OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 02:48:09 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: I'm Converting  (Read 13463 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« on: August 27, 2003, 04:04:13 AM »

Hey all,

Guess i'll make it official and let you all know that I've found my Mother Church in Holy Orthodoxy. Many things have happened this year which have immensely enriched my relationship with God; my journey to Eastern-rite Catholicism from Roman-rite was, I believe, God's way of preparing me for Orthodoxy. After devoting MANY hours to research over the past few months I've come to the conclusion that the claims of the Roman Catholic Church where they are at odds with Orthodoxy don't stand up in light of history and scripture, and gradually my skewed understanding of Orthodoxy (thanks mostly to amateur cut-and-paste RC 'net apologists) was set straight. Having to abandon the beliefs that I so ardently defended for years was quite challenging, and the paradigm shift initially caused a few hours of lost sleep, but things have turned out for the best.

It's shaping out to be a fun-filled journey!

Thanks for your support,

Byzantino
Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2003, 08:10:35 AM »

Byzantino,

Congrats on your discovery! Perhaps somewhere down the road I'll be able to join you.  I'm a lifelong Baptist so I still have some longheld Protestant beliefs to reconcile.  Reading arguments back and forth from each side makes my head spin sometimes :cwm30: !  However, I'm still somewhat drawn to Orthodoxy so we'll see.  Well, guess I need to get to work :bounce:. Later

DT
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Brigid of Kildare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 280



« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2003, 08:53:58 AM »

God bless you Byzantino, I came to Orthodoxy from Catholicism myself and I will keep you in my prayers.

Brigid
Logged

Bríd Naomhtha, Mhuire na nGaeil, Guí Orainn
David
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of the South)
Posts: 1,952


Retired GM


WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2003, 11:12:05 AM »

Byzantino...

I wish you well in your catechumenate, but make sure you are constantly vigilant, as in times like this we are constantly preyed upon by the enemy.  To combat the preying, I will make with the praying. Smiley  

Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."
-Yazid Ibrahim
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #4 on: August 27, 2003, 11:54:43 AM »

Congratulations, Byzantino! Welcome home!

May God bless you and grant you many years!


Byzantino,

Congrats on your discovery! Perhaps somewhere down the road I'll be able to join you.  I'm a lifelong Baptist so I still have some longheld Protestant beliefs to reconcile.  Reading arguments back and forth from each side makes my head spin sometimes :cwm30: !  However, I'm still somewhat drawn to Orthodoxy so we'll see.  Well, guess I need to get to work :bounce:. Later

DT

DT -

I hope you will ultimately come home, as well.

I know it's not easy, and I will pray for you.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Gumby
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


Place Personal Text Here


« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2003, 09:48:56 PM »

Byzantino,

Congrats on your discovery! Perhaps somewhere down the road I'll be able to join you.  I'm a lifelong Baptist so I still have some longheld Protestant beliefs to reconcile.  Reading arguments back and forth from each side makes my head spin sometimes :cwm30: !  However, I'm still somewhat drawn to Orthodoxy so we'll see.  Well, guess I need to get to work :bounce:. Later

DT

DT - I find myself in a similar circumstance...though I cannot exactly articulate why.  I am interested in your thoughts...care to elaborate?  Gumby
Logged

NULL
Athanasius
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


Place Personal Text Here


« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2003, 10:58:03 PM »

Thomas,
That spinning head smiley is the coolest one I've ever seen! Where did you find it?

Athanasius
Logged

God became man that man might become God-St. Athanasius
moronikos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ...and they were first called Christians in Antioch
Posts: 150


I'm trying to think, but nothing happens!


WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 27, 2003, 11:16:33 PM »

The Eastern Catholics are good evangelists for the Orthodox.  That's how I got here from there.  Many years to you!
Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2003, 09:09:53 AM »

Hey all,

Guess i'll make it official and let you all know that I've found my Mother Church in Holy Orthodoxy. Many things have happened this year which have immensely enriched my relationship with God; my journey to Eastern-rite Catholicism from Roman-rite was, I believe, God's way of preparing me for Orthodoxy. After devoting MANY hours to research over the past few months I've come to the conclusion that the claims of the Roman Catholic Church where they are at odds with Orthodoxy don't stand up in light of history and scripture, and gradually my skewed understanding of Orthodoxy (thanks mostly to amateur cut-and-paste RC 'net apologists) was set straight. Having to abandon the beliefs that I so ardently defended for years was quite challenging, and the paradigm shift initially caused a few hours of lost sleep, but things have turned out for the best.

It's shaping out to be a fun-filled journey!

Thanks for your support,

Byzantino

Hi Byzantino,
I have a question. It in no way is meant to be a negative one. In my own search I have also considered Orthodoxy but certain questions I have are still there. One is that Jesus gave the Church the great commission to go to all the world. Since the schism in 1054 the Latin Church has continued that commission. But from what I can see the Orthodox haven't. One of the marks of the Church is that it would go to all the world to evangelize. The Orthodox don't seem to meet that particular criteria. (The only time they did is when they were united with the Latin Church.) How did you reconsile that problem in your case?
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2003, 01:40:38 PM »

Polycarp --

The Orthodox actually did missionize Rus extensively even *after* the schism hardened.  The mission began around the time of the schism, but didn't end then -- instead it extended for some time.  And, of course, thereafter the Russians spread Orthodoxy eastward with them across North Asia and into Alaska, notably translating the scriptures and services into several Aleutian languages.  Today, Orthodoxy is still the largest religious affiliation among the Alaskan Aleuts -- see www.alaskanchurch.org.  Orthodox Churches are also scattered across North Asia, inlcuding in Japan, where there is a small but significant community -- but all of us Christians know that with a few exceptions East Asia has not generally been fertile ground for mission.

I have heard this argument raised by more than one of my Roman Catholic friends, and the reality of the matter is that the Latin Church spread the way it did because the Western European countries that were "discovering" (read: Taking Over) the remainder of the planet were often Catholic -- the Spanish, who colonized Latin America, California and the Philippines, the French and Belgians who colonized much of central Africa, etc.  Places where the Protestants colonized, like the USA, have remained mostly Protestant, with inroads coming through immigration of Catholics, not really through mission.  During the "Age of Discovery", the Orthodox world was either (1) enslaved by the Ottoman Empire or (2) living under the relatively backward and isolated Tsarist Russian Empire.  When the Russians began to catch up a bit, they did missionize the places where their empire took them ... but there was no place for the Greeks, the Balkan Slavs or the Middle Eastern Orthodox to missionize, and no means to do it.  That's why things have shaken out the way they have ... not because of some self-satisfied smugness that some RCs would accuse of Orthodoxy, but rather simple brass-tacks history and the fact that the RC enjoyed the spsonsorship of powerful, expansionist regimes during the "Age of Discovery" and utilized this well to expand the Catholic Church substantially beyond its Western European roots.

Today, we are faced with a different missionary situation altogether.  Orthodoxy, right now, is primarily engaged with re-missionizing itself.  The Gospel needs to be brought to people throughout the Orthodox world who are suffering the effects of living under a militant atheist regime for many years -- that's simply priority number one right now, and a LOT of effort is going into it.  In spite of that, however, there is quite a lot of quite missionary work going on throughout the world -- we do not seek, for the most part, to poach other Christians, but our door is open, and our open doors have attracted a good many visitors in North America and Western Europe in the last 10-20 years, a good many of whom have ended up joining our ranks.  In a sense, many of us are convinced that this kind of "open door mission" is the most effective way for Orthodoxy to missionize in our contemporary society.  (And, of course, as some former Eastern Catholic-tiurned-Orthodox priests have mentioned to me, the revitalization of the Eastern Catholic Churches has proven to be of great benefit to Orthodoxy as a missionary venue -- not because we poach Eastern Catholics, but rather because many Latin Catholics, like Byzantino, first approach Orthodoxy through the relatively safe venue of Eastern Catholicism -- after all "it's still Catholic" -- and fine their way eventually to the Orthodox Church -- one Orthodox priest friend of mine once admonished me not to be too critical ofthe Eastern Catholics, saying "If there weren't any Eastern Catholic churches around, do you think you'd be Orthodox right now?")  Nevertheless, one would hope that when Orthodoxy gets back on its feet more fully in a few decades time we will also see increased Orthdodox efforts to bring the Gospel to those places on Earth where Christianity in general hasn't been very succesful -- such as East and (much of) Southeast Asia, and parts of sub-saharan Africa.  


