Why are you not orthodox

[dzheremi]

Sigh.

Every church is an “ethnic” church, because every Christian comes from somewhere and has some ethnocultural background. If you see your church as not an ethnic church, you are probably a member of the majority ethnic group in the area and hence do not see how a church full of Anglo people (or Hispanic people, or Asian people, or whatever) is seen as ‘ethnic’ by members of other ethnic/cultural groups. Having gone to a Latin parish that had separate masses for my hometown’s two dominant ethnic groups (Anglos and Hispanics; I’m a bit of both, so I went to both), it was hard to miss that the only crossover between the two was…well, me. And they even had different sermons. Does this destroy the Catholic Church’s unity? I wouldn’t think so. Yet it was as it was precisely because of the different cultural backgrounds of the worshipers. So even an average Latin parish in a small community is by default terribly, horribly, unforgivably ‘ethnic’ because (shock, surprise) Euro-American white people and Hispanic people are not the same.

If recognizing this very fundamental fact is not a problem for the Catholic Church (and I would say it’s not), then it stands to reason that the very same situation which exists within the Orthodox Church to a lesser degree (as we do not have several of the ethnocultural groups that have their own distinct Catholic Churches: Maronites, Syro-Malabar, and Chaldeans) is likewise not a problem.

 

[Trebor135]

I am a revert to the Catholic faith, but really had a hard time discerning between EO and Rome.

It’s a tough decision.

I felt that the Eastern Catholic rite would suit my walk with Christ best for a while, but found them to be too ethnic based!

Don’t get me wrong, I liked the food after service, but it seemed like it was a bit of an ethnic Church.

That’s quite understandable.

However, I would make the decision to live my life within the tradition I was raised, Catholic, Latin rite! I do so, because of a few things, one being church structure, councils, papal jurisdictional primacy, and that the EO re-baptize if you are from another faith tradition!

I became Orthodox recently, so I would differ with you about the present-day structure of the Catholic Church and the role of the bishop of Rome therein. But such issues have been done to death and they’re off-topic besides. I’ll simply note that I was actually received into the Orthodox Church by chrismation, because of my prior trinitarian baptism–a phenomenon which I’ve read is to be found in the practice of the early Church for some newcomers.

I guess this link is a good summary on why devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/11/26/an-eastern-orthodox-christian-looks-west/comment-page-1/

I wonder if Tim has become Catholic? It would seem like a logical choice for him.

I did regularly attend an Eastern Catholic rite, and I have attended an Russian Orthodox Divine Liturgy, I brought a fundamentalist friend to show him what “Church” looked like when St. John Chrysostom was alive, just to shock him out of his church setting, which looked more like a Christian rock concert, with electric guitars, fog, a light show, coffee, a hipster preacher, rather than an Apostolic Liturgy, where Heaven and Earth meet

Hahaha. What did he think?

Christ is Risen!

Lent’s just begun. Let’s not count our Easter eggs until they’re painted

 

[dzheremi]

Lent’s just begun. Let’s not count our Easter eggs until they’re painted

Greeting: Christ will have been risen in a month’s time, despite the fact that He is also risen now! It’s a paradox!

Response: Truly, it is a paradox!

 

[dzheremi]

And the Armenians, the first Christian nation in the world and members of the Oriental Orthodox communion, do also use unleavened bread.

 

[Trebor135]

Sigh.

Every church is an “ethnic” church, because every Christian comes from somewhere and has some ethnocultural background. If you see your church as not an ethnic church, you are probably a member of the majority ethnic group in the area and hence do not see how a church full of Anglo people (or Hispanic people, or Asian people, or whatever) is seen as ‘ethnic’ by members of other ethnic/cultural groups. Having gone to a Latin parish that had separate masses for my hometown’s two dominant ethnic groups (Anglos and Hispanics; I’m a bit of both, so I went to both), it was hard to miss that the only crossover between the two was…well, me. And they even had different sermons. Does this destroy the Catholic Church’s unity? I wouldn’t think so. Yet it was as it was precisely because of the different cultural backgrounds of the worshipers. So even an average Latin parish in a small community is by default terribly, horribly, unforgivably ‘ethnic’ because (shock, surprise) Euro-American white people and Hispanic people are not the same.

If recognizing this very fundamental fact is not a problem for the Catholic Church (and I would say it’s not), then it stands to reason that the very same situation which exists within the Orthodox Church to a lesser degree (as we do not have several of the ethnocultural groups that have their own distinct Catholic Churches: Maronites, Syro-Malabar, and Chaldeans) is likewise not a problem.

All of this is true. But let’s not sidestep the evident underlying question: why is Latin Catholicism the variety of Christianity that God allowed to be spread to the four corners of the earth, while Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy are ethnically and geographically quite limited?

