Topic: The Willful Ignorance of Protestantism

[Ebor]

Mr. Sungenis is 1) giving his own ideas and 2) is a rather controversial RC apologist.  He also puts forth the claim that the universe is Geocentric amoung other ideas. 

I decline to accept his particular opinions as binding fact.

Ebor

[Ebor]

Have you ever noticed how most Protestants, no matter how you address the truth of the Orthodox faith, refuse to listen? It's quite bothersome. Since when is closedmindedness a tenet of the Bible?
I have no anger nor hatred against our Protestant neighbors, but I hope they could be more open to new knowledge and perspectives. And it's not just me, I've spoken with Orthodox clergymen about how, in their own experiences, Protestants can be almost completely unreachable. What's the deal?

Peace.

Well, I have noticed that you posted the same first two sentences on at least 2 other EO fora.  While the E-cafe hasn't gotten involved, the other one that doesn't allow non-EO to engage in general discussions has given you some response (and you put it in a section that is supposed to be EO only).  One wonders if you added your other sentences here since you knew that there are more no-EO/OO that would read it and that they are allowed to respond.   One also wonders why you post the exact same things on more then one forum.

As to your question, no I haven't noticed that. But then is it possible that the "messenger" could be treating other people in such ways that do not encourage them to stick around to hear more?  Why should a person want to be dictated to or perhaps patronized by another who is very clear that his own position is superior to theirs?  Why would such treatment make the person being talked down believe that the speaker really does have the "Truth"(tm)?   Just how are you "addressing the truth"?

You personally do not know "most Protestants", nor are they some kind of monolithic block.  Not agreeing with you or accepting your ideas is not the same thing as "willful ignorance".  But accusing someone of that makes not going along with you their own fault having nothing to do with how the "message" was delivered.

One gathers that you have been dealing with individual human beings and not getting many to agree with you.  In the past you have shown a degree of disdain for others not of your faith, using such epithets as "Billy-bobs" and other put-down phrases.  Why should they listen to you? Why should Your opinion or ideas be accepted wholesale and without question or objection? Could you be wrong about some things that they know or do, and this makes them reluctant to hear more? How are you dealing with them? Look hard at what you are doing and think if you would like to be treated that way, perhaps. 

Ebor

[Keble]

The problem remains that using Carravaggio as the epitome of all Western religious art is completely rediculous. And trying to make a common theme out of all the varieties of Western religious art is essentially pointless. For any given Western style, you can find some other Westerner condemning it. There are even Westerners who accept (somewhat) the Eastern theory about use of images (while not necessarily rejecitng statuary).

The one clear distinction that can be made is how art figures in the liturgy. There simply isn't anything anywhere in the west that parallels the Eastern use of the iconostasis. One could make something of  case for this resulting in the range of Western art, because it freed it from the constraint of rubric. But the whole emotionality argument is just as much, or more, within the West as it is between East and West.

[Ebor]

For example, calling an entire group of people "Willfully Ignorant" is not going to make them want to hear you out on anything.

Indeed it will not. No one likes to be told such things.
 

Ebor

[Ebor]

I find that too many contemporary Americans in general share the mentality of "I've made up my mind, don't bother me with the facts."

An over-generalization to say the least. One might suggest that people may have considered many facts before making up their minds.

Democrats and Republicans, Protestants and Catholics, Southerners and "Yankees," etc. Everything has become so polarized that people aren't able to consider new information that is contrary to their own worldview.

Aren't able?  There is much more subtlety and shades of grey in this world then you would seem to realize.  As to "new information" how do you know that it is "new" to them?  Perhaps they know more about it then you think, but do not agree with your particular point of view.

How open are you to "new information" that is contrary to your "worldview"?

Ebor

[Ebor]

ME TOO!!!!!!!!  I can't tell you how many times this has happened to me.  I end up saying things like "RC's arn't really THAT bad"     Actually, in a lot of ways they really have things going for them.  And its not like we orthodox don't have our issues either...