B
« Last Edit: August 28, 2003, 01:57:11 PM by Brendan03 » Logged

B
David
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of the South)
Posts: 1,952


Retired GM


WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2003, 02:02:47 PM »

Saint Polycarp(the poster Smiley ) I'm not sure I agree...

Orthodox have had extensive missions since the Schism

Alaska
China
Japan
Africa(Kenya, Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe and others)
South America(there's a very large mission church in Brazil as well as others)
Australia
And perhaps the land most in need of missions work...America.


Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."
-Yazid Ibrahim
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,460


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2003, 02:57:20 PM »

Fr. Luke Vernonis, Missionaries, Monks, Martyrs: Making Disciples of All Nations, Life and Light publishing, documents Orthodox missionaries past and present.

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #12 on: August 28, 2003, 06:19:42 PM »

Polycarp --

The Orthodox actually did missionize Rus extensively even *after* the schism hardened.  The mission began around the time of the schism, but didn't end then -- instead it extended for some time.  And, of course, thereafter the Russians spread Orthodoxy eastward with them across North Asia and into Alaska, notably translating the scriptures and services into several Aleutian languages.  Today, Orthodoxy is still the largest religious affiliation among the Alaskan Aleuts -- see www.alaskanchurch.org.  Orthodox Churches are also scattered across North Asia, inlcuding in Japan, where there is a small but significant community -- but all of us Christians know that with a few exceptions East Asia has not generally been fertile ground for mission.

I have heard this argument raised by more than one of my Roman Catholic friends, and the reality of the matter is that the Latin Church spread the way it did because the Western European countries that were "discovering" (read: Taking Over) the remainder of the planet were often Catholic -- the Spanish, who colonized Latin America, California and the Philippines, the French and Belgians who colonized much of central Africa, etc.  Places where the Protestants colonized, like the USA, have remained mostly Protestant, with inroads coming through immigration of Catholics, not really through mission.  During the "Age of Discovery", the Orthodox world was either (1) enslaved by the Ottoman Empire or (2) living under the relatively backward and isolated Tsarist Russian Empire.  When the Russians began to catch up a bit, they did missionize the places where their empire took them ... but there was no place for the Greeks, the Balkan Slavs or the Middle Eastern Orthodox to missionize, and no means to do it.  That's why things have shaken out the way they have ... not because of some self-satisfied smugness that some RCs would accuse of Orthodoxy, but rather simple brass-tacks history and the fact that the RC enjoyed the spsonsorship of powerful, expansionist regimes during the "Age of Discovery" and utilized this well to expand the Catholic Church substantially beyond its Western European roots.

Today, we are faced with a different missionary situation altogether.  Orthodoxy, right now, is primarily engaged with re-missionizing itself.  The Gospel needs to be brought to people throughout the Orthodox world who are suffering the effects of living under a militant atheist regime for many years -- that's simply priority number one right now, and a LOT of effort is going into it.  In spite of that, however, there is quite a lot of quite missionary work going on throughout the world -- we do not seek, for the most part, to poach other Christians, but our door is open, and our open doors have attracted a good many visitors in North America and Western Europe in the last 10-20 years, a good many of whom have ended up joining our ranks.  In a sense, many of us are convinced that this kind of "open door mission" is the most effective way for Orthodoxy to missionize in our contemporary society.  (And, of course, as some former Eastern Catholic-tiurned-Orthodox priests have mentioned to me, the revitalization of the Eastern Catholic Churches has proven to be of great benefit to Orthodoxy as a missionary venue -- not because we poach Eastern Catholics, but rather because many Latin Catholics, like Byzantino, first approach Orthodoxy through the relatively safe venue of Eastern Catholicism -- after all "it's still Catholic" -- and fine their way eventually to the Orthodox Church -- one Orthodox priest friend of mine once admonished me not to be too critical ofthe Eastern Catholics, saying "If there weren't any Eastern Catholic churches around, do you think you'd be Orthodox right now?")  Nevertheless, one would hope that when Orthodoxy gets back on its feet more fully in a few decades time we will also see increased Orthdodox efforts to bring the Gospel to those places on Earth where Christianity in general hasn't been very succesful -- such as East and (much of) Southeast Asia, and parts of sub-saharan Africa.  


B

I don't mean this as an argument. Rather I'm speaking out of ignorance of Orthodox history on my part to a certain degree. I am always interested in learning more about the Church, her development and her history.
I realize that the Orthodox had a different expierence than the latins since the schism. Yet it seems that there was and still is no real cooperative effort among the Orthodox Churches to evangelize. Has there ever been any effort orgainzed among the various Orthodox Churches as a cooperative mission? Rome specifically sent missionaries to evangelize all of Europe and as European Explorers discovered more lands, missionaries were sent litterally everywhere in the world. 1000 years is a long time to let the "prime directive" of the Church to sit on the back burner so to speak.
Logged

Peace
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #13 on: August 28, 2003, 06:22:49 PM »

Saint Polycarp(the poster Smiley ) I'm not sure I agree...

Orthodox have had extensive missions since the Schism

Alaska
China
Japan
Africa(Kenya, Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe and others)
South America(there's a very large mission church in Brazil as well as others)
Australia
And perhaps the land most in need of missions work...America.




Extensive? In the past 1000 years the Orthodox have been evangelizing Africa, South America etc? Or is this a new effort?  Is it an organized effort among all of the Orthodox or are individual National Churches sending out missionaries on their own?
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,973


black metal cat


« Reply #14 on: August 28, 2003, 07:40:48 PM »

Saint Polycarp

With all due respect, and no offense meant here, some of your questions are based on a decidedly modern Roman (or Latin) understanding. Asking what joint missionary ventures are being done is not really a relevant question. Very few (if any) of the early missionaries (after the first century) were part of an organized, church-wide, effort to missionize. If anything, there were disputes over missionary work, not cooperation! (think of Rome vs. Constantinople regarding who would missionize Bulgaria in the 9th century, for example).

The Orthodox has continued the historic practice of keeping geographic/ethnic labels; though now it is "Greek Orthodox," and "Russian Orthodox," rather than "The Church of God at Ephesus," and "the Church of God in Galatia," simply because the Church is too large to mention every city and town that has a Church (plus, in the very early Church there were many more bishops as compared to the size of the total flock--nearly a bishop for each Church, if I understand the works of Saint Ignatius correctly, so it would have been more fitting to treat each individual city as a Church unto itself, whereas in time, things eventually changed as numbers grew). The Church also kept the same ecclesiology (though you would perhaps disagree), and remained sort of a loose confederation ruled by the Holy Spirit and Christ our God and the Unoriginate Father, rather than a Democracy, with Rome as the President (veto powers and executive order powers and all). Therefore, that Russia sends out missionaries seperate from Greece or Jerusalem is not only not wrong, but is actually closer to the early Church's practice than "joint" missionary attempts.