 

[Trebor135]

Greeting: Christ will have been risen in a month’s time, despite the fact that He is also risen now! It’s a paradox!

Response: Truly, it is a paradox!

Good one Let’s make you a subdeacon now. You’re obviously qualified

 

[Cavaradossi]

Not to mention that the Church of Rome herself also used leavened bread in the past.

 

[Darryl_B]

All of this is true. But let’s not sidestep the evident underlying question: why is Latin Catholicism the variety of Christianity that God allowed to be spread to the four corners of the earth, while Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy are ethnically and geographically quite limited?

Could it be because Catholic means universal, and the term Orthodox almost suggests entrenchment against that said Catholic Church.

It is almost like a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Could it be because Catholic means universal, and the term Orthodox almost suggests entrenchment against that said Catholic Church.

The moniker ‘Orthodox’ was originally applied to distinguish Chalcedonian Christians from other Christians (Nestorians and Non-Chalcedonians mainly), who also self-identified as Catholic. It has nothing to do with entrenchment against the Catholic Church, as the Orthodox identify our Church as the Catholic Church.

 

[dzheremi]

All of this is true. But let’s not sidestep the evident underlying question: why is Latin Catholicism the variety of Christianity that God allowed to be spread to the four corners of the earth, while Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy are ethnically and geographically quite limited?

There are many historical reasons for this. As most evidently affects the Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental, though more so the Orientals due to their geographical strongholds), it should be remembered that during the European age of exploration and colonization of much of the world, the Christians of the East were largely under Islamic domination and hence not free to spread their religion anywhere, be it near or far. So it should surprise no one who has even a basic grasp of history that the Latins came to found churches in much of the world, as opposed to the Syriacs, Balkan Slavs (remember the devshirme system of the Ottomans? Those were largely Slavic Orthodox Christian children being taken as janissaries), Greeks, or whoever else. When fortunes were different, say pre-Islam, things were different. It used to be that the Church of the East (‘Assyrian’, ‘Nestorian’, whatever) was the church that was most widely spread throughout the world. That ended, if I recall correctly, with the one-two punch of Islam on one hand and the Mongolian invasions sometime later on the other. But of course the Mongols never reached Rome, and the Muslims were turned back at the gates of Vienna (thanks be to God on both accounts).

And of course now that things are starting to be different in some ways, we can see opportunities where there didn’t used to be any. The Coptic diaspora, for instance, is very, very new. The first Coptic Church outside of Egypt was built in Britain circa 1959, with the first one in the USA established in 1970 (though Copts had been living in America before that). So it’s been way less than 100 years that Copts have even been found outside of the Middle East/North Africa region proper and yet there are already over 200 churches in the USA alone. 200+ churches in less than 50 years, and that’s just one particular church in one particular country (to say nothing of any others, who have also grown much around the world in the past 50-60 years).

Far be it for me to make predictions about the future, but others (including others who are actually from the region, such as Ghanaian sociologist of religion Prof. Lamin Sanneh) have raised the idea of Christianity’s population center moving from the West (Europe, USA/Canada) to the “global South” (e.g., Subsaharan Africa, South America) over the next century. I have already read news stories of Nigerian Catholic priests being sent to re-evangelize the USA, and it was actually an Antiochian Orthodox priest (Fr. Josiah Trenham, on one of his podcasts) who has pointed out that the Bible is printed in greater volume in China now than in the United States. Can we comfortably speculate that all of these people will therefore come to be Latins? Probably many of them will due to the preexisting infrastructure that supports the Catholic Church in many places in the world, but certainly not all of them will. What they will become largely depends on who gets there first, but even then there are many scenarios that are unpredictable. I have a longtime Brazilian friend who tells me that despite her country being a historic RC stronghold, her family raised her SDA and in their region of Brazil (I don’t remember where), the SDAs are more active and visible than the RCC. One of my old linguistics professors once told me that when he was working in Guatemala in the 1970s the only people besides him that the local Mayan population knew who could speak their dialect were the Mormon missionaries, and as a result most of that tribe had converted to Mormonism.

I don’t think any particular Church or form of Christianity has a lock on any place or people. Time was that Rome counted among her staunchest allies the indigenous Church of North Africa in the Berber lands (with the exception of Libya which was at least partially Coptic, as is still preserved in the official title of the Pope of Alexandria), but that church eventually collapsed, only to be replaced by (you guessed it) the modern Latin Church starting some centuries afterward, when European exploration and colonization of North Africa was begun by the (at that time) solidly RC French. On our side, the Christian kingdoms (plural) of Sudan were variously allied with the Byzantines and the Copts, but now their indigenous churches are gone, and what Coptic population remains is of more recent vintage and not all purely Sudanese in whatever ethnic sense you can make of that (though of course many are).