Anyway, it really is amazing how a lot of Protestants that i've talked to automatically associate Orthodoxy with Catholicism (roman).  Which brings me to the original question, why is it that they can't seam to break from their "world view"?? 

Well, people have their own experiences and lives and what they know. Why should anyone expect others to know the same things as oneself?  I will give you an example.  As people here know, I grew up in Montana.  It is a huge state with a low population.  There are, to my knowledge about 6 EO churchs in that state which is roughly the size of the mid-atlantic and New ENgland states with some room for Ohio and Virginia and all of them are in a major city/town. There are lots more RC churches as well as Lutheran (lots of settlers from Scandinavia and Germany) and some Episcopalian and others.  Why would it be reasonable to expect a person who has grown up and lived hundreds of miles from an EO church or person to know much or anything about the subject?  So if they see a church with candles and paintings and vestments, it's possible that the closest reference they have is something RC?

If you try telling a hard-core Serbian person who Christ REALLY is (loving, carring, wants you to take communion) they might flip a lid.  So it goes for anyone who has entrenched themselves in one view. 

Could you explain this a bit more, please?  The idea that someone would get upset with the information that Jesus is loving and caring etc is ummm alarming to me.  Thank you.

Ebor

[BoredMeeting]

How open are you to "new information" that is contrary to your "worldview"?

Just speaking for myself, I wasn't always a Christian and making the change sort of required revising my worldview just a tad.

[Ebor]

Just pulling on the many lose threads of their faith while they are at your door isn't enough.  Most will walk away not even seeing their nakedness,

There's also the chance that the person talking to them is showing some missing threads or holes, as it were, depending on their attitude.

It's FAR easier to remain a protestant that drives a mercedes, lives in a million dollar home and a vacation home, and has the rapture to hang onto. 

   I can't say that that description fits most of the people I know who belong to any kind of a Protestant Church.  It certainly doesn't apply to my family.

With respect,

Ebor

[Ebor]

Just speaking for myself, I wasn't always a Christian and making the change sort of required revising my worldview just a tad.

And was it the case that making the change wasn't a matter of someone coming up to you, then calling you "willfully ignorant" if you didn't immediately agree?  That it took some time and effort to work things through? 

Ebor

[Ebor]

This is one of the best things posted on this forum, IMO.  Many Orthodox apologists seem to be lacking even basic respect for those whom they seek to convert. 

I agree with you on this, Nektarios.  Respecting another person leads to treating them with at least a modicum of charity and courtesy.  But I've seen too many cases of patronizing disdain for the "Other". 

Ebor

[BoredMeeting]

And was it the case that making the change wasn't a matter of someone coming up to you, then calling you "willfully ignorant" if you didn't immediately agree? 

It might have more impact it you asked that of someone who actually conducted themselves in such a manner, don't you think? 

[aserb]

What is it in Protestantism that resonates with these people and where are we failing?  That seems like a worthy question for consideration.

WIthout denying that something "resonates" with people converting to Protestantism, I would add that, particularly the Evangelicals, pur forth a strong marketing push for converts. I am not talking just about those people that knock on your door or stop you on the street. I am talking about marketing as in advertising, calling, appealing to the person. In fact the latter is the big one with Evangelicals. Come to Jesus and he'll meet your needs, heal your shame, get you a Cadillac, etc. It's great marketing and its focused on the person. Now even some Evangelical church services are tailored to appeal to "seekers." These services are light on theology and big on stage show type productions with music, skits, interpritive dance and preaching that comes right from the Comedy channel. This hyper focus on the individual removes primary focus from God. But it is appealing. Who doesn't like to attend a party, meeting, etc. where you are doted over, listened to, hugged.  (Please, I know I've been hugged, kissed and doted over in an Orthodox church but this was not the main reason that I attend Orthodox liturgy. My biggest appeal to me about Orthodoxy is it seeks to focus one energies toward God, the saints and the church and away from the person or individual. Not entirely, but I think you get my drift.  But I would go further to say that the focus on the individual is also an American cultural phenomenon. America was founded and built on rugged individualism. Our "icons" are the lone cowboy on the horse, easy rider on the motorcycle, the scrappy rags to riches millionaire. I do not know if we are failing so much as we are presenting, as someone noted earlier, a different brand of Orthodoxy. I am afraid that to some extent the brand that we represent is that a convert is a thoughtful person. Someone who has struggled with their faith and read about the history and sought more than the facile trappings of what passes for American Christianity and these people are a minority in this culture which wants everything fast and easy.

