This Wednesday, 8/6/2008, I will be leaving communion with the Roman Catholic Church

[Pong]

sola_scriptura- When you have 2000 years of Tradition and scholarship to back you up like we and the Orthodox do, then come tell us where we’ve gone wrong. But since your particular brand of faith seems to be just another protestant invention based on hald-baked Biblical study, then kindly keep it to yourself. Aside from that, you are dragging this thread off-topic. Start another if you want to argue theology with us; that way we can refute you in the proper place.

 

[Milliardo]

Aside from that, you are dragging this thread off-topic. Start another if you want to argue theology with us; that way we can refute you in the proper place.

Good point–the thread is about Christy going into the Orthodox Church, so let’s keep it at that.

 

[Wyatt]

Good point–the thread is about Christy going into the Orthodox Church, so let’s keep it at that.

Christ be with her.

At least she still has the Sacraments of the Church. Had she gone Protestant I would be pretty distraught right now, but I know that God had a hold of her good and is holding onto her…so I don’t worry.

I’m not being rude or hateful against Protestants, either. I was a Protestant for 18 years of my life. It would be worse to be Catholic or Orthodox and become Protestant than it would be to be raised Protestant. One would be having the Truth (or most of it) and abandoning it for heresy. Being raised Protestant would be through no fault of your own.

 

[catolico30]

Thank you Catholic Answers, especially the Eastern Catholic Forum, for leading me back out of communion with the Roman Church and into communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church aka the Orthodox Churches!

I am so happy and relieved to be joining the true historical Church which has been protected by the Holy Spirit which has prevented it from teaching error for the last couple thousand years. The Roman Church has not had such a protection which can be seen clearly with the doctrines it has come up with in the last several hundred years since the Church of Rome removed herself from union with the Churches established by the Apostles.

Thank you!

A few leave Rome, and hundreds come back to Rome. Good bye James.

 

[JackQ]

You are not “notsmart” you are a very intelligent creature because you have a very intelligent Creator, so I will refer to you as the Highly Intelligent One.

Highly Intelligent One,

There are no dumb questions.

Yes it is an emotional - exciting - happy moment for me! Hurray! And no, I don’t think it rude for you to ask.

Anyway, Orthodox does mean Correct (Right) Faith and Correct (Right) Belief. Orthodox is the name of the original Christian Church established by the Apostles at Jesus’ request/command. For approximately the first 1000 years “the Church” included all of the churches started by the Apostles: St. Thomas had gone to India, St. Mark to Alexandria, St. Peter to Antioch and then to Rome, St. Andrew to Byzantium (later called Constantinople & now known as Istanbul), etc. was interchangably called Orthodox or Catholic.

However, due to a number of Theological differences, bad interpretations (after about the 500 to 700’s Rome stopped using Greek and began using Latin) which caused miscommunication, the Church of Rome removed it’s self from Communion with the other Apostolic Churches. Officially by excommunicating the Patriarchate of Constantinople - all other Apostolic Founded Churches remained in union with Constantinople, not with Rome.
So over the years Orthodox has become the name of the “Eastern” Churches and the Church of Rome has come to be known as Catholic.

Now to make matters a little more confusing some small parts of other Apostolic Churches of the East aka Orthodox have at various points for political reasons left union with the other Orthodox Churches and has come into union with the Church of Rome: example: in the 1700’s the Melkite Church was established as being in union with Rome. They are commonly known as either Uniates or Eastern Catholic Churches.

It is from the Melkite Greek Catholic Church (an Eastern Catholic Church) that I am leaving, which means I am leaving union with Rome, to go home to full Orthodoxy to be in union with all the other Apostolic Founded Churches which are the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I hope this helps.
Christy

Actually, this isn’t entirely accurate. There was a split that was earlier than the one between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. The churches that arose from that split are called Oriental Orthodox, and they are as apostolic in origin as the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox.

In the early Church, before there was any split in the apostolic churches, there arose five patriarchates: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. St. Peter was the first bishop of both Rome and Antioch (that the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter as to his special Petrine ministry is an argument for another time), St. Andrew founded the church in Constantinople (originally Byzantium), St. Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria, and St. James was the first bishop of Jerusalem.

