OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 29, 2014, 09:48:53 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why?  (Read 4874 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
rosborn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


Searching for home


« on: November 28, 2003, 12:45:04 AM »

Okay.  I know I am opening myself up for criticism, ridicule and chastisement.  Though, I hope by opening this discussion, you all understand the seriousness and sincerity of my question and I, equally, hope that you will respond in charity and patience.

I will open with this simple and direct question - why should a Roman Catholic convert to Orthodoxy?

Peace,

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

Posts: 243



« Reply #1 on: November 28, 2003, 01:09:51 AM »

no reason unless there are personal ones.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #2 on: November 28, 2003, 02:55:50 AM »

no reason unless there are personal ones.
Peace,
Polycarp

Huh? Of course there are no "impersonal" reasons for seeking salvation, are there?

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #3 on: November 28, 2003, 03:34:04 AM »

Rosborn...

Good question!

I am myself a devout Roman Catholic with a profound and deep interest in Orthodoxy. I am at the moment stuck between east and west.

Since I am not yet Orthodox, and have not commited myself to becoming one I can only tell you why I am considering Orthodoxy.

Firstly, unlike Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy does not believe in or teach the development of doctrine. The Orthodox faith of today is the same as the Orthodox faith in 1700 or 1300 or 900, it doesn't change every few hunred years. It seems that the Orthodox Church holds the true faith without adding to it, as Roman Catholicism has done, and without subtracting from it, as Protestantism has done.

Secondly, the Orthodox Church glorfies God with a deep and rich litrugy that has no comparison in the west. The Divine Litrugy makes heaven a place on earth. I cannot explain the power and joy one feels from God at Divine Liturgy. You truly feel as if you are worshiping God in spirit and in truth. Yes the Roman Catholic Church does have a litrugy, that if celebrated properly, is in many ways beatiful and glorious, but it can not compare to the glory given to God at an Orthodox Divine Litrugy.

Thirdly, the Orthodox Church takes a very mysterious theological approach to God and his Church. Orthodoxy never had a schoolastic age. Consequently, Orthodoxy is free from the Latin theological system of legalism and in my opinion 'dryness'. With the schoolastic age the west lost anything that was once a mystery to the definitions of great theologians, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, this has never happened in the East.

I could go on but due to the fact that it is now 12:30 am I must be off. I hope I have helped in some way, no matter how remote.

In Christ,
       Ben B.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2003, 03:38:50 AM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #4 on: November 28, 2003, 04:14:35 AM »

Quote
Okay.  I know I am opening myself up for criticism, ridicule and chastisement.

Not at all.

Quote
why should a Roman Catholic convert to Orthodoxy?

If one believes that there is ONE holy, catholic and apostolic church and recognises in Orthodoxy the fullness of truth, and the same deposit of faith that was passed on to our fathers by the Aposotles, then certainly one should convert.

If the reasons for considering Orthodoxy are other than the above, then one needs to give the question a lot more prayer and study as conversion for the wrong reasons may not be conversion at all. It may simply be stroking our pride, not that God can't use this as I am sure there are many who find themselves in the right place for the wrong reasons but slowly come to a better understanding.

To be honest, this is a question which ought to be asked of an orthodox priest with whom you have developed a bit of a relationship as it requires discernment to answer properly for each individual. What is right for one person at a particular time may be inappropriate for another at that stage of their spiritual growth.

BTW, in case you haven't read through the archives, our beloved friend Polycarp is Roman Catholic. Cool

John.
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #5 on: November 28, 2003, 08:58:35 AM »

Hi Rob!

Hope you're doing well Smiley

The simple and direct questions are the best ones.

Let me answer your question by giving a scenario.

You're driving in a remote and dangerous area on the way to your home when suddenly you realize you're lost. Luck has it, you come across several different people who offer you their own conflicting directions to help you reach your destination.
Some give you directions which end up taking you further away from your goal.
Some give directions which turn out to be helpful in getting you back on track but only up to a certain point before you're lost again.
One man you encounter, however, gives you a map which he claims is the surest way to get to your destination. There's another man bearing a remarkable resemblance standing right next to him, who offers you his own map. You take both.
You decide to follow the first man's map. The road is hard, but the directions you follow seem to overburden you; there are intricate turn offs, it's slightly hard to see where you're going, all in all there's just too much to follow. Out of frustration, thinking that there must be a better way, you decide to try the second man's map. Again, you find the road rough, but several things are different - there are no unnecessary intricacies, the directions you follow are more straightforward, your environment begins to look familiar, but above all, the roads are more illumined.