I will have to admit though that I'm unaware of any "extensive" missionary activity currently. Certainly nothing like we saw in Alaska among the native peoples there a few centuries ago. ROCOR, for example, which has made some efforts to missionize South America, has maybe 50 churches throughout south america, but half that many priests, and a handful of deacons. For all its efforts (and in individual cases there have been some wonderful success stories), the missionary activity can hardly be called extensize. Japan is another example of an attempted missionizing that didn't really go anywhere. Tens of thousands converted when Saint Nicholas was there laboring. After he died, the numbers either kept at that level or fell. In the 100+ years since he died, there has been little to no growth. We have had some missionary activity in Africa... but then so has every other Christian Joe on the planet. Every major Christian group (from Anglicans and Church of God, to Catholics and Orthodox) could boast of growth in Africa. But it's certainly not extensive. And we really need to work on things so that it does become extensive.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2003, 07:42:18 PM by Paradosis » Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,973


black metal cat


« Reply #15 on: August 28, 2003, 08:20:41 PM »

PS. I should also note (since many might not realise this, coming from outside an Orthodox perspective), that in Orthodoxy missionary activity starts within. Saint Seraphim of Sarov has that famous saying about gaining a peace which will convert thousands around you. Saint Justin Popovich said something similar, saying that ascetics were Orthodoxy's only missionaries, and that asceticism was Orthodoxy's only missionary school. In Orthodoxy, you need to get yourself right before you can focus on others. We Orthodox don't, by in large, see missionary activity as a "calling unto itself," as though you can train someone enough to do good missionary work. For an Orthodox Christian, good missionary work can only be done by an ascetical, religious, pious person. Therefore, while calling for increased missions is not a bad thing, such a calling will get no fruit if there is not a simultaneous increased devotion to working out our own faith with fear and trembling. If we do not fear and tremble before our God, and they cannot see our God working in us, then our witness is no better than the Islamic or Buddhist man's witness. Without the action, our words simply become one more selection that a person may choose if it catches his interest.
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
David
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of the South)
Posts: 1,952


Retired GM


WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 28, 2003, 09:20:01 PM »

www.ocmc.org is your best source...it has in detail the activities of worldwide cooperation in Orthodox missiology.  Actually the Orthodox were just as active in missiology between the Schism and now.  The break came in the early part of the twentieth century when the two largest centers of Orthodoxy (Russia and Greece) were giving the most concentrated effort of missionary activity, matrydom, to the Bolsheviks and the Turks.  In the twentieth century alone, I've seen estimates of anywhere from 20,000,000 to 120,000,000 martyred for Christ in Orthodox lands.  Many other Orthodox lands also suffered greatly and were able to offer their broken bodies and spilt blood to Christ, which is why in the information age you don't hear as much about previous missionary efforts.  When the modern history books and infomercials on missions were being created, most Orthodox were struggling for their lives.

It should also be noted that the Orthodox approach to mission work is very different from that of the west.  To my knowledge, no peoples were converted by swordpoint or to gain material wealth from their rich missionary patrons.  

You should really spend some time at www.ocmc.org.  It has all of the information you are looking for.  For information on historical missiology in Orthodoxy I don't have any specific texts or sites I can refer you to, but those who spend more time reading than I will surely point you in the right direction.
Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."
-Yazid Ibrahim
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2003, 03:34:06 AM »

First a big thankyou to all for your prayers. I'm certainly going to need them from now onwards as I can already see little obstacles placed in front of me, e.g. I can't find my baptism certificate which is needed for my application for catechism, and I've come down with a bad case of the flu which means I won't be able to attend my first Orthodox Divine Liturgy on Sunday.

Polycarp, it's great to have you on this board. You've brought up some excellent points. I would have to say, personally, that Rome's historical success in the field of evangelisation isn’t a very convincing premise to support the conclusion of her being the One True Church, any more than the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Pentecostals can claim to be the true church because of the significant inroads they’ve been making respectively in evangelising the world. As an aside, here in Australia the latter group has in recent years launched an avid crusade to win converts; to my great dismay each Pentecostal I happened to speak to as they were distributing their flyers on the street were former Catholics.  

It’s understandable that you get the impression that Orthodox evangelisation dwarfs that of the Catholic Church. Let’s face it, the Roman Church had so many financial benefits bestowed upon her, which, together with the strong religious zeal and sense of superiority characteristic of the post-schism centuries, made it a force to be reckoned with. Catholics always seem to be in the spotlight too. I think Orthodoxy would benefit greatly from having a well-known public figure, such as a Mel Gibson or a Mother Teresa.

Ultimately my criterion of truth is the purity of a Church’s doctrine; it’s this factor which has compelled me to become Orthodox, in a spirit of love and peace accompanied with gratitude to the Catholic Church. Though I don’t like poking sticks at the Papacy (and since my imagination is over-active because I’ve been in bed all day) there’s no doubt in my mind that Pope Pius IX and his cohorts got away with murder at the Vatican Council. If late 19th Century society enjoyed the freedoms, technological benefits (e.g. internet) and free access to other resources facilitating the learning of religion with which we’re blessed today, there probably would’ve been no dogma of Papal Infallibility. No well-informed person would’ve accepted it, especially in an environment without repression of free expression. And no index of forbidden books (or index of forbidden websites for that matter Smiley ) preventing us from getting the other side of the story.  

 
Regards,

Byzantino

Logged
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2003, 10:12:15 AM »

Hi Polycarp --

"Has there ever been any effort orgainzed among the various Orthodox Churches as a cooperative mission? Rome specifically sent missionaries to evangelize all of Europe and as European Explorers discovered more lands, missionaries were sent litterally everywhere in the world. 1000 years is a long time to let the "prime directive" of the Church to sit on the back burner so to speak."

As I explained above, the answer to this is history.  During the periods when the kind of missionization on a global scale was made possible, the Orthodox were either under the Turks (lasted more or less from 1300s through late 1800s) or living in the Russian Empire.  This precluded any kind of united effort because the Turks simply would not allow it.  The Russians, for their part, were latecomers to the "Discovery" game, but they did take the Orthodox Church with them across Central Asia and into East Asia and Alaska, as noted above.  When the Church began to get back on its feet in the Balkans and the former terrotory of the Byzantine Empire following the demise of the Ottoman regime, the Russian Church promptly became subject to persecution on a massive scale, and again coordination across church lines in Orthodoxy became very problematic.  Really, from the late 1300s until 1990, much of the Orthodox world was living under oppressive, anti-Orthodox regimes who, to varying degrees at different times, controlled the Church and its doings.  That, more than anything else, explains why Orthodoxy as a whole wasn't engaged in a direct missionary effort on a coordinated basis during this period.  Rest assured, if most of Western Europe had been occupied by the Turks, from 1300 to 1850 and then subsequently spent most of the 20th Century under the Soviet communists, the Catholics wouldn't have been missionizing the planet the way they did during the "Age of Discovery", and the focus would have very much been on survival.

Brendan
Logged

B
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,460


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2003, 11:35:56 AM »

Read the writings and articles about Archbishop Anastasios on mission.

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #20 on: August 29, 2003, 12:21:13 PM »

Quote
From Paradosis: The Orthodox has continued the historic practice of keeping geographic/ethnic labels; though now it is "Greek Orthodox," and "Russian Orthodox," rather than "The Church of God at Ephesus," and "the Church of God in Galatia,"

While geographic labels have practical value - they tell us where a church is located - ethnic labels have outlived their usefulness and IMHO are a detriment.

Unfortunately ethnicity is portable - it hangs like a millstone around the neck of the Orthodox Church in this country.

I left a sect (the Missouri Synod Lutherans) that belonged to my own ethnic group for the TRUTH, not so I could join someone else's ethnic group.

Sorry, Paradosis. I know the main point of your post was not to argue for ethnic exclusivity; so I am not really arguing with you. It's just that the whole importation into this country of apparent ethnic limits on the Universal Church (which is what ethnic titles imply and how they are interpreted by most Americans) is a pet peeve of mine.

Quote
From Paradosis: The Church also kept the same ecclesiology (though you would perhaps disagree), and remained sort of a loose confederation ruled by the Holy Spirit and Christ our God and the Unoriginate Father, rather than a Democracy, with Rome as the President (veto powers and executive order powers and all). Therefore, that Russia sends out missionaries seperate from Greece or Jerusalem is not only not wrong, but is actually closer to the early Church's practice than "joint" missionary attempts.

And that failure to cooperate and act jointly has created the jurisdictional mess in which we in this country now find ourselves.


« Last Edit: August 29, 2003, 12:27:44 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,973


black metal cat


« Reply #21 on: August 29, 2003, 12:29:21 PM »

I would agree with you that geographic, rather than ethnic, labels are best. That's one reason I'm in favor of an Orthodox Church of "North America" (or the Americas) rather than a Church of the United States, a Church of Canada, etc. Thankfully this seems to be where we are at, and heading to.