[ozgeorge]

There simply isn't anything anywhere in the west that parallels the Eastern use of the iconostasis.

What about the Rood Screen?

[Αριστοκλής]

What about the Rood Screen?

Do a search here - it's been discussed before.

IIRC, Keble and Ebor made good input ( and may be the poster formerly known as Serge).

[ozgeorge]

Do a search here

I just did, and only the last 2 posts come up. Was it called something else?

[Keble]

Short form: the rood screen is kind of like the Iconostasis, and kind of not. However, it never had any liturgical function, and in fact was really always kind of in the way (which is why it tended to disappear).

One should note that the examples in the Wikipedia articles are rather extreme. Here's a much sparer example (note that the rood itself is missing from this one). It should also be noted (as the Wiki article hints) that the more wall-like cases generally had altars applied to them.

A little bit longer form (heavily indebted to Duffy): By the middle ages Catholic liturgical piety had in many respects turned away from participation and towards an array of private devotions. However, the one important focus was the elevations, culminating in the fraction. It was very important to see that; however, the rood screen, as a barrier, was in the way, which is why as a rule it is constructed of tracery. Its real point was to divide choir into a separate subchapel. The liturgy itself made no reference to it at all.

In Anglicanism it was pretty much suppressed for a while, and then revived more or less out of general principle with the rest of the Gothic Revival. However, by that point the boundary where it used to sit now divided the singers from the rest of the congregation; the priests' territory was now the sanctuary rather than the choir, and it had already been fenced off (literally) by the altar rail. As a result one sees some churches where the rood has moved over the altar rail, which then takes on some aspects of a screen.

In any case, the decoration of the screen was always of a piece with the rest of the mural decoration (including the windows). The rood itself was (and is) often the focus of Good Friday liturgical acts, but that is a special case.

[lubeltri]

I do agree that I hate having to first explain to the ignorant the Orthodoxy is not Catholicism.

In my experience, what anti-Catholic Protestants criticize about Catholicism tends to be shared by Orthodox---Mary, saints, creeds/councils, faith+works, etc. To most, the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy are irrelevant. It's what Catholics and Orthodox SHARE that is the problem.

[Matthew777]

You're not seriously resorting to the lame "let's create a dodgy fictional dialogue that seriously misrepresents the other's position" tactic are you?

I paraphrased, more or less, an actual Yahoo messenger conversation. If you'd like the original, I could PM it to you.

In any event, you disturbingly speak of Orthodoxy as if it is some sort of abstract truth to be logically deduced from a set of historical premises.

It is an objective truth that Orthodoxy is the true Church, a truth which can be learned from multiple lines of evidence. If it weren't, what validity would there be in the name "Orthodox"?

Peace.

[Amdetsion]

I think that protestantism for most people is a matter of convenience and not "willful ignorance".

In the USA the mass market, fast-faith is protestantism and its many sub-elements (ie mormans, 7th day, and the like).

The marketeers use the catch phrases: Christian, Church, Christ, Holy, Bible, and the like. These phrases add currency and ligitimacy to the 'product'. The marketeers (Evangelicals as they are called) are looking for those who are ignorant yes; but the marketeer swoops down on the innocent albeit disgrunteld public in a flury "TRUTH" and the rest is history.