 

[Darryl_B]

The moniker ‘Orthodox’ was originally applied to distinguish Chalcedonian Christians from other Christians (Nestorians and Non-Chalcedonians mainly), who also self-identified as Catholic. It has nothing to do with entrenchment against the Catholic Church, as the Orthodox identify our Church as the Catholic Church.

I am talking about a specific point in history as you well know. Please do not distort that point with unrelated information.

The Orthodox are not universal although they could be if they were in communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[EIF5A]

When I decided on leaving the Protestant church, I first looked to the Orthodox Church. It is ancient and well, orthodox. And I wanted to be part of the Orthodox faith because I thought Catholicism was full of things bordering on idolatry (e.g., ehrmagahd, all those statues!). And there were more stringent rules about many things, so it seemed more “correct”.

I have no well-grounded reason for wanting to become Catholic. Every doctrinal issue can be rebutted many times over by both sides. The Filioque didn’t really bother me much — chock it up to limitations of human language and politics. The use of un/leavened bread also wasn’t much of an issue for me. (I have more hesitation about some Marian dogmas, and I’m still struggling about those.)

But in terms of practicality and logistics, the top-down teaching seemed beneficial as to form a cohesive spiritual unit in Christ. Regardless of nationality or ethnic background — all united in faith under the same teaching authority.

But it was mostly the writings of saints and private revelations that led me to the Catholic Church — even holy pious saints subjected themselves to the authority of the Church and popes. Perhaps if I read Orthodox saints’ writings first, I might have turned out different. (Still, the Eastern icons are beautiful and I feel more at ease praying with them than with statues.)

(And there are more Catholic parishes with more Masses available at different times.)

 

[GaryTaylor]

Because its the Lords Grace and will I am Catholic.

 

[MartinJordan]

Born into Catholic family. Three of my aunts are Nuns. Some of my cousins are Priests. I see their love and devotion to the Faith and I want to be like them.

On the other side (my own personal reflection) is that Jesus called out “on this rock…” That to me means for us to see his representative on earth and I helps me really believe Jesus actually walked on earth, God Himself walked on earth, whenever I look at the Holy Father His Holiness the Pope Bishop of Rome. God walked on earth. Wow! :extrahappy:

I feel Im in Heaven on earth so to speak

Amen.

I pray one day there will be unity with my Orthodox brothers and sisters. I love them. :hug1::grouphug:

MJ

 

[onemangang]

It’s a tough decision.

I became Orthodox recently, so I would differ with you about the present-day structure of the Catholic Church and the role of the bishop of Rome therein. But such issues have been done to death and they’re off-topic besides. I’ll simply note that I was actually received into the Orthodox Church by chrismation, because of my prior trinitarian baptism–a phenomenon which I’ve read is to be found in the practice of the early Church for some newcomers.

Interesting, I was told you would have to be baptized and receive Chrismation. I was at odds with the re-baptizing, due to an early Church Pope speaking on how re-baptism is not necessary, I believe I know that we are told to respect each Church position, whereas the Catholic Church will allow us to receive communion at an EO Church, but the EO Church, does not allow communion to those outside the EO faith perhaps I am wrong on that as well!

I wonder if Tim has become Catholic? It would seem like a logical choice for him.

I think it’s Catholic, EO or nothing for him it is that way for me. If I was to leave Catholicism, it would only be for EO, if I found EO and Catholicism false, than to me, it is my personal conviction, all of Christianity falls with it!

Hahaha. What did he think?

He thought it was vain and repetitious, as well as full of idolatry!
Lord have mercy being recited, and people kissing crosses, doing the sign of the cross, and kissing the bible! He thinks Eucharistic adoration in the Catholic faith, and the reverence the Coptics show, is idolatry!

His view is, " it really doesn’t matter on doctrine, we all follow Christ, so it doesn’t matter, I just like the evangelical style of worship more, it makes me feel closer to God" He then will go on to argue doctrine of course! At least he will listen and change a view, he doesn’t believe the sola fide approach to justification, and salvation any longer. He believes in the Catholic view, to some degree, most evangelicals of his strain, really haven’t worked out a systematic type of theology, but reject 5 point Calvinism, and Arminianism to a degree! EO isn’t really within their thought paradigm, being that they are far more influenced by Rome, rather than the bible alone, than they would like to admit

With that being said, we fellowshipped with the people after, and the priest was married, a former evangelical, that fell from faith and became a quasi-new age Buddhist. It was the continuity of the ancient faith, and spirituality, that drove him to the EO. He too, had to discern EO, or Catholic, everything else was just un defendable to him! The points on jurisdiction, are debatable, maybe not here, but the EO does make some valid points. It is almost like a decision must be made, and you go with it I went with Rome, I find their arguments as a whole, to be more persuasive. Each individual points may have merit, on both sides, I just feel like Rome spoke to my thought paradigm a bit more! It is a tough decision to make, but I feel I chose rightly, just as people of the EO feel they have chose rightly

My friend was surprised to hear so many people that knew their faith, and could quote Saints like Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom easily! They really opened his eyes to liturgy, in regards to 1st century Judaism and Orthodoxy. They showed him,( as well as Catholics) that they view Christianity as a fulfillment of Judaism, not an eradication of it. Although, my friend found the practices of both ancient faiths to be Judaizers Ridiculous, I know!