I would also agree that acting together helped create the jurisdictional mess, I'm not saying that we shouldn't act jointly at all. I just don't think we need to have a joint group like SCOBA directing all the missionary activity. And if such a thing did happen, it'd be something unusual, and not in line with historical practice (not that it'd be a bad thing, there's nothing wrong with new methods for reaching people... I'm using one as I type Smiley ).
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #22 on: August 29, 2003, 12:57:16 PM »

Linus7<<While geographic labels have practical value - they tell us where a church is located - ethnic labels have outlived their usefulness and IMHO are a detriment.

Unfortunately ethnicity is portable - it hangs like a millstone around the neck of the Orthodox Church in this country.

I left a sect (the Missouri Synod Lutherans) that belonged to my own ethnic group for the TRUTH, not so I could join someone else's ethnic group.>>

Good points!  I didn't come form the MS Lutherans, Linus, but from the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics, who were quite open to the use of English and the acceptance of non-Slavs into their often shrinking parishes, at least in my admittedly very limited experience, so that's not an issue with me in my background.

But now I live in a middle-sized city where there are only two Eastern Orthodox churches, and both have strong ethnic labels attached to them.  There is St. George GREEK Orthodox Cathedral and there is St. Peter and St. Paul RUSSIAN Orthodox Church (the latter, even though OCA, is still strongly ethnic).  Because of their strong ethnic identity, IMHO, neither of these parishes attracts much interest from those outside their respective ethnic groups.

But like you, I did not become Orthodox to join a particular ethnic group (I am Polish-Czech-Ukrainian ethnically).  I sought the TRUTH and found its fulness in Holy Orthodoxy.  Unfortunately, in my present very ethnic RUSSIAN OCA parish, I am sometimes forced to make compromises and learn at least some Slavonic to sing in the choir or remain silent during some of the chants of the Divine Liturgy.

I agree with you that ethnic labels have outlived their usefulness and are a detriment.  My two former OCA parishes officially dropped the ethnic designations in their parish names and used almost exclusively English in their services.  They also were "open" to others and saw large numbers of converts from outside their "Russian" ethnic group.  I think missiology here requires that.

Hypo-Ortho

Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #23 on: August 29, 2003, 02:16:38 PM »

Quote
From Paradosis: The Orthodox has continued the historic practice of keeping geographic/ethnic labels; though now it is "Greek Orthodox," and "Russian Orthodox," rather than "The Church of God at Ephesus," and "the Church of God in Galatia,"

While geographic labels have practical value - they tell us where a church is located - ethnic labels have outlived their usefulness and IMHO are a detriment.

Unfortunately ethnicity is portable - it hangs like a millstone around the neck of the Orthodox Church in this country.

I left a sect (the Missouri Synod Lutherans) that belonged to my own ethnic group for the TRUTH, not so I could join someone else's ethnic group.

Sorry, Paradosis. I know the main point of your post was not to argue for ethnic exclusivity; so I am not really arguing with you. It's just that the whole importation into this country of apparent ethnic limits on the Universal Church (which is what ethnic titles imply and how they are interpreted by most Americans) is a pet peeve of mine.

Quote
From Paradosis: The Church also kept the same ecclesiology (though you would perhaps disagree), and remained sort of a loose confederation ruled by the Holy Spirit and Christ our God and the Unoriginate Father, rather than a Democracy, with Rome as the President (veto powers and executive order powers and all). Therefore, that Russia sends out missionaries seperate from Greece or Jerusalem is not only not wrong, but is actually closer to the early Church's practice than "joint" missionary attempts.

And that failure to cooperate and act jointly has created the jurisdictional mess in which we in this country now find ourselves.




Hi Linus,
You have stated in a nut shell one of the problems I have had with considering becomming Orthodox. It seems to me that the Church is meant to be One Holy Catholic and apostolic meaning all inclusive. The only apostolic Church which has done this continually from the beginning is The Roman half of the Catholic Church. In spite of the many problems she has suffered at the hands of bad leaders, bad politics etc.  She is truly the only branch of the Catholic Church which has maintaind this Catholicity without national or ethnic bounds.
As a prevatican II Catholic I have been dissappointed with how the reforms that were intended have been carried out. Here in the states at least, I feel they have been misunderstood and our bishops have turned us into quasi-protestants. I feel that it is important to stick with the Church and do my best to make it better.  But honestly seeing the Orthodox continue in the ancient tradition that I once loved and miss is tempting.

Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #24 on: August 29, 2003, 02:30:14 PM »

Hi Polycarp --

"Has there ever been any effort orgainzed among the various Orthodox Churches as a cooperative mission? Rome specifically sent missionaries to evangelize all of Europe and as European Explorers discovered more lands, missionaries were sent litterally everywhere in the world. 1000 years is a long time to let the "prime directive" of the Church to sit on the back burner so to speak."

As I explained above, the answer to this is history.  During the periods when the kind of missionization on a global scale was made possible, the Orthodox were either under the Turks (lasted more or less from 1300s through late 1800s) or living in the Russian Empire.  This precluded any kind of united effort because the Turks simply would not allow it.  The Russians, for their part, were latecomers to the "Discovery" game, but they did take the Orthodox Church with them across Central Asia and into East Asia and Alaska, as noted above.  When the Church began to get back on its feet in the Balkans and the former terrotory of the Byzantine Empire following the demise of the Ottoman regime, the Russian Church promptly became subject to persecution on a massive scale, and again coordination across church lines in Orthodoxy became very problematic.  Really, from the late 1300s until 1990, much of the Orthodox world was living under oppressive, anti-Orthodox regimes who, to varying degrees at different times, controlled the Church and its doings.  That, more than anything else, explains why Orthodoxy as a whole wasn't engaged in a direct missionary effort on a coordinated basis during this period.  Rest assured, if most of Western Europe had been occupied by the Turks, from 1300 to 1850 and then subsequently spent most of the 20th Century under the Soviet communists, the Catholics wouldn't have been missionizing the planet the way they did during the "Age of Discovery", and the focus would have very much been on survival.

Brendan

Hi Brendan,
Thank you for your opinion. However the Latin Church has had similar and possibaly even worse problems what with all the European kings and Emperors, Dictators etc. who have always tried to use the Church for their own personal gain. Even to the point of corrupting the Papacy and college of Cardinals at times. Yet through all this, the Latin Church maintained the apostolic faith and continually maintained a vigorus world wide evangelization.  It seems to me that this could have happened only by the grace of God and the guidance of The Holy Spirit. Thus I can't discount the Catholic Church as be totally valid and worthy of being considered Catholic/Christian on an equal footing with any of the other ancient apostolic Churches.  
I have concluded that from a faith point of view it dosen't matter whether we are Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox or Coptic etc. We are all part of the One Holy Catholic and apostolic Church and seperated by man made walls. Let us tear them down!

Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
katherine 2001
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 889


Eastern Orthodox Church--Established in 33 A.D.


« Reply #25 on: August 29, 2003, 04:59:13 PM »

Polycarp, do you live in an area that has more than Orthodox church?  Try attending them until you find one where services are done in English and people are accepting of non-ethnic folks.  Actually, I have known people who did attend very ethnic parishes, but were accepted wholeheartedly by others.  So, even an ethnic parish can be a good experience.  However, I have known people that had bad experiences with ethnic parishes.  