Willful ignornace comes into once the innocent victim begins to see for himself that thier is something missing but refuses to heed.

Americans are fat people because it is more convenient to eat a Big Mac and large fry and a Large milk shake....supersized. It is even more convenient since this food costs very little money. But sadly the positive health beenfits are very little as well. BUT .... It feels good.

Thus is the current protestant.

He is protestant because it is what he saw on TV and or what everyone is doing. It must be good.

Have you ever tried to get people to eat organic foods who are conditioned to eat fatty unhealthy food?

I have.

I have seen people eat completely healthy organic snacks at my house and once I mention the organic food items they stop eating them. Strange.

I had someone tell me " if it is healthy I won't eat it"

Again this is the mind of the protestant today.

If he sees Orthodoxy he shuns and runs.

He knows that his situation is no good. BUT...It feels good.

It is what he knows. Orthodoxy is asking him to do too much...(Too organic!....yes; good health benefits but too much work)

This is complacency and laziness, faithlessness, Godlessness...Sin which leads to death.

Orthodoxy is the first mass market faith as Christ teaches to preach and teach to all the world. The marketing was based on Holiness which lead to rightiousness and salvation.

Not to be confused with the above noted marketing which is MASSive and based on personal choice, freedom, and the right to succeed in the world at all cost since "god" is merciful and HAS forgiven ALL sin.

Thus man can forget holiness then and focus on the world and his place in it. The "church" is at mans use or disposal. This is common protestant mindset.

Orthodoxy is a blessing in America. The Holy Church is doing great work.

"full great and exalted is the word of God and it has increased in His Holy Church and many are they that believe in our Lord Jesus Christ is is both now and forever..Amen" (Acts).

[Matthew777]

Willful ignornace comes into once the innocent victim begins to see for himself that thier is something missing but refuses to heed.

It is what he knows. Orthodoxy is asking him to do too much

Before converting to the Orthodox faith, I attended an Evangelical mega-church for about a month. I found the services to be hollow, and wondered why skits about being a Walmart greeter belonged in a house of worship. I knew something was missing, but wasn't willing to consider the Orthodox faith until a girl at school, whose father happened to be a deacon, invited me to liturgy. Almost immediately, I fell in love with the liturgy, and decided to study church history for myself. Upon doing so, I realized that Orthodox Christianity is the only intellectually honest option.

I explained to someone church history, and how Scripture supports Orthodox doctrines like confession and the Eucharist. Her only response was that she didn't want to take her shoes off and wear a headscarf in a church. If that isn't laziness, I don't know what is.

Peace.

[calligraphqueen]

ya'll take your shoes off?  that's a new one on me, and headscarves are popular in the legalistic groups of evangelicals so it's nothing "new." (not fun, don't go there)

As for the organic stuff, yeah I can deal with that.  It's the same change that has been afforded as life has had to change for us, due to Heather's Rett's syndrome.  We make changes or adaptations as the Lord leads us, and Orthodoxy was one of those steps in life where we were led.  It had to come through a great deal of pain, frustration, blatant errors, and hurt before one of us could see there were any holes in protestantism.  Okay, it happened for both of us, but I was in middle school and dh was well into adulthood. (praise be to God it happened at all)  Admittedly,I still hate juicing vegetables, and the taste/texture issues!!

Anyway, I would suggest that a protestant has to see the brokenness of his/her faith before they can see their need to search.  That may take more or less for each person.  if they are content and comfortable within protestantism, like my inlaws, then they will only see with the amount of LIGHT they have been afforded thus far. That isn't necessarily to be construed as "ignorance." We can't say what has to happen in their lives before they will be receptive to the fullness of the Faith.

