a child, either through adoption or the normal means. So you won’t find any Orthodox who would be okay with two people marrying, and then intentionally never having kids. They would find that to be really selfish and counter-intuitive to marriage.

So, are birth control pills considered abortificants in the eyes of the Orthodox?

Another good book on Orthodoxy, which also happens to draw comparisons between Catholicism and Protestantism is Timothy Ware’s The Orthodox Church. I highly recommend it.

Thanks, I’ll take a look at it.

So here is how the authoritative structure of Orthodoxy works. First off, Orthodoxy believe that the only structures established by the apostles are bishops, deacons/deaconesses, and priests. All bishops are equal. However, due to the growing complexity of the church, it has become necessary to develop more hierarchy. So thus the church body agrees on appointing archbishops, patriarchs, and metropolitans. So the basic structure is treated as doctrinal, but the additional hierarchy is treated as canonical, which can be amended as circumstances demand.

In Orthodoxy, there are two types of churches: autocephalous and autonomous. Autocephalous churches have a council or synod of bishops who elect the head of the church in a certain geographic area, which is either an archbishop or patriarch. In some of these autocephalous churches, archbishop is the highest rank rather than patriarch. Autonomous churches are also self-governing, but they have their heads appointed by the leader of a nearby autocephalous church. For example, the monastery at Mt. Sinai in Egypt is an autonomous self-governing church. But the patriarch of Jerusalem appoints it leader. Another example is the Church of Cyprus. It is self-governing, but the Patriarch of Constantinople appoints its archbishop.

When some sort of disciplinary problem arises, with let’s say a priest, and that priest does not agree with the ruling of the head of his church, then the priest can take his case to a nearby autocephalous church for an outside opinion. For example, a priest dislikes the ruling of his Patriarch of Alexandria. So he then appeals to the Patriarch of Jerusalem for an outside judgment. These appeals are not always granted, and when they do the outcome might very well remain the same.

Another point you might be interested in is the fact that the autocephalous churches are ranked in honor. So something along the lines of 1.) Constantinople, 2.) Alexandria, 3.) Antioch, 4.) Jerusalem, etc. These are merely honorifics, and do not imply superiority or jurisdiction over the other. For example, the Patriarch of Constantinople cannot tell the Patriarch of Antioch what he can or cannot do within his jurisdiction and vice versa.

So, if a priest being disciplined can appeal to the nearest Patriarch, but that Patriarch has no authority over another Patriarch, how does a situation get resolved? I’m confused.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ryan wrote:

"I would agree that some Orthodox are afflicted with what you call “Little Brother Syndrome.”

I will happily accept a “refutation” like that any day.

Oh…I see that you have decided to follow your wife into the Orthodox Church. Best wishes to you on your journey east.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would like to point out that when I converted to Orthodoxy from Catholicism, my Catholic baptism was accepted as legitimate. I only underwent the holy oil ceremony during my conversion. What most Orthodox tend to focus on is whether or not the person was baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity.

This is happy news…well, at least the part about the validity of your baptism. As I tried to indicate in my post, the hyper-Orthodox crowd that posts in this forum is less accepting of baptism that is not by full immersion, but other EO accept it - as you found out.

 

[Rohzek]

How does Orthodoxy see or define Catholicism’s view of purgatory because, the last I knew, it really wasn’t defined. For instance, some have proposed it was a “place” while others in history say it’s a “process.”

Orthodox don’t tie their concept of Purgatory, if we may call it that, to indulgences. But some Orthodox do believe that sins can be forgiven after death.

So, in the absence of a definitive conclusion, how does a practicing Orthodox ascertain what God allows and doesn’t allow? At what point, does “everyone” feel it’s sufficiently debated? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years?

I’m not trying to be snarky but it seems to me that this indefinite period of debate can muddy the waters and end up making a decision “relative” when absolute truth is anything but “relative”

Ecumenical councils are generally accepted as definitive. That being said, the next question to follow is how someone knows whether or not a council is ecumenical. That is a deep rabbit hole to go down, as Orthodoxy has no set definition as to what makes a council ecumenical. I am of the personal belief that ecumenical merely means a council that is widely attended by bishops from throughout the known world, and makes rulings that people feel to be correct. I know this sounds pretty relative, and it really gets into theological epistemology. So allow me to explain it another way, at least from my perspective. Please note, not all Orthodox would agree with my assessment.