There is a Serbian parish an hour away from where I live.  It is an old parish (over 100 years old).  In fact, it is +Bishop NIKOLAI of Alaska's (OCA) home parish.  The current priest is the one who insisted that the services be done in English, and he is a native Serb.  He just came here maybe 8 years ago.  He couldn't speak English when he came.  He speaks beautiful English now (I don't think that having an American wife hurt in this).  He started doing the services in English not all that long after he came.  The only things still in Slavonic are using "Amin" instead of "Amen" and one of the recitings of the Lord's Prayer is still done in Slavonic.  All the rest of the service is done in English.  Also, he opened the church to non-Serbian people, making it clear that the church was open to anyone who wanted to be Orthodox, whether they were Serbian or not.  The main thing is to give it a chance.  Yes, some churches are ethnic clubs that don't welcome anyone who is not of that ethnic group, but others are not that way.  We only have two cradle Orthodox in our OCA mission--one is 60 years old and grew up in a Ukrainian Orthodox parish in Pennsylvania (near Pittsburgh) and our Reader's youngest daughter, who was born after the family converted (she's 6).  The rest of us are converts.  It's the same way with the other two OCA parishes in Montana.  There are more cradle Orthodox in Billings, which is much bigger, but they are very accepting (there are many converts in that church as well and the cradle Orthodox are a mixture of Greek and the different Slavonic jurisdictions.
Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #26 on: August 29, 2003, 05:30:26 PM »

Hi Katherine,
There are two OCA churches in my general area. There are two Greek Orthodox Churches also. I will probably take teh time to visit them in the fall.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #27 on: September 08, 2003, 05:15:11 PM »


I am a recent convert to Orthodoxy myself and am happy that Anasasios pointed me to this board.  I have been on the Byzantine Catholic board for some time and some of the discussions there have been enlightening, I can already see from the number of topics and discussions on this board, it is also a good place to be.

I can understand some opf what Byzantino has related.

I myself was a strong Roman Catholic in my youth and in college.  I had many discussions in college with Protestant fundamentalists defending the faith.  At the time I knew very little about the Orthodox Church.  

One of the blessings that has come from my marriage to my wife (she is Orthodox) is learning about Eastern Christainity and its worship. My spiritual journey took me to Roman Catholicism to Byzantine Catholicism to finally Orthodoxy.  I have learned much over the years and feel blessed by the journey and my new home in the Orthodox Church.  

Even as a stong Catholic in the past, there were doctrines and attitutes in the Roman Church that always caused reservations in me. In my exploration of the Orthodox faith over the years I have found many of my questions answered and understanding of faith more clear.  I feel more spiritual freedom, because I do not have the reservations on doctrine (especially on the role and authority on the Papacy and all the "innovations" that seem to make the faith confusing) I had as a Roman Catholic.

I hope to make positive contributions to this forum.

Joe
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #28 on: September 08, 2003, 05:35:28 PM »

Welcome, Justinianus (Joe)!

Glad you're here!  Grin
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #29 on: September 08, 2003, 06:29:02 PM »

I have a question for Orthodox who are former Catholics, especially Byzantino (and then I will promptly shut up Wink )

When you come to Orthodoxy, do you get to keep what you've learned from the RCC? Do you despise your Roman Catholic past as "the old man of sin?" In retrospect, do you consider Catholic sacraments valid? Do you consider the RCC to have apostolic succession or not?

Just curious. I myself can't imagine converting. (But the sight of priestesses in my Church would send me careening your way.... Tongue)
Logged
bripat22
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


Slava Tebie, Boze nas! Slava Tebie


« Reply #30 on: September 08, 2003, 07:42:27 PM »


    Culture Warrior,

         Although this might not be specific to many of your questions, this is a good article by an OCA priest, Father John Garvey who converted from Catholicism.  I find that I must read it again and again when I notice myself getting into the "Convert's Syndrome"  Grin


              http://www.jacwell.org/articles/1996-FALL-Garvey.html


Logged

For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like!-

                            Maggie Smith "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie"
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #31 on: September 08, 2003, 08:47:07 PM »

Quote
When you come to Orthodoxy, do you get to keep what you've learned from the RCC? Do you despise your Roman Catholic past as "the old man of sin?" In retrospect, do you consider Catholic sacraments valid? Do you consider the RCC to have apostolic succession or not?

1)   You get to keep a lot from the RCC.  The basic concepts of Tradition, liturgy, sacraments, councils, Marian veneration, ascetism (although this is almost gone from moderan RCism).  But the focus and exact attitude towards each is shifted.  But coming from a background that accepts all of those is a HUGE stepping stone, for which I am very thankful.

2)  Yes, I do consider all the time before Orthodoxy to be the old man of sin, but that is more a reflection of my personal failings and has little to do with the RCC.

3)   No, I do not believe Latin sacraments to be grace filled.  The anology I have heard and makes sense to me is to compare Orthodoxy to a tree.  By schism and heresy the Latin Church cut itself off from the tree; over time the branch slowly withers and dies.  

4)  Not in the sense that Orthodoxy does.  Their lines lost grace when heresy was infused into them.

Logged
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #32 on: September 08, 2003, 09:45:58 PM »

That's why I could never convert. I've received too many graces from the Eucharist. I know they're real.  Cool
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #33 on: September 08, 2003, 10:33:40 PM »

I look back on my RC past with enormous gratitude as I wouldn't be where I am now if it wasn't for the myriad of graces I received from God as a RC, which were, as i discern, in preparation for my journey to Orthodoxy. Nothing irritates me more than a former Catholic who repudiates his or her past with acrimony and venomous hatred, a la the "Former Catholics for Christ" type.

Do I believe RC sacraments to be grace filled? I certainly do, but only where the ministers are orthodox by RC standards and the Mass isn't celebrated like a circus. RC has produced too many great saints which would otherwise have been impossible were the sacraments devoid of grace; the greatest probably being Padre Pio, a man who had all the special gifts of the Holy Spirit.  


"That's why I could never convert. I've received too many graces from the Eucharist. I know they're real. "


My Protestant friends follow the same line of reasoning for not converting to any other Church. But I certainly don't reproach them or anyone for that matter who acts in good faith and with honest conviction.
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #34 on: September 08, 2003, 11:12:11 PM »

It should be noted that the Orthodox teaching isn't that miracles and other supernatural happenings are limited to within the Church....it is more that they are ordinarily within it.  Saint Paul even says that the pagans in a limited way knew God, so it is with the non-Orthodox.  The difference being that non-Orthodox Christian are MUCH MUCH closer to Orthodoxy.


Also thinking about it I would like to make a revision to point two:  There are things that I repent of that are directly associated with Latin doctrine.  The biggest that comes mind are belief in evolution and the "scholastic" mindset.
Logged
David
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of the South)
Posts: 1,952


Retired GM


WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 08, 2003, 11:14:23 PM »

Joe(Justinias), welcome to the forums!  Look forward to seeing your contribution to the discussions.
Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."
-Yazid Ibrahim
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #36 on: September 08, 2003, 11:57:27 PM »

Quote
My Protestant friends follow the same line of reasoning for not converting to any other Church. But I certainly don't reproach them or anyone for that matter who acts in good faith and with honest conviction.


Please expound on this.

A religion that says Roman Catholic sacraments are not valid, or grace-filled, must be false, because I know them to be real. (Regardless of clown masses, or orthodoxy of priests).

Do your protestant friends base their line of reasoning on the Eucharist? That would be curious indeed!
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,410


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #37 on: September 09, 2003, 12:05:55 AM »

A religion that says Roman Catholic sacraments are not valid, or grace-filled, must be false, because I know them to be real. (Regardless of clown masses, or orthodoxy of priests).

With all due respect, CW, I would think such an opinion would be just that--an opinion.  Your view is at least as subjective as those of the religion(s) you are condemning.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #38 on: September 09, 2003, 12:16:50 AM »

I was in your same boat at one time, academically speaking I could see Orthodoxy was right with the Papacy and Filioque but I didn't see the need to convert.  Two things happened though that changed everything.  I read "The Way of a Pilgrim" and visited an Orthodox monastery (www.stanthonysmonastery.org) for the first time in my life.  Then I saw that Orthodoxy wasn't just another denomination of Christianity, but it was something completly different than anything else.  There were some issue that I struggled with, grace being in the Latin church one of them....even now there are a few things that I have trouble with.  But what is present in Orthodoxy is nowhere else, and I realized you CAN'T just pick and choose.
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #39 on: September 09, 2003, 04:31:51 AM »

Hi Culture Warrior,

I certainly mean no offence by this whatsoever nor do I want to provoke anything. Their line of reasoning basically follows yours in that personal feelings take too much priority in their criteria for determining truth. It begs the question, and is a form of argumentation that can be used by anyone to justify virtually any belief system.

To my knowledge Orthodoxy places a question mark over the "validity" of Roman Catholic sacraments, and doesn't say outright that they are false. Individual Orthodox are free to hold whatever opinion on this matter.