You can gather who the two men represent. This basically represents my own experience; I believe Orthodoxy offers the spiritual means of making your journey more illumined, fulfilling, and better-equipped to resist the things which will lead us away from our goal, and to fulfill Christ's two greatest commandments, to love God above all things, and love our neighbour as ourself. The Patristic-oriented spirituality and experience of Orthodoxy, free of any medieval Scholastic pretensions and innovations, and the purity of Orthodox Divine Liturgy, was more decisive than any evidence, overwhelming enough as it is, against the papal claims and 'filioque.'

I'm overjoyed with Orthodox Christianity and i'd wish it on anyone Smiley

God bless,

Byz


Logged
rosborn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


Searching for home


« Reply #6 on: November 28, 2003, 09:56:53 AM »

Byz,

Fantastic analogy!

Next question - isn't converting to Orthodoxy like sheep stealing?  In other words - for Christ's prayer, "that they remain one" to be fulfilled there must be an eventual reunion.  I understand that several hurdles exist before this can be realized but, nonetheless, is is the wish of our Lord and Savior.  How is the Kingdom of God served by Catholics becoming Orthodox or Orthodox Christians converting to Catholicism - the total of the sheep remains the same.

I humbly ask:

Is there a perception that the Catholic Church is going to vanish?  

And, that the Orthodox Church Byzantine Worship) is the only way to worship God?  Is there an understanding that Western Liturgy has no merit or worth?

That's all for now.

Rob
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #7 on: November 28, 2003, 10:36:29 AM »

Rob

[Is there a perception that the Catholic Church is going to vanish?]

Not on your life.

[How is the Kingdom of God served by Catholics becoming Orthodox or Orthodox Christians converting to Catholicism - the total of the sheep remains the same.]

That's why Rome has stated that RCs shouldn't try to convert EOs.  We've come a long way from the days of mutual excommunication and Latinizing.  Some people think we still live in those days though, more's the pity.


These are good questions you raise.  I converted to EO from RC because I thought the RCC had basically gotten it wrong.  I didn't want some "little man in white" being the final arbiter of truth rather I wanted to get the truth from the deposit of faith the apostles left us.  I felt Rome was too legalistic and dry and the liturgy could be better.  I "went East"  for awhile which for me personally was my pride.  Humility has brought me back to the West.  The heritage and liturgy of the RCC is just as rich as that of the EO.  

The analogy of the map is open to question and pretty much points out that one way is better than the other.  What if we see it more like two people seeing the Grand Canyon.  Both are awed. One sees the great natural forces that created it while the other just sees the great natural beauty.  Both are taken up with it's beauty and majesty but each has a different slant on it.

People may say to talk to an EO or RC priest which is good but also talk to God.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #8 on: November 28, 2003, 11:36:24 AM »

no reason unless there are personal ones.
Peace,
Polycarp

Huh? Of course there are no "impersonal" reasons for seeking salvation, are there?

Demetri

Salvation is found by faith In Jesus Christ and following his teachings. Catholic and Orthodox Churches are the Churches established by Christ and the apostles and both are ligitiamte communities. There is not reason to switch back and forth unless you have some personal situation which may be resolved by switching to another rite. In either Church you can findgrace, Christ, his sacraments and salvation. So switching isn't necessary for salvation.
Peace,
Polycarp
« Last Edit: November 28, 2003, 11:51:10 AM by Saint Polycarp » Logged

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

Posts: 243



« Reply #9 on: November 28, 2003, 11:48:31 AM »

Rosborn...

Good question!

I am myself a devout Roman Catholic with a profound and deep interest in Orthodoxy. I am at the moment stuck between east and west.

Since I am not yet Orthodox, and have not commited myself to becoming one I can only tell you why I am considering Orthodoxy.

Firstly, unlike Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy does not believe in or teach the development of doctrine. The Orthodox faith of today is the same as the Orthodox faith in 1700 or 1300 or 900, it doesn't change every few hunred years. It seems that the Orthodox Church holds the true faith without adding to it, as Roman Catholicism has done, and without subtracting from it, as Protestantism has done.