[Matthew777]

ya'll take your shoes off?  that's a new one on me, and headscarves are popular in the legalistic groups of evangelicals so it's nothing "new." (not fun, don't go there)

In the Middle East, it's common to take your shoes off when a guest in someone's house. What more appropriate a place than the house of God? Furthermore, if I am not mistaken, Moses felt the need to take off his shoes when he encountered the burning bush. As for headscarves, it's in the Epistles of Saint Paul that women should cover their hair.

[aserb]

Anyway, I would suggest that a protestant has to see the brokenness of his/her faith before they can see their need to search.  That may take more or less for each person.  if they are content and comfortable within protestantism, like my inlaws, then they will only see with the amount of LIGHT they have been afforded thus far.

Amen!

[AMM]

An interesting perspective I ran across.

http://conversiaddominum.blogspot.com/2006/10/statement-of-resignation.html

[Ebor]

I think that protestantism for most people is a matter of convenience and not "willful ignorance".

I'm sorry.  I think that is a gross oversimplification.

In the USA the mass market, fast-faith is protestantism and its many sub-elements (ie mormans, 7th day, and the like).

The marketeers use the catch phrases: Christian, Church, Christ, Holy, Bible, and the like. These phrases add currency and ligitimacy to the 'product'. The marketeers (Evangelicals as they are called) are looking for those who are ignorant yes; but the marketeer swoops down on the innocent albeit disgrunteld public in a flury "TRUTH" and the rest is history.

This seems to be lumping all "Protestants" with some more publicized or recent manifestations.  It also does not take into account long established parishes/churches/Churches who are not using the publicity methods cited. 

Willful ignornace comes into once the innocent victim begins to see for himself that thier is something missing but refuses to heed.

Innocent victim?  Churches that have supported and sustained people and taught the Gospel are somehow 'victimizing' people?    And what of people who do not have something "missing"?

He is protestant because it is what he saw on TV and or what everyone is doing. It must be good.

Perhaps there are many people who belong to one "Protestant" Church or another because they were raised in it, it is part of their family, they have learnt about Jesus Christ and how to be a Christian there, it is the only church for many many miles around, there is love and support among the members or some other reason.

Have you ever tried to get people to eat organic foods who are conditioned to eat fatty unhealthy food?

Yes, and you don't get them to eat it willingly by making disparaging remarks about what they do eat or acting superior for being organic to someone who may not have known about it. (again, not every person knows as much or anything about things that you or I know a great deal about.) or telling someone to eat it when they may be allergic to it....

Again this is the mind of the protestant today.

That is your opinion.  And there is no such thing as "the protestant today", there are millions and millions for real people just as human as you are.

If he sees Orthodoxy he shuns and runs.

He knows that his situation is no good. BUT...It feels good.

It is what he knows. Orthodoxy is asking him to do too much...(Too organic!....yes; good health benefits but too much work)

This is complacency and laziness, faithlessness, Godlessness...Sin which leads to death.

This is, again, terribly oversimplified and does not look at other people as having real reasons for being what they are, but makes them something like cardboard targets for other people to mock and denigrate and be condescending to.    None of your judgement applies to my reasons for not becoming EO, just for starters.

Ebor

[Ebor]

Anyway, I would suggest that a protestant has to see the brokenness of his/her faith before they can see their need to search. 

And if a "protestant"s faith is not "broken"?  or is it a given that it must be? What if it has sustained them through many trials, and they deeply believe in and trust Our Lord?

That may take more or less for each person.  if they are content and comfortable within protestantism, like my inlaws, then they will only see with the amount of LIGHT they have been afforded thus far. That isn't necessarily to be construed as "ignorance."

Thank you for that last sentence. 

The tossing off of calling people who are not EO/OO as "ignorant" as in the thread title is condescending and offensive.

Ebor

[Ebor]

Upon doing so, I realized that Orthodox Christianity is the only intellectually honest option.

The only intellectually honest option?  In your opinion. 