My argument is not a deductive one but rather a causal inference - I believe the RC sacraments, on the basis of the effects they have had on many Roman Catholic saints (extraordinary holiness and manifestation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which are nourished by the Sacraments), are grace-filled.
Logged
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #40 on: September 09, 2003, 08:26:11 AM »


Like Byzantino, I look back on my RC past with great gratitude and no ill feeling.  The Church helped me to develope in many positive ways and I learned of the great love of Christ for all humanity through the life of the Church.  The sacraments I received as a RC have meaning for me and did help me to spititually grow in the Christian life.  I learned of the importance of Tradition and the Sacraments in the life of the Church.     Receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation from an Archbishop in a giant cathedral is an experience I will always remember as will the great piety of my Grandmother who was a devout RC.

I was a very acitive RC in my College days and had a desire to become a priest after I completed my military service.  Meeting my wife and subsequently moving spitually to Eastern Christianity stopped it.

I have known many good RC priests, especially the chaplains in the military.  They were good men of strong character.  

I have retained my great love of Latin.  I studied the language for six years and continue to read the Vulgate Bible and say the Our Father and Creed (minus the filoque) in Latin.  I would be interested in seeing a version of the Divine Liturgy in Latin if one exists.  I also have plans to read some of St. Ambrose in the original Latin sometime.

The way I can relate the situation is through a analogy of sorts.  As a Roman Catholic I was looking at Christ with eye glasses with the wrong prescription.  I could see Him, but it was a bit blurry and sometimes I had to strain my eyes.  As an Othrodox, I have the eye glasses of the correct prescription.  I see Him clearly and can appreciate his full glory.  

GLORIA IN EXCELIS DEO!
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,410


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #41 on: September 09, 2003, 08:56:14 AM »

I would be interested in seeing a version of the Divine Liturgy in Latin if one exists.

Dear Joe,

Send me an email at enlightenedsince1981@excite.com; I might have something you'd be interested in.  Wink
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #42 on: September 09, 2003, 09:28:12 AM »

Joe(Justinias),

in case you didn't notice, I sent you a private message.
Click here! (hope that is the correct URL)

John.
Logged
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #43 on: September 09, 2003, 10:23:15 AM »

Byzantino writes:

Quote
I certainly mean no offence by this whatsoever nor do I want to provoke anything. Their line of reasoning basically follows yours in that personal feelings take too much priority in their criteria for determining truth. It begs the question, and is a form of argumentation that can be used by anyone to justify virtually any belief system.


No offense taken. Wink I think it is not the same, although I can see your point. I can support my "opinion" with reason, scripture, and Tradition. Probably patristics too, although I'm quite novice in this area. (Novice as in I hadn't given it a previous moment's thought before joining this board).

Mor Ephrem writes:

Quote
With all due respect, CW, I would think such an opinion would be just that--an opinion.  Your view is at least as subjective as those of the religion(s) you are condemning.  


Point taken, but see above. It is an opinion that can be supported by ample historical, scriptural and experiential data. Is the validity of Orthodox sacraments "just an opinion?"

It is a moot point, however, because as it was said earlier, the Orthodox do not have a unified doctrinal position on this. They simply haven't yet realized that Catholicism is a valid Church with valid sacraments.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2003, 11:36:12 AM by The Culture Warrior » Logged
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #44 on: September 10, 2003, 09:08:30 AM »

That's why I could never convert. I've received too many graces from the Eucharist. I know they're real.  Cool

In the Protestant church I have personally witnessed a woman healed of Cerebral Palsy, a man healed of retinal scarring which had left him blind in one eye, and a close friend have a broken wrist healed such that there was no indication of it having ever been broken.

Do I believe that the Protestant church is part of the body of Christ? No.
Do I believe that God works where He will where ever there is faith, even if that faith is misguided? Yes.

unworthy John.
Logged
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #45 on: September 10, 2003, 11:19:10 AM »

It's not the same thing. Protestants for the most part don't think in terms of sacraments. We do. Ours are real, and we can back it up.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,460


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #46 on: September 10, 2003, 01:46:19 PM »

CW,

The Orthodox teaching comes thusly:

1) The Church is the Body of Christ.
2) The Church is present where the Eucharist (his Body) is.
3) The Eucharist is where the bishop is.
4) The bishop is a bishop if he:
     a) has Orthodox faith
     b) was ordained by Orthodox bishops
     c) was ordained *for an Orthodox community in that community*
     d) maintains communion with other Orthodox bishops (this is not assumign there is a heretical movement tearing apart the Church as in the time of Athanasius)

So if Christ is not divided, how can he be in two Churches at once?

At the same time many Orthodox realize what you say, namely that there is the operation of the Holy Spirit (which is actually operative everywhere) in the Catholic Church.  However, since the apostles and fathers taught us that Christ cannot be divided, hence we take them on their word.  Hence Orthodox do not pronounce officially on sacraments outside of Orthodoxy, because to do so would enter a contradiction into the faith, but at the same time this refusal to pronounce allows for the experience of Christians in other Churches who are experiencing God (albeit not in any way in His fullness).

If you think there is Orthodox confusion here, this dispute rages all the way back to St. Cyprian vs. Pope Stephen; the result was that there was no definitive answer, and each bishop continued to do his own practice, saying he would be accountable to God.

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,422


« Reply #47 on: September 10, 2003, 02:13:24 PM »

CW,

The Orthodox teaching comes thusly:

1) The Church is the Body of Christ.
2) The Church is present where the Eucharist (his Body) is.
3) The Eucharist is where the bishop is.
4) The bishop is a bishop if he:
     a) has Orthodox faith
     b) was ordained by Orthodox bishops
     c) was ordained *for an Orthodox community in that community*
     d) maintains communion with other Orthodox bishops (this is not assumign there is a heretical movement tearing apart the Church as in the time of Athanasius)

So if Christ is not divided, how can he be in two Churches at once?

At the same time many Orthodox realize what you say, namely that there is the operation of the Holy Spirit (which is actually operative everywhere) in the Catholic Church.  However, since the apostles and fathers taught us that Christ cannot be divided, hence we take them on their word.  Hence Orthodox do not pronounce officially on sacraments outside of Orthodoxy, because to do so would enter a contradiction into the faith, but at the same time this refusal to pronounce allows for the experience of Christians in other Churches who are experiencing God (albeit not in any way in His fullness).

If you think there is Orthodox confusion here, this dispute rages all the way back to St. Cyprian vs. Pope Stephen; the result was that there was no definitive answer, and each bishop continued to do his own practice, saying he would be accountable to God.

anastasios

Nice and succint way to put it.  I should carry this around on a notecard.
Logged
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #48 on: September 10, 2003, 03:42:05 PM »

Quote
The Orthodox teaching comes thusly:

1) The Church is the Body of Christ.
2) The Church is present where the Eucharist (his Body) is.
3) The Eucharist is where the bishop is.
4) The bishop is a bishop if he:
    a) has Orthodox faith
    b) was ordained by Orthodox bishops
    c) was ordained *for an Orthodox community in that community*
    d) maintains communion with other Orthodox bishops (this is not assumign there is a heretical movement tearing apart the Church as in the time of Athanasius)

So if Christ is not divided, how can he be in two Churches at once?

At the same time many Orthodox realize what you say, namely that there is the operation of the Holy Spirit (which is actually operative everywhere) in the Catholic Church.  However, since the apostles and fathers taught us that Christ cannot be divided, hence we take them on their word.  Hence Orthodox do not pronounce officially on sacraments outside of Orthodoxy, because to do so would enter a contradiction into the faith, but at the same time this refusal to pronounce allows for the experience of Christians in other Churches who are experiencing God (albeit not in any way in His fullness).