Secondly, the Orthodox Church glorfies God with a deep and rich litrugy that has no comparison in the west. The Divine Litrugy makes heaven a place on earth. I cannot explain the power and joy one feels from God at Divine Liturgy. You truly feel as if you are worshiping God in spirit and in truth. Yes the Roman Catholic Church does have a litrugy, that if celebrated properly, is in many ways beatiful and glorious, but it can not compare to the glory given to God at an Orthodox Divine Litrugy.

Thirdly, the Orthodox Church takes a very mysterious theological approach to God and his Church. Orthodoxy never had a schoolastic age. Consequently, Orthodoxy is free from the Latin theological system of legalism and in my opinion 'dryness'. With the schoolastic age the west lost anything that was once a mystery to the definitions of great theologians, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, this has never happened in the East.

I could go on but due to the fact that it is now 12:30 am I must be off. I hope I have helped in some way, no matter how remote.

In Christ,
       Ben B.
I believe that your assertion that The Orthodox do not believe in development of doctrine is 100% wrong. The Orthodox Church is not the same throughout the past 2000 years just as the Catholic Church isn't exactly the same. Customs and and tradtions are added and or changed as needed by various situations of the times. It is the basic core of the Faith which dosen't change. Yet even in the core there may be some change in how the Church explains of teaches some traditions or beliefs.
The first development of doctrine started with the apostles you can read about it in the book of Acts. The First Ecumenical Council of Jerusalem. In fact Ecumenical Councils are where most doctrine is developed. The Trinity is one of the best examples of developed doctrine. Almost all Christology is developed doctrine as is all Maryology. One of the most important actions the Church has after actual preaching of The Evangel is defending the Faith and that causes development of doctrine. The Orthodox haven't had to deal with the variety of heresy challenging the faith like the The Latin Church has had to deal with. Thus the Latin Church has had to develop doctrine in defense of the faith. It all comes with the responsibility that the bishops of The Church have.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
rosborn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


Searching for home


« Reply #10 on: November 28, 2003, 12:04:49 PM »

Carpo-Rusyn,

Thank you, too, for your comments.  I sometimes get the feeling that there is this perception that one is better than the other.  You know, as you pointed out, the tradition and liturgy of the RC is just as rich and as historic as that of the Orthodox Church.  No offense intended but for Orthodox Christians to think that the only form of worship that is correct is the Listurgy of St. John Chrysostom (or other liturgies of the East) is ignoring or disregarding the liturgical tradition of the West.

Thanks, I truly needed that.  Please, email me - re_osborn@earthlink.net

Thanks again.

Rob






Rob

[Is there a perception that the Catholic Church is going to vanish?]

Not on your life.

[How is the Kingdom of God served by Catholics becoming Orthodox or Orthodox Christians converting to Catholicism - the total of the sheep remains the same.]

That's why Rome has stated that RCs shouldn't try to convert EOs.  We've come a long way from the days of mutual excommunication and Latinizing.  Some people think we still live in those days though, more's the pity.


These are good questions you raise.  I converted to EO from RC because I thought the RCC had basically gotten it wrong.  I didn't want some "little man in white" being the final arbiter of truth rather I wanted to get the truth from the deposit of faith the apostles left us.  I felt Rome was too legalistic and dry and the liturgy could be better.  I "went East"  for awhile which for me personally was my pride.  Humility has brought me back to the West.  The heritage and liturgy of the RCC is just as rich as that of the EO.  

The analogy of the map is open to question and pretty much points out that one way is better than the other.  What if we see it more like two people seeing the Grand Canyon.  Both are awed. One sees the great natural forces that created it while the other just sees the great natural beauty.  Both are taken up with it's beauty and majesty but each has a different slant on it.

People may say to talk to an EO or RC priest which is good but also talk to God.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 28, 2003, 12:29:23 PM »

My answer, which only represents me and no church group, is halfway between 'this is the true faith and everything else is bogus' and 'no reason - it's all personal'.

'This is the true faith etc.' seems an unassailable reason, though. But to deny that 99.9999% percent of the time Western Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy believe the same things seems like wilful blindness. (Popular with people from xenophobic Eastern European cultures and with those from Protestant backgrounds who can retain their no-popery.)

Other than that, some good reasons might be...

... like the late Fr Lev (Gillet), 'A Monk of the Eastern Church' (I know, he might have been Catholic all along, but anyway), seeing the same light, only clearer. Just as good as Tridentine Roman Catholicism but with a mystical kick to it all its own, which may partly explain why it's still here.