I explained to someone church history, and how Scripture supports Orthodox doctrines like confession and the Eucharist. Her only response was that she didn't want to take her shoes off and wear a headscarf in a church. If that isn't laziness, I don't know what is.

Perhaps there is something awry in the way you are "explaining".  Not agreeing with one is not necessarily a sign of "laziness" on the part of the other person.  Perhaps they are truly not convinced or swayed by the messenger.

Ebor

[Ebor]

It might have more impact it you asked that of someone who actually conducted themselves in such a manner, don't you think? 

I beg your pardon.  I was not writing clearly.  My apologies.  I was trying to ask if in the course of your conversion to Christianity you made a fast decision when someone talked to you about it, or did it take time that was not a case of "willful ignorance" but working things out.

Ebor

[ignatius]

Before converting to the Orthodox faith, I attended an Evangelical mega-church for about a month. I found the services to be hollow, and wondered why skits about being a Walmart greeter belonged in a house of worship. I knew something was missing, but wasn't willing to consider the Orthodox faith until a girl at school, whose father happened to be a deacon, invited me to liturgy. Almost immediately, I fell in love with the liturgy, and decided to study church history for myself. Upon doing so, I realized that Orthodox Christianity is the only intellectually honest option.

I explained to someone church history, and how Scripture supports Orthodox doctrines like confession and the Eucharist. Her only response was that she didn't want to take her shoes off and wear a headscarf in a church. If that isn't laziness, I don't know what is.

Peace.

No one at the Orthodox Mission take there shoes off or wear headscarfs. Are they "lazy" in the OCA?

[ozgeorge]

The tossing off of calling people who are not EO/OO as "ignorant" as in the thread title is condescending and offensive.

I too was offended by the title of the thread until I noticed something:
If one does not understand a concept because one chooses not to make the effort to understand a concept do we not say that they are "willfully ignorant of that concept"? If I choose not to make the effort to understand another's point of view, am I not "willfully ignorant of their point of view"?
So reflect back on some of the gross oversimplification and sweeping generalisations that have been expressed on this thread, then think about the phrase "The Willful Ignorance of Protestantism" and reflect: "Who is being willfully ignorant of Protestantism?"!
The Lord moves in mysterious ways!

George

[Ebor]

Aaahhh..  Now That is an interesting way of looking at it.  Thank you 

Ebor

[Matthew777]

The only intellectually honest option?  In your opinion. 

The Orthodox Church is THE Church which Christ and the Apostles founded.

Perhaps they are truly not convinced or swayed by the messenger.

If she had a well thought argument against the Eucharist or Apostolic Succession, perhaps I could agree with you. But if your only argument is that you don't like taking your shoes off, that's just laziness.

Peace.

[Matthew777]

No one at the Orthodox Mission take there shoes off or wear headscarfs. Are they "lazy" in the OCA?

It's a tradition with a small "t." I think it would be laziness if one were to refuse taking off one's shoes when standing on holy ground. But my point was that it's laziness if that's your only argument against Orthodoxy.

[Matthew777]

If one does not understand a concept because one chooses not to make the effort to understand a concept do we not say that they are "willfully ignorant of that concept"?

Would you agree that to understand history is the seize being a Protestant?

Peace.

[Justinian]

Would you agree that to understand history is the seize being a Protestant?

Peace.

You mean "To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant"? No?

[Matthew777]

Yes, I think you are correct that "cease" is the right word.

[ozgeorge]

Would you agree that to understand history is the seize being a Protestant?

No.

[Matthew777]

No.

Please elaborate. What basis in history does Protestantism have? To be Protestant, one must ignore that the Church existed for centuries before the Reformation.

Peace.

[ozgeorge]

Please elaborate. What basis in history does Protestantism have? To be Protestant, one must ignore that the Church existed for centuries before the Reformation.

You seem to think that history stopped at the Reformation, and that the Reformation itself was not part of history.
It was when I went to school.