If you think there is Orthodox confusion here, this dispute rages all the way back to St. Cyprian vs. Pope Stephen; the result was that there was no definitive answer, and each bishop continued to do his own practice, saying he would be accountable to God.

anastasios

But isn't such an opinion just that, an opinion? Surely it is as subjective as my own?
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,422


« Reply #49 on: September 10, 2003, 05:05:27 PM »

Quote
The Orthodox teaching comes thusly:

1) The Church is the Body of Christ.
2) The Church is present where the Eucharist (his Body) is.
3) The Eucharist is where the bishop is.
4) The bishop is a bishop if he:
    a) has Orthodox faith
    b) was ordained by Orthodox bishops
    c) was ordained *for an Orthodox community in that community*
    d) maintains communion with other Orthodox bishops (this is not assumign there is a heretical movement tearing apart the Church as in the time of Athanasius)

So if Christ is not divided, how can he be in two Churches at once?

At the same time many Orthodox realize what you say, namely that there is the operation of the Holy Spirit (which is actually operative everywhere) in the Catholic Church.  However, since the apostles and fathers taught us that Christ cannot be divided, hence we take them on their word.  Hence Orthodox do not pronounce officially on sacraments outside of Orthodoxy, because to do so would enter a contradiction into the faith, but at the same time this refusal to pronounce allows for the experience of Christians in other Churches who are experiencing God (albeit not in any way in His fullness).

If you think there is Orthodox confusion here, this dispute rages all the way back to St. Cyprian vs. Pope Stephen; the result was that there was no definitive answer, and each bishop continued to do his own practice, saying he would be accountable to God.

anastasios

But isn't such an opinion just that, an opinion? Surely it is as subjective as my own?

So...what are YOU saying?  Anastasios just summed up the EO position/beliefs.  The EO maintain that the RCC is not part of the Church (see above).  The RCC seems to be saying the the EO are part of the Church, an "eastern Lung" but "lost bretheren" or something to that effect.  The EO say, thanks, that's nice of you, but we don't believe that.
Logged
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #50 on: September 10, 2003, 05:08:42 PM »

Catholicism does not teach that validity of sacraments is dependent upon the orthodoxy of its priests. "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchesidech."
Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #51 on: September 10, 2003, 05:24:34 PM »

Catholicism does not teach that validity of sacraments is dependent upon the orthodoxy of its priests. "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchesidech."

I believe that quote is referring to Jesus Himself.  Other priests are falliable and can fall away from the faith.
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,422


« Reply #52 on: September 10, 2003, 05:58:20 PM »

Catholicism does not teach that validity of sacraments is dependent upon the orthodoxy of its priests. "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchesidech."

You sure about that?  A priest can be defrocked by his bishop.  Why would their sacraments then still be valid?
Logged
Frobie
Quasi Vero Monaco
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 633


Rublev's Trinity


WWW
« Reply #53 on: September 10, 2003, 06:17:43 PM »

Elisha,

     I think I can explain your question. In Roman Catholicism, a defrocked priest has valid sacraments since Holy Orders is considered an "indellible mark." If a priest or bishop is defrocked/deposed, then he cannot celebrate sacraments licitly, but he can still perform them illicitly because of his ordination. However, the priest will suffer the consequences with the Church and on Judgement Day for celebrating the sacraments ilicitly, while the faithful who unknowlingly participate are not harmed.

Matt
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #54 on: September 12, 2003, 07:33:59 AM »


So if Christ is not divided, how can he be in two Churches at once?


How can God be three and yet one?
Logged
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #55 on: September 12, 2003, 08:01:51 AM »


So if Christ is not divided, how can he be in two Churches at once?


How can God be three and yet one?


Christ has only one body (but then you know that already. Are you just playing devil's advocate?)

John.
Logged
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #56 on: September 12, 2003, 08:34:08 AM »

In Roman Catholicism, a defrocked priest has valid sacraments since Holy Orders is considered an "indellible mark."

Which is why in RC a priest can rape young boys and still be a "Man of God"?

RC is so blinded by the evil one that it is beyond redemption.
Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,651



WWW
« Reply #57 on: September 12, 2003, 08:41:21 AM »

How can  Christ be in two Churches at once?

Well surely that depends on whether we are using Church in the absolute and unknowable sense of the Body of Christ - the limits of which are drawn by Christ and not men, or whether we are talking of transitory and provisional human organisations.

If, for instance, the See of Antioch broke communion with the See of Alexandria - as happened many times but I am thinking just now of the period during the patriarchates of St Cyril the Great and John of Antioch - where there two Churches or one? And if there were one then the issue of communion does not damage the ontological unity of the Church, and if there were two then the fact that both could come into communion with each other shows that St Cyril did not consider that a breach in communion invalidated the presence of Christ in both communions.

The number of schisms which occurred between East and West and within the West and within the East which were resolved, often after generations, without the requirement for the baptism/chrismation/ordination/consecration of members of either party show that patristrically speaking it was considered that Christ could be in two 'Churches' at once, since neither perfectly reflect the reality of the Church, the mystical Bride of Christ.

What matters is that the Orthodox faith is professed. If the faith is professed then arguments and schisms and breaches of communion and walling off from heresy are all resolvable. If the faith is shown to be irremediably different then we are not dealing with churches but a church and a fellowship of heterodox.

Peter Theodore
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #58 on: September 12, 2003, 08:52:39 AM »

The number of schisms which occurred between East and West and within the West and within the East which were resolved, often after generations, without the requirement for the baptism/chrismation/ordination/consecration of members of either party show that patristrically speaking it was considered that Christ could be in two 'Churches' at once, since neither perfectly reflect the reality of the Church, the mystical Bride of Christ.

What matters is that the Orthodox faith is professed. If the faith is professed then arguments and schisms and breaches of communion and walling off from heresy are all resolvable. If the faith is shown to be irremediably different then we are not dealing with churches but a church and a fellowship of heterodox.

Peter Theodore

Good points.  That helps answer some questions I've been having in my own mind about the Church and schisms, etc.
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #59 on: September 12, 2003, 08:58:00 AM »


So if Christ is not divided, how can he be in two Churches at once?


How can God be three and yet one?


Christ has only one body (but then you know that already. Are you just playing devil's advocate?)


Now wait a minute. In your eagerness to refute me you are willing to deny what scripture itself is saying. Scripture speaks directly of two things being the body of Christ, and alludes to a third. This last is, of course the "stick your had in my side" body, the Jesus whom the disciples see in the 40 days. Then of course there is the bread of the Eucharist. Finally there is the Church, but this latter is also spoken of in other terms.

The point here is that under all these various unities, the fundamental unity is mystical, just as the unity of the Trinity is mystical. If you must demand that the unity of The Church must be simple and visible and ordinary, then you are establishing a principle which you must violate elsewhere. This isn't a good enough argument for the institutional unity of the church, because to remain Orthodox you must deny that principle in other contexts.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,410


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #60 on: September 12, 2003, 09:12:43 AM »

In Roman Catholicism, a defrocked priest has valid sacraments since Holy Orders is considered an "indellible mark."

Which is why in RC a priest can rape young boys and still be a "Man of God"?

RC is so blinded by the evil one that it is beyond redemption.

Not that I'm defending those Roman Catholic priests who have done these unspeakable abominations, but the RC teaching on the indelible mark left on the souls of those who receive certain sacraments has nothing to do with the crimes of a few priests.  For that matter, no matter what sin you commit, you are still a child of God, made in His image and likeness.  That's Orthodox teaching.  What now?  Is the Orthodox Church blinded by the evil one so much that it is beyond redemption?  

No offence, but while I agree with you that the sexual abuse of young people perpetrated by Roman Catholic priests is horrible beyond words, I don't think your remarks here are very fair.  One thing doesn't have to do with the other.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #61 on: September 12, 2003, 09:17:17 AM »

The way the statement is worded implies that "once a Priest, always a Priest", and "once you have been elevated over the common man with Holy Orders, you ALWAYS have that Grace"

I reject that. It is dangerous and against scripture.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2003, 09:18:31 AM by TomS » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,410


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #62 on: September 12, 2003, 09:22:36 AM »

I tend to agree with you there.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,732


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #63 on: September 12, 2003, 11:31:37 AM »

<surface>

OK, I can't let this one go by.