Quote
Firstly, unlike Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy does not believe in or teach the development of doctrine. The Orthodox faith of today is the same as the Orthodox faith in 1700 or 1300 or 900, it doesn't change every few hundred years. It seems that the Orthodox Church holds the true faith without adding to it, as Roman Catholicism has done, and without subtracting from it, as Protestantism has done.

High Church Anglicans have claimed the same thing, and they and the Orthodox who use this argument have a point, though, as Saint Polycarp points out, it isn't airtight. What grabbed me when I first read The Way of a Pilgrim 12 years ago wasn't the Jesus Prayer (and that never has grabbed me) but that here was the basic Catholic faith I'd believed in all along, disfigured around me by Vatican II and its aftermath but here, in what happened to be 19th-century Russian form, in a full, glorious form - reinforcing an impression I already had from reading and, far more important, actually popping into Byzantine Catholic and Russian Orthodox services starting in 1985. (No 'Wobegonograd' illusion.)

So if one goes to one of their churches and has a combination 'Russians gobsmacked in Hagia Sophia' and d+¬j+á vu ('but that's what I always believed') experience, that seems to be a pretty good reason. (Liking the people and culture of the ethnicity of that local church doesn't hurt either. I happen to like learning foreign languages.)

Eastern Orthodox are a tiny minority in Western countries but at their churches and institutions you can be assured you won't find the apostolic ministry compromised - ever, won't have reason to doubt that what is being offered you is the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament or find teachers claiming that Jesus wasn't really God, had brothers and sisters, had sex, etc. (So-called, common-knowledge 'Catholic' institutions do that now. They represent a kind of mainline Protestantism for non-Anglo-Saxons.)

Lest this degenerate into 'East, good; West, bad' crowing, I will admit that too many Eastern Orthodox have sold out on contraception (funny how 'doctrinal development' to ditch the Fathers becomes OK when it has to do with what one does with the genitals) and that there is massive, deafening indifference to abortion, even though all the Orthodox churches condemn it.

Also, that the historic mainstream of Western Catholicism also contains this basic Catholic truth and that its liturgy, the Roman Mass (in pre-1969 form), is just as venerable (and that is without the byzantinizing 'corrections' the will-o'-the-wisp 'Western Orthodox' dare make to it) as the Byzantine and other Eastern rites. (The fact that the consecration prayer hasn't got an explicit epiklesis points to the fact that it's older than most of the Eastern rites, except perhaps the Assyrian Rite.)

Pace carpo-rusyn's Pollyannish apologi+ª for the current 'Vatican II' RC regime, I can stand with that mainstream, East and West, and say, essentially, 'never mind the bollocks'.

Institutional Eastern Orthodoxy in Western countries is a precarious thing, often degenerating into caricature - a small, b*tched-up ethnic chaplaincy pretending to be a universal church.

But what matters is what's contained in Eastern Orthodoxy is universal.
Logged

carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #12 on: November 28, 2003, 05:23:10 PM »

Serge

{Pace carpo-rusyn's Pollyannish apologi+ª for the current 'Vatican II' RC regime}

I'm not being "pollyannish" just stating the facts.  If we say that there is a "Vat2 regime" in power that then means there was a "Trent regime" in power and there could be in the future a "Vat3 regime" in power.  Calling the leadership of the RCC a "regime" sounds like we're a banana republic and any crowd that gets into power calls the shots.  There is no Vat2 regime there never was any Trent regime nor a Basle, Florence or Lateran regime.  The only regime if you want to use that word is the regime of Our Lord, God, and Saviour Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit in the glory of God the Father.  This is who rules the RCC not a cabal of Vaticanistas.  Sometimes it is actually the Holy Spirit moving and not the evil one or some conspiracy.  

John 23rd called Vat2 saying he wanted to open the windows of the Church. Now some joke that he did this and let the Holy Spirit out hence the reforms.  What happened to faith?  Is there none left on earth.  Do we truly believe Christ has forgotten His Bride?  Don't we call Christ a liar when we say the Church is a false church or that we are on the road to hell.  Christ promised us that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against the Church.  I believe this with all my heart.

Let's all have a little faith, remember faith just the size of a mustard seed is sufficent.

Carpo-Rusyn
a very un-apologetic, NO or TLM attending RC
Logged
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2003, 06:52:57 PM »

Rob,

Quote
I will open with this simple and direct question - why should a Roman Catholic convert to Orthodoxy?

Simply put, for the reason Christ came into the world - to be restored and brought back to God.