Now if we are to trace the lines of succession to the first bishops we find that for Antioch the best claim to the succession probably goes to the Oriental Orthodox (Syrian Orthodox). As for Alexandria, clearly the successor to St. Mark is the Coptic Pope, also of the Oriental Orthodox communion. The Eastern Orthodox communion probably has the best claim for Jerusalem, and it has the only claim for Constantinople. The legitimate line for the bishop of Rome is, of course, Catholic.

So, it really isn’t accurate to say that Rome split off from the other apostolic churches in a way that suggests that all of those other apostolic churches are to be found in Eastern Orthodoxy. It seemed to me important to point that out.

 

[JackQ]

Why don’t we accept Peter? That’s a silly question. Why don’t you “accept” the other 11 Apostles?

Yours in Christ
Joe

And that’s a silly answer. You know what she meant.

 

[JackQ]

they sound like the first protestant church to me if the schism occurred in 1054. i have heard a lot of good things about the orthodox churches. too bad they can’t come to some understanding to be united again.

Yes, it is too bad. But the split was more political than anything else. If you doubt it, research the question, and you’ll notice a curious correspondence between the East-West split in the Church and the border between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires.

 

[JackQ]

how did protestantism do away with early church fathers?

because they believe in sola scriptura?

i don’t think it is misleading because they do not believe in the Pope.

i am a new Catholic, so this is all new to me.

it is too bad there was the schism in 1000 and they did not try to work things out then. i understand that life was rapidly changing back then and the different languages, etc.

And welcome! It’s great that you’re looking into Church history. Having said what I have said above, I would humbly suggest that a forum of this kind is a difficult place to get informed. Polemics are too often the order of the day around here. I suggest more scholarly sources. Perhaps your pastor will be able to direct you.

 

[josephdaniel29]

why so rude? it was an honest question. there is no such thing as a stupid question.

You’re right there’s no such thing as a stupid question but there is a such thing as a loaded question. Maybe I just misunderstood what you were saying. I read “why don’t you accept Peter” to be tantamount to when Protestants ask Catholics “why don’t you believe the Bible?” Both of those questions sound extremely loaded to me. Acceptance of Peter has nothing to do with it, the exaggerated claims of the papacy does.

I’m sorry of I misunderstood your question.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[TriuneUnity]

You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth (Exodus 20:4).

The prohibition is against making ANY likeness of what is:

1. In heaven above (including God Himself, but this also includes saints or anyone who we think is in heaven).
2. Earth; and
3. In the water

Obviously the prohibition is on objects designed to be used in worship, however, forget about how you’re allowed to “use” such objects, we cannot even make them in the first place.

You mean things built exactly according to the specifications God enumerated?

Again if you want to get technical He forbids making them in the first place.

God did enumerate certain objects, buildings, the Ark to be built in accordance with His specifications. God also ordered the Jews to wipe out enemy armies, which would otherwise be murderous.

The point is yes God can create exceptions to His rules for His purposes, however, the ten commandments are the default rules.

Indeed this phraseology is even more problematic in other verses:

*so that you do not act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female,

the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the sky,

the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water below the earth (Deuteronomy 4:16-18).

You shall not make for yourselves (A)idols, nor shall you set up for yourselves an image or a sacred pillar, nor shall you place a figured stone in your land to bow down to it; for I am the LORD your God (Leviticus 26:1)*

Milliardo already addressed your points adequately. If the prohibition was against images of any kind then God contradicted Himself. God cannot issue commands that go against His own Law as He cannot contradict His nature as perfectly holy.

 

[Mickey]

No, leaving the Melkite Church for the Greek Orthodox Church. I am going HOME!

God bless you Christy! May you dwell in peace and abundant blessings in the Holy Orthodox Church.

**Slava Isusu Christu! **
Slava Na Viki!

 

[theistgal]

Thank you Catholic Answers, especially the Eastern Catholic Forum, for leading me back out of communion with the Roman Church and into communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church aka the Orthodox Churches!

I am so happy and relieved to be joining the true historical Church which has been protected by the Holy Spirit which has prevented it from teaching error for the last couple thousand years. The Roman Church has not had such a protection which can be seen clearly with the doctrines it has come up with in the last several hundred years since the Church of Rome removed herself from union with the Churches established by the Apostles.

Thank you!