Quote
In Roman Catholicism, a defrocked priest has valid sacraments since Holy Orders is considered an "indelible mark." If a priest or bishop is defrocked/deposed, then he cannot celebrate sacraments licitly, but he can still perform them illicitly because of his ordination. However, the priest will suffer the consequences with the Church and on Judgement Day for celebrating the sacraments ilicitly, while the faithful who unknowlingly participate are not harmed.

This needs a few tweaks. A difference between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic views is that the Orthodox view of the Church and the apostolic ministry is admirably clear-cut: if a priest is no longer under the omophor of an Orthodox bishop, if he hasn't got an antimins from such, functionally he isn't a priest anymore - he can't serve the Liturgy, hear confessions and pronounce absolution, do anything priestly. The Catholic Church is slightly different: without a bishop, a priest can't hear confessions (unless there is a dire emergency) or officiate at weddings but can still offer Mass, which as you say is considered 'valid but illicit'. If there is a dire emergency, then you're right, a defrocked priest can hear a confession and absolve, but normally it's like in EOxy: his absolution or any weddings he performs would be 'invalid'.

Quote
Which is why in RC a priest can rape young boys and still be a "Man of God"?

RC is so blinded by the evil one that it is beyond redemption.

I'm sure Catholics agree that such a priest personally isn't a 'man of God' but if you are referring to the efficacy of the sacraments, this statement could be construed as Donatist and Protestant.

The apostolic ministry depends on the Church, not the worthiness or not of the minister.

I am fairly sure Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't hold the part of the Donatist heresy that says the grace of a sacrament depends on the worthiness of the minister.

The Donatists held this regarding heretics or apostates who came back, and the Protestants picked it up again using the corruption of the clergy as an excuse to drop apostolic succession (Anglicans and Swedish Lutherans the notable exceptions).

'Indelible character' AFAIK is an open question in Eastern Orthodoxy but as long as a priest is under the omophor of an Orthodox bishop, Orthodoxy agrees with the Catholic Church on this: his sacraments have grace, no matter how horrible he may be personally.

The Culture Warrior is right too - the priest's personal orthodoxy doesn't matter as long as he is under a bishop and is using an orthodox rite, which supplies 'the intention of the Church', no matter what the priest does or doesn't believe in.

</surface>
Logged

SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #64 on: September 12, 2003, 12:27:53 PM »

Agreed concerning sacramental graces.

I would add however that as far as I see it, the efficacy of the priest's personal blessing is somehow a consequence of his personal sanctity.  I wouldn't waste my time asking for the blessing of a rat in priest's cloth.

In IC XC
Samer
Logged
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #65 on: September 12, 2003, 12:54:59 PM »

I am fairly sure Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't hold the part of the Donatist heresy that says the grace of a sacrament depends on the worthiness of the minister.

Nor am I saying that. I agree that as long as they "wear the cloth" any Sacraments they offer do have grace.

I am saying that the RC Church has a pattern of being aware of the evil of these priests and does not defrock them. Thereby enabling them to continue as priests and offer the Sacraments.

« Last Edit: September 12, 2003, 12:55:31 PM by TomS » Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #66 on: September 12, 2003, 01:39:54 PM »

In Roman Catholicism, a defrocked priest has valid sacraments since Holy Orders is considered an "indellible mark."

Which is why in RC a priest can rape young boys and still be a "Man of God"?

RC is so blinded by the evil one that it is beyond redemption.


Dear Tom,

Priests or anyone who commits such crimes are not considered to be "a man of God" in the ordinary understanding of the term.

Yet even men of God are sinners. Your post is rather uncharitable. I assume it is because you don't understand the idea of the sacrament leaving an indellible mark on someone. Baptism is also considered to leave an indellible mark, yet thousands upon thousands of vile Evil people committed horrendous crimes even though they were baptised. No one would argue that their baptism can be reversed or nullified would they?
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #67 on: September 12, 2003, 02:25:41 PM »

.....No one would argue that their baptism can be reversed or nullified would they?

So what are you saying: "Once saved always saved"?

The term "Man of God" in the US is a label specifically for someone who has been ordained. That is why it is in quotes. I was not referring to Laity.


And yes, I DO expect a Priest to a maintain a higher standard than myself and the Laity.  And THAT is also expected by the Church who ordained him.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2003, 02:27:55 PM by TomS » Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #68 on: September 12, 2003, 04:24:45 PM »

.....No one would argue that their baptism can be reversed or nullified would they?

So what are you saying: "Once saved always saved"?

The term "Man of God" in the US is a label specifically for someone who has been ordained. That is why it is in quotes. I was not referring to Laity.


And yes, I Do expect a Priest to a maintain a higher standard than myself and the Laity.  And THAT is also expected by the Church who ordained him.

Tom,
How do you come up with OSAS by my statement? Man of God is customairly used to denote someone with religious authority but some folks don't know that.
Who dosn't expect priests and bishops to maintain the highest standard possible? Certainly all Christians expect that. Jesus warned us that the wheat and the tares must grow togeather till the harvest. So we shouldn't be supprised when we see evil people in the Church. All Christians should be adhearing to the highest standard that they possibly can, not just those who are ordained.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #69 on: September 12, 2003, 04:30:47 PM »

How do you come up with OSAS by my statement?

Too much sugar?  Grin  Ahhh heck with it! I don't even know what we are debating here.

Besides, there is a Meatloaf song on the radio. Now THAT is TRULY aggravating. Must ....turn.....offfff!!!!
« Last Edit: September 12, 2003, 04:33:33 PM by TomS » Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #70 on: September 12, 2003, 04:34:07 PM »

How do you come up with OSAS by my statement?

Too much sugar?  Grin

Ahhh heck with it! I don't even know what we are debating here.

LOL
I didn't know we were debating either. For me this kind of forum is a friendly exchange of belief's and information.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #71 on: September 12, 2003, 04:39:30 PM »

Right. We got a groovy kind of love
Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #72 on: September 12, 2003, 04:48:26 PM »

Right. We got a groovy kind of love

Oy that may reveal your age or your knowledge of 60's rock. LOL
 Cool
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Edwin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


Place Personal Text Here


« Reply #73 on: September 12, 2003, 11:12:53 PM »

Culture Warrior,

You seemed puzzled by the idea that Protestants might think they have experienced grace in the sacraments. This, with all due respect, shows that you are stereotyping all Protestants as low-church fundamentalists. Anglicans (not all of whom think they are Protestants--but _your_ Church thinks we are!), Lutherans, and many Methodists and Presbyterians, would all believe in some form of sacramental grace. And you can find members of more low-church groups who do as well. I myself have resisted becoming Catholic or Orthodox for years largely because I couldn't abandon the belief that Protestant Eucharists convey real grace. I am Episcopalian, but I have experienced--or seemed to experience--sacramental grace in Methodist, Campbellite, and other Protestant churches. Indeed, I first began to believe in sacramental grace from experiencing weekly communion in Plymouth Brethren assemblies in Romania. So don't write Protestant sacramentalism off just because your own experience may have been with fundamentalists.

In Christ,

Edwin
Logged

NULL
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #74 on: September 13, 2003, 02:00:57 PM »

Quote
Culture Warrior,

You seemed puzzled by the idea that Protestants might think they have experienced grace in the sacraments. This, with all due respect, shows that you are stereotyping all Protestants as low-church fundamentalists. Anglicans (not all of whom think they are Protestants--but _your_ Church thinks we are!), Lutherans, and many Methodists and Presbyterians, would all believe in some form of sacramental grace. And you can find members of more low-church groups who do as well. I myself have resisted becoming Catholic or Orthodox for years largely because I couldn't abandon the belief that Protestant Eucharists convey real grace. I am Episcopalian, but I have experienced--or seemed to experience--sacramental grace in Methodist, Campbellite, and other Protestant churches. Indeed, I first began to believe in sacramental grace from experiencing weekly communion in Plymouth Brethren assemblies in Romania. So don't write Protestant sacramentalism off just because your own experience may have been with fundamentalists.

In Christ,

Edwin


If I were in a continuing Anglican church, I very well mght genuflect before the tabernacle.

As I was saying to my EOx friends, there is more than experiential data for RC sacraments. There is scriptural, historical, and patristic data as well.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.237 seconds with 101 queries.