The truth is a means to an end; it's an indispensible means, but not the end in and of itself...otherwise, the simple could never be saved; only theologians or lots of book learning would allow salvation, which is nonsense.

However, there are two things which make the Church of Christ unique - being the sole possessor of the "right way"/"right teaching" and being the unique inheritor of God's indwelling.  The Orthodox Church alone is the Body of Christ, Christ establishing Her and baptizing Her.  She is His Spouse - and He is not a polygamist, let alone Someone with "different truths".

I'd put it this way, in an analogy - the Church is the Ark of Salvation (like the Ark of Noah, which survived the deluge...a comparison the Holy Apostles use to speak of the Church, and the Mystery of Baptism) - and not only does She have the right "map" to get where She needs to go, but also the necessary provisions (food for the soul, and waters to drink - Christ and His Grace).  Those separated from the Church do not have these things.

Given this, when someone is coming to the Church of Christ, they are coming to Christ Himself - for His Church is an extension of Him, those baptized into Her and communing with Him being members of Him.  They shouldn't be there for the pretty Icons, "better liturgy", etc.  In a sense, they shouldn't even be there because it'll make them "more correct" - for this misunderstands the importance of Orthodoxy (right belief) in teaching.  They should approach the Church, because they are convinced She alone is the Bride of Christ, and they are in need of Her - and by obvious extension, Her Lord and Spouse.

In short, someone should become Orthodox because they want God, His indwelling, and are willing to reject the idols (subtle and overt) which the world puts in His place.

my "two cents".

Seraphim
Logged

Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #14 on: November 28, 2003, 06:56:41 PM »

Quote
I believe that your assertion that The Orthodox do not believe in development of doctrine is 100% wrong. The Orthodox Church is not the same throughout the past 2000 years just as the Catholic Church isn't exactly the same. Customs and and tradtions are added and or changed as needed by various situations of the times. It is the basic core of the Faith which dosen't change. Yet even in the core there may be some change in how the Church explains of teaches some traditions or beliefs.

I never claimed the Orthodox Church has never changed in matters of customs and traditions. Rather I am saying Orthodoxy does not believe in the development of doctrine. The Orthodox Church has declared no dogmas since the ecumenical councils. While the RCC has added the dogmas of the Filioque, Papal Infalibility, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption. The Orthodox Church holds the same faith today as it did 300 years ago, 500 years ago, 1000 years ago! The Catholic Church today is different from the Catholic faith in 1500, and the Catholic faith in 1500 was different from the Catholic faith in 1000.

Quote
The first development of doctrine started with the apostles you can read about it in the book of Acts. The First Ecumenical Council of Jerusalem. In fact Ecumenical Councils are where most doctrine is developed. The Trinity is one of the best examples of developed doctrine. Almost all Christology is developed doctrine as is all Maryology. One of the most important actions the Church has after actual preaching of The Evangel is defending the Faith and that causes development of doctrine. The Orthodox haven't had to deal with the variety of heresy challenging the faith like the The Latin Church has had to deal with. Thus the Latin Church has had to develop doctrine in defense of the faith. It all comes with the responsibility that the bishops of The Church have.


Hmm the Trinity as an example of developement of doctrine?! The bible is full of references to the Blessed Trinity. Yet the bible never once says "the Spirit proceeds from one source, the Father and the son" nor does the bible come anywhere near close to saying "Mary, the Mother of God, was concieved without Orginal sin. We are all born with the guilt of Adam, except Mary" and the bible doesn't say "Now all the succesors of Peter have a very speacial gift, when they speak ex-cathedra they can NEVER be wrong".

Now I am not preaching Sola Scriptura here, by no means, but what I am saying is EVERY single dogma of the Church MUST find its origins in scripture AND the writtings of the Church fathers. We must look at the dogmas of the Latin Church and we must think, where are their origins. If they're not in scripture or in the writtings of the Church fathers, than why believe in them?

Look, I am not saying the Church cannot develope different traditions and customs but what I am saying is the faith of your bishop must be the same as the faith as Cyprian of Carthage or Leo I. You must hold the same faith today, as the early Christians did. If you don't, then who is right? You? or the early Chrisitans?
« Last Edit: November 28, 2003, 07:02:13 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 28, 2003, 06:56:41 PM »

Serge,

Quote
Lest this degenerate into 'East, good; West, bad' crowing, I will admit that too many Eastern Orthodox have sold out on contraception (funny how 'doctrinal development' to ditch the Fathers becomes OK when it has to do with what one does with the genitals) and that there is massive, deafening indifference to abortion, even though all the Orthodox churches condemn it.