[Matthew777]

You seem to think that history stopped at the Reformation, and that the Reformation itself was not part of history.
It was when I went to school.

Please at least try to understand what I am saying. To have a historical basis for their faith, Protestants would need to prove that the early Christians believed and practiced as they did. But the early Christians most certainly did not, and therefore, no person who honestly understood the early Church could remain a Protestant. An intellectually honest person, who actually understood the 2,000 year history of Christianity, would have to choose Orthodoxy over Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.
What good is it to believe the interpretation of Scripture of someone who broke from longstanding Apostolic Tradition?

Peace.

[ozgeorge]

Please at least try to understand what I am saying.

I'll try, but I just don't have the wisdom of your years.

To have a historical basis for their faith, Protestants would need to prove that the early Christians believed and practiced as they did.

How early?

But the early Christians most certainly did not,

"Did not believe and practice" what? What exactly do the High Church of England or Anglo-Catholics believe and practice which the early Christians did not? Could you clarify for me please?

and therefore, no person who honestly understood the early Church could remain a Protestant. An intellectually honest person, who actually understood the 2,000 year history of Christianity, would have to choose Orthodoxy over Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.

Oh, so all that the Church of England needs to do is to realise that they are not part of Christian history (being Protestant) and that John Keble was not part of Christian history, nor was the Oxford Movement, and that the only milieu where Christian history took place was in the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Orthodox Church- none of which are in Communion with one another, and are seperate Churches, each claiming to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church....Oh, it's so simple! I've seen the light now! I should pop all this in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and no doubt he will instantly lead his flock straight back to the One True Church- which is either the Roman Catholic Church, The Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church or the Assyian Apostolic Church.

[Matthew777]

Oh, so all that the Church of England needs to do is to realise that they are not part of Christian history (being Protestant) and that John Keble was not part of Christian history, nor was the Oxford Movement

What reason would you have for defending the Church of England? Anglicanism is a tangent of Roman Catholicism, which is a tangent of Orthodoxy.

[ozgeorge]

What reason would you have for defending the Church of England? Anglicanism is a tangent of Roman Catholicism, which is a tangent of Orthodoxy.

Oh...so there is an historical connection between them all then?

[Matthew777]

Oh...so there is an historical connection between them all then?

There is one Church which is historically the Church of Christ, and there are those who have chosen to break themselves off. Why do you choose to insult my intelligence, when you should know exactly what I mean?

Christians of the Eastern Churches call themselves Orthodox. This description comes to us from the fifth century and has two meanings which are closely related. The first definition means true teaching. The Orthodox Church believes that she has maintained and handed down the Christian faith, free from error and distortion from the days of the Apostles. The second definition, which is actually the more preferred, means true praise. To bless, praise, and glorify God Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--is the fundamental purpose of the Church. All her activities, even her doctrinal formulations, are directed toward this goal.
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7052.asp

Have Anglicans and other Protestants maintained and handed down the Christian faith, free from error and distortion, from the days of the Apostles?

Peace.

[ozgeorge]

There is one Church which is historically the Church of Christ, and there are those who have chosen to break themselves off. Why do you choose to insult my intelligence, when you should know exactly what I mean?

Peace.

I'm asking you what you mean...so how am I insulting your intelligence with your own position?
You said that "An intellectually honest person, who actually understood the 2,000 year history of Christianity, would have to choose Orthodoxy over Protestantism and Roman Catholicism." OK, I presume that's because the Roman Catholic Church broke away fro the "historical Church", and is not itself the "historical Church". So now we have the problem of finding out which is the historical Church of Christ, since the Assyrian Apostolic Church claims that it is, you guys claim that you are, and we claim that we are, and each of these groups have broken off from one another. So if "breaking off" renders one outside the "historical Church" then only one of the Churches (Assyrian, Oriental Orthodox, or Eastern Orthodox) can be the "historical Church" since they have all broken off from one another. So which one is it?