My prayers that the Orthodox can live up to your expectations. (Actually, I think I’ll be praying more for the Orthodox! )

FWIW, I have also seriously considered " 'doxing " during the past several months. However, my reasons have nothing to do with anything “wrong” with the Roman Church - only with what seems “right” with the Orthodox.

I am still on the fence. However, if the time comes that I did make that decision, I hope I would be able to express my respect, and gratitude, towards the Mother who taught me everything I know about Christ, and supported me through some long, difficult times, on my way out Her door.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

It’s funny you guys blast Luther for his faith alone dogma but we’re the ones following the commandments, you know like no graven images.

Funny, we Orthodox are the major ones who number “Thou shalt not make any graven images” a seperate commandment. And we have plenty of icons, which I think is what you are getting at.

Whose image is on the coin? Caesar’s. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

Whose image is on the icon? Christ, the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15, John 14:9). Render unto God that which is God’s.

 

[hawkeye]

Sometimes it’s better just to go, minus the trumpet blowing.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

In the words of Jaroslav Pelikan (who converted to Orthodoxy, I believe), Luther was more Catholic than most of his adversaries. Pelkian also stated, and I think quite accurately:

“As a Protestant, he subjected the authority of church councils to the authority of the word of God; as a Catholic he interpreted the word of God in conformity with the dogmas of the councils and in this sense made the councils normative. This attitude was an inconsistency to both the traditionalists and the iconoclasts; for neither of them could see that Catholic substance and Protestant principle belong together, not only in Luther’s Reformation, but in the life of the church and indeed in the very message of the New Testament.”

A couple of years back I came across my copy of the English translation of the Book of Concord, and noticed then that Pelikan was one of the translators. Memory eternal!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I like the way you think

Or…we could have an actual physical war here on Earth, and whichever Church wins would be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church since God would clearly be on that Church’s side. I only kid of course.

I thought the Crusaders tried that. (btw, the Romans in the East were horrified at the Western judicial procedure of trial by combate. St. Francis with the caliph had a nice application of it I must admit).

 

[sola_scriptura]

sola_scriptura- When you have 2000 years of Tradition and scholarship to back you up like we and the Orthodox do, then come tell us where we’ve gone wrong. But since your particular brand of faith seems to be just another protestant invention based on hald-baked Biblical study, then kindly keep it to yourself. Aside from that, you are dragging this thread off-topic. Start another if you want to argue theology with us; that way we can refute you in the proper place.

What’s your point? The Jews, and Buddhists have been around for longer than you – are they right?

 

[sola_scriptura]

God then contradicts Himself by telling the Israelites to make images of cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, correct?

The Ark of the Covenant was used in Old Testament worship (it was God’s footstool, hidden behind the Holy of Holies); so God contradicted Himself again?

Again, God ordered the making of images of cherubim, seraphim (massive at that, at the entrance of the Temple), the brass sea, the bronze serpent…

The point of the first and second commandments are;

1. Not to have other gods before Him and,
2. Not to make images of those gods (idols)

First, the idea that God contradicts Himself – God never contradicts Himself. God’s rules are to be obeyed; and only He can enumerate exceptions to those rules. God commanded the Israelites to destroy and pillage defeated enemies, does this mean He created an exception to commandments against such behavior, like murder?

The way you divide up the commandments doesn’t accurately portray this rule. In fact in several instances the command not to make idols is not preceded by another commandment (see Leviticus 26:1). God didn’t even want us making images of Himself.

 

[Mickey]

First, the idea that God contradicts Himself – God never contradicts Himself. God’s rules are to be obeyed; and only He can enumerate exceptions to those rules. God commanded the Israelites to destroy and pillage defeated enemies, does this mean He created an exception to commandments against such behavior, like murder?

The way you divide up the commandments doesn’t accurately portray this rule. In fact in several instances the command not to make idols is not preceded by another commandment (see Leviticus 26:1). God didn’t even want us making images of Himself.

Since you are so fired up about idolatry, why don’t you start a new thread instead of hi-jacking this one? I’m sure that Catholics and Orthodox will participate.

 

[Mickey]

what do they think of peter and why do they not accept him?

We love and venerate St Peter. There is a three week fast prior to the great feast day of SS Peter and Paul in the Holy Orthodox Church.

who was peter to the orthodox?

An Apostle for Jesus Christ.