Mmm...I don't recall Orthodox Churches giving card blanche to the use of contraceptives.

Seraphim
Logged

Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #16 on: November 28, 2003, 06:58:54 PM »

Rob,

Quote
I will open with this simple and direct question - why should a Roman Catholic convert to Orthodoxy?

Simply put, for the reason Christ came into the world - to be restored and brought back to God.

The truth is a means to an end; it's an indispensible means, but not the end in and of itself...otherwise, the simple could never be saved; only theologians or lots of book learning would allow salvation, which is nonsense.

However, there are two things which make the Church of Christ unique - being the sole possessor of the "right way"/"right teaching" and being the unique inheritor of God's indwelling.  The Orthodox Church alone is the Body of Christ, Christ establishing Her and baptizing Her.  She is His Spouse - and He is not a polygamist, let alone Someone with "different truths".

I'd put it this way, in an analogy - the Church is the Ark of Salvation (like the Ark of Noah, which survived the deluge...a comparison the Holy Apostles use to speak of the Church, and the Mystery of Baptism) - and not only does She have the right "map" to get where She needs to go, but also the necessary provisions (food for the soul, and waters to drink - Christ and His Grace).  Those separated from the Church do not have these things.

Given this, when someone is coming to the Church of Christ, they are coming to Christ Himself - for His Church is an extension of Him, those baptized into Her and communing with Him being members of Him.  They shouldn't be there for the pretty Icons, "better liturgy", etc.  In a sense, they shouldn't even be there because it'll make them "more correct" - for this misunderstands the importance of Orthodoxy (right belief) in teaching.  They should approach the Church, because they are convinced She alone is the Bride of Christ, and they are in need of Her - and by obvious extension, Her Lord and Spouse.

In short, someone should become Orthodox because they want God, His indwelling, and are willing to reject the idols (subtle and overt) which the world puts in His place.

my "two cents".

Seraphim
(Roman) Catholics are already in the Church established by Christ and the apostles. There is nothing lacking in the latin Church and there is no theological reason for a Latin to change rites to The EO unless they have certain personal issues which make one of the EO rites a better choice.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #17 on: November 28, 2003, 07:13:09 PM »

"change rites to the EO"??!?!?! When did the Orthodox Church become a rite of the Catholic Church?! Oy the fruits of Vat2! I have spoken with about a dozen Orthodox priests since I began to study the EOC, and NOT one told me the Latin Church is just fine and I don't need to be Orthodox. They ALL told me the Orthodox Church is the true Church, the RCC broke off from the true Church, and I must come to the Church established by Jesus Christ. Both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach they are the ONE true Church. I am so sick of modern day Catholics acting like the EOC is just half of the true Church. This is totally against Catholic dogma. If you are Catholic you MUST believe the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ. If you are Orthodox you must believe the Orthodox Church is the true Church. It seems like the Anglican branch theory is starting to gain some popularity.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Tony
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


« Reply #18 on: November 28, 2003, 07:42:42 PM »

You are right Ben. Polycarp seems to be espousing a branch theory of the Church. Neither the Catholic or Orthodox Churches teach this as each believe they possess the fullness of the Faith. I don't know where Polycarp got the idea that you can nonchalantly switch from one Church to the other, but he is misinformed.

In Christ,
Anthony

"change rites to the EO"??!?!?! When did the Orthodox Church become a rite of the Catholic Church?! Oy the fruits of Vat2! I have spoken with about a dozen Orthodox priests since I began to study the EOC, and NOT one told me the Latin Church is just fine and I don't need to be Orthodox. They ALL told me the Orthodox Church is the true Church, the RCC broke off from the true Church, and I must come to the Church established by Jesus Christ. Both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach they are the ONE true Church. I am so sick of modern day Catholics acting like the EOC is just half of the true Church. This is totally against Catholic dogma. If you are Catholic you MUST believe the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ. If you are Orthodox you must believe the Orthodox Church is the true Church. It seems like the Anglican branch theory is starting to gain some popularity.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2003, 07:44:16 PM by Tony » Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #19 on: November 28, 2003, 07:43:59 PM »

Ben

I am sure Polycarp just misspoke when he wrote "changing rites" which it definitely is not.

[I am so sick of modern day Catholics acting like the EOC is just half of the true Church. This is totally against Catholic dogma.]