If you presuppose as granted that there is a God, there is a Holy Spirit, that there is a tradition, and that there is a revealed scripture, then there is no need to skip the steps to arrive at the conclusion of a council’s arguments. It is one thing to read the conclusion and thesis. But it is quite another thing to say that a conclusion and thesis are justified in their own right. Yet, nevertheless, by the very virtue of the creation of these conclusions and theses, skipping the process at which develops those said conclusions is simply irrational. Therefore, we have arrived at the all-important point, in that we are mainly dealing with honorifics. Simply put, theological truths are only purported to be infallible or settled out of respect and belief for specific arguments as a whole, not because they positively are true. So therefore, someone who disagrees with an accepted argument of a said ecumenical council, will obviously not believe that ecumenical council to in fact be ecumenical and correct. This is obviously what happened at the Council of Chalcedon in the fifth century, when the Oriental Orthodox Church split off from the rest of us.

So, are birth control pills considered abortificants in the eyes of the Orthodox?

For the most part, yes, but it really depends on the type of pill and the dosage of hormones it contains. In India recently, they have developed a birth control pill that suppresses male sperm production. So a lot of the issues that arise from the pill will hopefully be resolved by this new pill.

So, if a priest being disciplined can appeal to the nearest Patriarch, but that Patriarch has no authority over another Patriarch, how does a situation get resolved? I’m confused.

Appeals are the only possible exceptions to this rule, but with limits. For the most part, appeals are rejected, so they are highly irregular. During an appeal process, if the Patriarch of Jerusalem rules against the initial ruling of Alexandria, then two things can happen. Either Alexandria agrees, or it rejects it. If Alexandria rejects it, then the appeal might be deferred to yet another patriarch, such as Antioch. If Antioch rules against Alexandria, and Alexandria rejects it yet again, which is highly unlikely, then we have a serious problem. What will likely occur is that the other churches will censure Alexandria for its obstinance. If the situation continues to escalate, then the other autocephalous churches might begin to rescind their recognition of the ruling Patriarch of Alexandria as the legitimate ruler. At that point, the bishops of the Church of Alexandria will likely call a local synod, and demand that their patriarch submit to the ruling. If he refuses, they will likely depose him and appoint a new head. Something this complicated and drawn out is quite rare though.

 

[wynd]

This is happy news…well, at least the part about the validity of your baptism. As I tried to indicate in my post, the hyper-Orthodox crowd that posts in this forum is less accepting of baptism that is not by full immersion, but other EO accept it - as you found out.

My Catholic baptism was also accepted and I was chrismated, not baptized, when I joined the Church. However, it’s still recognized that triple complete immersion is ideal, even if other forms are sometimes accepted.

(Disclaimer: I was six months old when I was baptized, so I have no idea how I was baptized. It could have been triple immersion for all I know.)

 

[wynd]

Is this done just between each Metropolitan See or between Sees (forgive me for probably not using the correct terminology)?

In other words, do just the Greek Orthodox have their own councils and the Antiochian Orthodox have their own councils or do all the Orthodox churches in communion with each other come together?

Both. For example, my church, the OCA (Orthodox Church in America), meets every 3 years in what’s called the All-American Council. They can also meet more frequently, as happened in 2012 when our Metropolitan stepped down and they had to meet to elect a new one. On a world scale, the heads of all the churces are supposed to meet next year in a pan-Orthodox council.

 

[RyanBlack]

Ryan wrote:

"I would agree that some Orthodox are afflicted with what you call “Little Brother Syndrome.”

I will happily accept a “refutation” like that any day.

Oh…I see that you have decided to follow your wife into the Orthodox Church. Best wishes to you on your journey east.

Did you read the rest of what I wrote? Furthermore, I urge to stop using that highly insulting and condescending term. It serves no good purpose.

 

[slh3016]

Orthodox don’t tie their concept of Purgatory, if we may call it that, to indulgences. But some Orthodox do believe that sins can be forgiven after death.

Ecumenical councils are generally accepted as definitive. That being said, the next question to follow is how someone knows whether or not a council is ecumenical. That is a deep rabbit hole to go down, as Orthodoxy has no set definition as to what makes a council ecumenical. I am of the personal belief that ecumenical merely means a council that is widely attended by bishops from throughout the known world, and makes rulings that people feel to be correct. I know this sounds pretty relative, and it really gets into theological epistemology. So allow me to explain it another way, at least from my perspective. Please note, not all Orthodox would agree with my assessment.