I myself think liturgy is very important, and dislike much of the abuses that are taken in the Novus Ordo! With that being said, I think the Novus Ordo, can be done in a reverent way, but it lacks the majesty of Divine Liturgy, and the Traditional Mass!

Lent’s just begun. Let’s not count our Easter eggs until they’re painted

Lol… I wrote a post on FB about the Christianization of the Easter egg! I, of course used the beautifully painted eggs of the Russian Orthodox Tradition!

Peace and Love in Christ!

 

[Cavaradossi]

I am talking about a specific point in history as you well know. Please do not distort that point with unrelated information.

But your point is inaccurate. Orthodox is not an identifier adopted in opposition to ‘Catholic’ or even to the West, as the rather learned Fortescue points out, but rather it was adopted in opposition to the Non-Chalcedonans and Nestorians who also self-identified as Catholics.

The Orthodox are not universal although they could be if they were in communion with the Catholic Church.

Universality is not a mark of the Church, but rather Catholicity is. Your argument is flawed, for the Church was Catholic when it was only a small band of Jesus’ disciples and the Virgin Mary in the upper room on the day of Pentecost; it was Catholic when it was a small persecuted sect within the Roman Empire; It was Catholic before the introduction of Christianity into China; and it was Catholic before the Americas had even been discovered by the Europeans.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Universality is not a mark of the Church, but rather Catholicity is. Your argument is flawed, for the Church was Catholic when it was only a small band of Jesus’ disciples and the Virgin Mary in the upper room on the day of Pentecost; it was Catholic when it was a small persecuted sect within the Roman Empire; It was Catholic before the introduction of Christianity into China; and it was Catholic before the Americas had even been discovered by the Europeans.

Just to add a clarifying note: “catholic” means “whole & complete”.

I propose that this misunderstanding of the meaning of the word “catholic” could be the root cause of any confusion.

I’ll explain a bit further: In Spanish the word “everyone” is often translated into a figure of speech: “todo el mundo” which literally means “the whole world” even though everyone knows that “the whole world” phrase is just a figure of speech to indicate that there were many people present. Similarly, some people believe the word “catholic” literally means “universal” even though it’s just a figure of speech Not the actual meaning of the word. “Catholic” means “whole & complete”.

 

[manualman]

I should know better than to wade into such threads, but somehow I never learn.

It’s my impression that the EO and OO have a certain outlook on faith and theology that differs from what was obviously the worldview in the first centuries of Christianity and I would assert illustrates the damage done when legitimate churches separate themselves from the Petrine office.

Early Christianity was awash in theological arguments and not a few barfights. The very culture of faith was one in which believers examined the deposit of faith and not only tried, but really believed that they COULD derive truths hidden implicitly in overtly revealed truths. This is how, for example, we got the doctrine of the Trinity. But the EO and OO mindset since the schism innately seems suspicious of doctrinal development via theological implication guided and discerned by the Holy Spirit through the Church. Yes, they have their own reasons, but having heard them it still seems to me that EO rejection of Original Sin or Purgatory stems from a refusal to think beyond what is explicitly believed by the EF. That’s a commendable attitude if you no longer believe in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Magisterium, but an awkward difference from the way those very EF actually reasoned and behaved.

The other consequence of losing the papacy seems to have been the ability of national leaders to essentially capture the EO churches and bend them to their wills. This, at times, has surely been a problem for Catholicism as well, but is structurally far less likely due to the far broader and more international scale (i.e. catholicity) we enjoy. That is the weaker of my two arguments, I’ll admit since it comes perilously close to “bigger is better.” But close to isn’t necessarily across that line. In 2,000 years, better should result in bigger if the fundamental mission of the church is to spread the gospel to all nations. And, after all, that IS the purpose of the church.

 

[andrewstx]

Oh, but I am! Not that I don’t have my objections to the Eastern Orthodox (Byzantine Chalcedonian) faith in particular (many of which also apply to Rome), but this is hardly the place to be discussing them.

My bad. Sorry everyone.

 

[dzheremi]

That was addressed to the OP…sorry if that wasn’t clear.