What would you rather have us behave as Catholics of times past and act as if the EOC were accursed heretics?  Let's get real.  The RCC calls the EOC a sister church.  I don't know what Catholic dogma you're referring to?   The branch theory is not gaining any popularity.


[The Catholic Church today is different from the Catholic faith in 1500, and the Catholic faith in 1500 was different from the Catholic faith in 1000.]

How so?  Obviously you don't believe in the development of doctrine.  So a Catholic in 1000 and 1500 didn't believe in the True Presence?  the Creed? the BVM? the centrality of the papal office?

[Now I am not preaching Sola Scriptura here, by no means, but what I am saying is EVERY single dogma of the Church MUST find its origins in scripture AND the writtings of the Church fathers. We must look at the dogmas of the Latin Church and we must think, where are their origins. If they're not in scripture or in the writtings of the Church fathers, than why believe in them?]

It seems as if you are being rather Protestant here.  Maybe you're not being sola scriptura but you seem to be sola scriptura sola patres (I just made this up)  If you went by this then you don't need bishops or theologians. Are you even Orthodox?  I would like to know what some of the Orthodox members of the forum think of this.

Carpo-Rusyn


Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #20 on: November 28, 2003, 07:45:24 PM »

Thank God someone agrees with me! hehehe..I thought I was going crazy. God bless you tony!
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #21 on: November 28, 2003, 07:56:04 PM »

Hi Rob,

I ask myself the same question every day. What is a Latin Catholic to do when he's attracted to Orthodoxy but wishes to retain his Latin spiritual identity? Western-rite Orthodoxy perhaps, that is, if there are any churches in your area. I can't give a satisfactory answer. All i know is that if anyone says the only Orthodoxy is Eastern Orthodoxy and that the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is the only way to go, they should be slapped across the head (preferably by a 200lb Italian housewife).

There were ALWAYS legitimate differences between East and West - theologically, liturgically and spiritually, and these differences should be fervently upheld. I'm somewhat of a champion of Latin spirituality and liturgical expression because i'm desperate to see them restored...Gregorian chant, incense etc...imagine how many lapsed Roman Catholics would return to their Church to find real heavenly worship.

Nonetheless we need to be honest with ourselves and acknowledge that East and West are no longer the same doctrinally. After a careful study of the history of the Church, my questions were answered and i was compelled to convert to Orthodoxy, with the additional benefit of being Eastern in my spiritual orientation. What would i have done if instead i were Western? Staying in the Roman Catholic Church in that scenario would be, i think, terribly hypocritical, but still a real quandary: how can one remain in the club while disagreeing with the fundamental rules? How would I have felt calling myself a Roman Catholic while rejecting teachings which are considered dogmas requiring my assent (purgatory, indulgences, immaculate conception, papal infallibilty). And how would I have been able to sit through a Liturgy with the Filioque recited, or even worse, a travesty of a Liturgy with folk music and all the other gems associated with the Novus Ordo?
Could i have stayed where i was and simply have been a lonely voice in the wilderness calling for reform and a return to our roots? Well in the end i had to follow my conscience and the urgings of the Spirit; I can serve God infinitely better in Orthodoxy than in Roman Catholicism. After taking into account these factors and assisted by the advice of a spiritual father or mother, only you can determine what's best for you. God will be with you and lead you to where He wants you to be.

As for the idea that the RCC may vanish, that just won't happen. What i hope will vanish is the self-serving pensioners and bureaucrats in the Vatican, to be replaced by the type of Roman Christians lauded by St. Paul in his epistle. May this happen sooner rather than later, with the intercession of Bl. Pope John XXIII, St. Peter and St. Paul.


Byz
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #22 on: November 28, 2003, 07:56:21 PM »


Quote
I am sure Polycarp just misspoke when he wrote "changing rites" which it definitely is not.

[I am so sick of modern day Catholics acting like the EOC is just half of the true Church. This is totally against Catholic dogma.]

What would you rather have us behave as Catholics of times past and act as if the EOC were accursed heretics?  Let's get real.  The RCC calls the EOC a sister church.  I don't know what Catholic dogma you're referring to?   The branch theory is not gaining any popularity.