If you presuppose as granted that there is a God, there is a Holy Spirit, that there is a tradition, and that there is a revealed scripture, then there is no need to skip the steps to arrive at the conclusion of a council’s arguments. It is one thing to read the conclusion and thesis. But it is quite another thing to say that a conclusion and thesis are justified in their own right. Yet, nevertheless, by the very virtue of the creation of these conclusions and theses, skipping the process at which develops those said conclusions is simply irrational. Therefore, we have arrived at the all-important point, in that we are mainly dealing with honorifics. Simply put, theological truths are only purported to be infallible or settled out of respect and belief for specific arguments as a whole, not because they positively are true. So therefore, someone who disagrees with an accepted argument of a said ecumenical council, will obviously not believe that ecumenical council to in fact be ecumenical and correct. This is obviously what happened at the Council of Chalcedon in the fifth century, when the Oriental Orthodox Church split off from the rest of us.

For the most part, yes, but it really depends on the type of pill and the dosage of hormones it contains. In India recently, they have developed a birth control pill that suppresses male sperm production. So a lot of the issues that arise from the pill will hopefully be resolved by this new pill.

Appeals are the only possible exceptions to this rule, but with limits. For the most part, appeals are rejected, so they are highly irregular. During an appeal process, if the Patriarch of Jerusalem rules against the initial ruling of Alexandria, then two things can happen. Either Alexandria agrees, or it rejects it. If Alexandria rejects it, then the appeal might be deferred to yet another patriarch, such as Antioch. If Antioch rules against Alexandria, and Alexandria rejects it yet again, which is highly unlikely, then we have a serious problem. What will likely occur is that the other churches will censure Alexandria for its obstinance. If the situation continues to escalate, then the other autocephalous churches might begin to rescind their recognition of the ruling Patriarch of Alexandria as the legitimate ruler. At that point, the bishops of the Church of Alexandria will likely call a local synod, and demand that their patriarch submit to the ruling. If he refuses, they will likely depose him and appoint a new head. Something this complicated and drawn out is quite rare though.

Thank you for this explanation!

 

[SyroMalankara]

When people say there are many differences between “catholicism” and “orthodox church” what they really mean is, there is a difference between Western Roman Catholicism and Greek/Byzantine/Slavic Eastern Orthodoxy. There is no consideration given to the differences between both and Assyrian Christianity or Syriac Christianity or Coptic Christianity or Armenian Christianity or Ethiopian Christianity, etc.

The Catholic Church includes all these different expressions in union, sometimes not expressed as well as the particular Orthodox Churches that do as well without being in full communion with each other or Rome.

Excluding protestantism and it’s offshoots, the choices aren’t Eastern Orthodoxy vs. Rome - it’s really Eastern Orthodox vs. Oriental Orthodox vs. Assyrian Christianity vs. Roman Western Christianity. I find that the Catholic Church includes more than she excludes, as a Syriac Christian in Communion with the other Eastern Churches and the Roman Church, there are times when I wish our expression was more pronounced and less condensed or forced to be acceptable to the Roman or Greek expression. However, there is unity among Catholics in a way that can’t be said for the others. There is praxis and especially the fullness of Liturgical expression among the others that can’t always be said for Catholics.

When your Antiochian friend is “outraged” by your choice for Catholicism, either he is outraged by your choice of Western Catholicism, or he hasn’t considered Melkite Catholicism - the expression of Antiochian Orthodoxy in full Communion with Rome and all those other Eastern Catholic Churches. There is no difference in essence between the Melkite Catholic Church and the Antiochian Orthodox - neither in faith nor praxis, except the Melkites pray for the Pope of Rome and are in union with Him, and Melkites are in full communion with the Eastern Catholic Churches of Oriental Tradition.

 

[josie_L]

1.) And technically speaking, Orthodox and Catholics do view each other as heretics. We have different dogmatic beliefs. It’s just that we generally don’t call each other that out of respect.

Catholics do not view the Orthodox as heretics, i.e., we do not even refer to Protestants (not accepting Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses) as heretics, but separated brethren.

 

[josie_L]

I know Patriarch Bartholemew 1 by sight and saw a couple of the others at the Papal inauguration of Pope Francis but not sure who was who. My Greek Orthodox friends are confident in their faith and don’t feel the need to compete with or attack Catholicism. Maybe you have come up against the passionate ones who are knowledgeable about the faith and history and intent on proving themselves but they don’t represent 500 million Orthodox. There are only a handful who seem to be on here regularly. Have you met any Orthodox people in person?

The Orthodox that I have met (personally) have always been pleasant, and never uttered an unkind word about my faith, however, many Orthodox converts that I have encountered on these forums are not like the Orthodox (born into the faith) I’ve interacted with over the course of my life.

 

[josie_L]

I’m pretty certain that the Catholic Church does not view Orthodoxy in any shape or form as heretical.

The Church’s moral theology has always distinguished between objective or material sin and formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.

Finally, the person who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff, whom Vatican I defined as having a universal primacy of authority over the whole Church, is at least a material schismatic. It was thus common in the past to speak of the schismatic Orthodox Churches who broke with Rome in 1054. As with heresy, we no longer assume the moral culpability of those who belong to Churches in schism from Rome, and thus no long refer to them as schismatics.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

There is nothing here that would apply to the Orthodox, i.e., the definition of formal or material heresy is not with respect to them.

 

[pablope]

O

1. For Catholics, do you think that Orthodox tend to over-emphasize the differences? For Orthodoxy, do you think Catholics tend to under-emphasize the differences?

Thanks!

These articles might be of interest to you:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3485

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/1ORTHO.htm

 

[Randy_Carson]

Did you read the rest of what I wrote? Furthermore, I urge to stop using that highly insulting and condescending term. It serves no good purpose.

I did read all of your post. I always do, Ryan. :yup:

I did not make up the term; the Urban Dictionary defines it this way:

little brother syndrome
When one person feels they have a rivalry with another far superior person. The superior person usually doesn’t know about it or feel that the little brother is any kind of a threat. The little brother usually puts forth maximum effort in meaningless situations in order to get the feeling of a win over his rival.

It was not and is not my intent to be pejorative; I am merely using the term to describe (accurately, I think) the situation that is displayed in these threads on a regular basis.

As you and I have observed many times in the past, some forum members will, of course, put forth a lot of meaningless effort to prove me wrong.

 

[lax16]

Our friend, who is Antiochian Orthodox, is pretty taken aback that our family is veering to the Catholic Church over Orthodoxy. He just left a book in my mailbox for us to read and as I was skimming through it, I have the following questions.

1. The author says that Catholics and Orthodox have a different view of atonement. Are the differences substantial or just a different expression of the same belief?
2. He also says that Orthodox do not believe in Purgatory but I had read somewhere that Orthodox believe in “toll houses”…please explain.
3. I have also noticed (in our friend, especially) that there seems to be more of a tendency in Orthodoxy for them to be very “unfriendly” toward Catholics but I have NEVER seen or heard a Catholic speak so negatively of Orthodoxy In some ways, our friend acts like we’d be better to stay Protestant than become Catholic. Is this a pervasive feeling among Orthodox or is this just our friend?
4. For Catholics, do you think that Orthodox tend to over-emphasize the differences? For Orthodoxy, do you think Catholics tend to under-emphasize the differences?

Thanks!

Hello - I think you are asking some very interesting questions. First and foremost, I want to say that I truly love the Orthodox Church and regard it with the greatest esteem.

I have limited exposure to the Orthodox, but I would like to share my experiences if it is a help.

I know an Orthodox family who are Lebanese/Palestinian. I mention this because they place a very high value on their heritage and insist on marriage within their group. The wife has made numerous anti-Catholic comments telling me how we are wrong doing this and that, etc.
They limited their family to two children because she told me that their priest counseled them and said they can use birth control due to their age (mid to late 30’s) and the fact that both parents work.
We have very limited contact with them as the relationship had become too strained.

I work with a man who was raised Protestant from the mid-west and married an Orthodox woman. He converted and is a very devout, kind person. He has invited me to their church and given me a flyer advertising Orthodox jewelry. I enjoy talking with him very much but I feel that he is doing a little bit of proselytyzing.

The third group I know of are Greek Orthodox and know them mainly through eating at their restaurants over the years. They are very proud of their heritage and it seems to also be of primary concern.

Overall, because I am not any of these ethnic groups, I do not feel I would fit in. I am weary of the “why we are wrong and they are right” (statues vs icons for one thing) one -way conversations. I have never once IN MY ENTIRE LIFE heard anything negative about the Orthodox. Not from my parents or my priest etc. In fact, they have always been treated as equals by my family.

Because my parents are a blend of cultures, as are my husband and I, I don’t like to place too much emphasis on being Italian, Irish etc unless we are celebrating a feast day. I know Catholics have had Polish, Italian, German parishes back when they were new immigrants to the U.S., however, I don’t see that anymore. It was out of necessity more than pride, I think.

Anyway, that is my 2 cents.