No but what I am saying is that for a Catholic to say the EOC is a part of the true Church, they are endorsing something heretical according to the Catholic faith. The Catholic Church has always taught that she is the true Chruch established by Jesus Christ. Numerous Roman Catholic councils and Papal bulls have declared this. I find is so strange that Catholics want to deny this. Due your research, if you can find one Papal bull or statement from a Catholic council that states the Catholic Church is not the only true Church established by Jesus Christ, I'll give ya $1,000 dollars.

CORRECTION: THE RCC DOES NOT CALL THE EOC A SISTER CHURCH. DO YOUR RESEARCH IN THE EARLY CHURCH THE TERM SISTER CHURCH WAS ONLY USED WITH CHURCHES IN COMMUNION WITH EACH OTHER. THIS TERM IS ONE PUT FORWARD AT BALAMAND (sp??) BUT IS NO WHERE NEAR CORRECT RCC TEACHING!

Quote
[The Catholic Church today is different from the Catholic faith in 1500, and the Catholic faith in 1500 was different from the Catholic faith in 1000.]

How so?  Obviously you don't believe in the development of doctrine.  So a Catholic in 1000 and 1500 didn't believe in the True Presence?  the Creed? the BVM? the centrality of the papal office?


No what I am saying is that a Catholic in 1000 or 1500 did not believe, or rather did not have to believe, when the Pope speaks ex-cathedra he is NEVER wrong. Niether did he or she believe or have to believe Mary was free from Orginal sin or that she was assumed bodily into heaven. I am not talking about the basics of the Christian faith such as the Creed and the BVM, but rather the additions to the faith by the RCC.

Quote
[Now I am not preaching Sola Scriptura here, by no means, but what I am saying is EVERY single dogma of the Church MUST find its origins in scripture AND the writtings of the Church fathers. We must look at the dogmas of the Latin Church and we must think, where are their origins. If they're not in scripture or in the writtings of the Church fathers, than why believe in them?]

It seems as if you are being rather Protestant here.  Maybe you're not being sola scriptura but you seem to be sola scriptura sola patres (I just made this up)  If you went by this then you don't need bishops or theologians. Are you even Orthodox?  I would like to know what some of the Orthodox members of the forum think of this.

If a bishop or theologian teaches anything contrary to the Bible and/or the faith of the early Church Fathers and Councils one should be very careful.....and....no I am not Orthodox. I am Roman Catholic.




« Last Edit: November 28, 2003, 07:59:09 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #23 on: November 28, 2003, 08:20:34 PM »

Ben

One would think you have some issues with the RCC???

[CORRECTION: THE RCC DOES NOT CALL THE EOC A SISTER CHURCH. DO YOUR RESEARCH IN THE EARLY CHURCH THE TERM SISTER CHURCH WAS ONLY USED WITH CHURCHES IN COMMUNION WITH EACH OTHER. THIS TERM IS ONE PUT FORWARD AT BALAMAND (sp??) BUT IS NO WHERE NEAR CORRECT RCC TEACHING!]

The term was put forward at Vatican 2 and it is correct RCC teaching.  Who do you think was at Balamand a couple of village idiots??!!??  The representatives at Balamand were official reps of the Holy See enunciating official RCC doctrine.  

[No what I am saying is that a Catholic in 1000 or 1500 did not believe, or rather did not have to believe, when the Pope speaks ex-cathedra he is NEVER wrong. Niether did he or she believe or have to believe Mary was free from Orginal sin or that she was assumed bodily into heaven.]

A RC of 1000 or 1500 wouldn't have questioned the infallibility of the pope or the immaculate conception or her assumption (something the East believes otherwise the local OCA parish-Holy Assumption of the BVM is misnamed) they would've just believed it.

You're Catholic?  Are you in communion with the see of Peter?  Where did you get your instruction in the Faith? I'd like to give that nun or priest a good talking to who taught you.  If you are SSPX or one of the sedevacantists then I question whether you are RC.

I'd still like to know what the Orthodox have to say about this sola scriptura sola patres.

CR
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #24 on: November 28, 2003, 08:23:54 PM »

Byzantino

[or even worse, a travesty of a Liturgy with folk music and all the other gems associated with the Novus Ordo?]

Come on now let's keep above derogatory statements.  I was to a NO liturgy just this am and no folk music.  I just want people to know that not all NO liturgies are accompanied by folk music.  In fact last Sunday we had some rather decent Gregorian chant for the Kyrie, Sanctus and Agnus Dei.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #25 on: November 28, 2003, 08:35:08 PM »

"change rites to the EO"??!?!?! When did the Orthodox Church become a rite of the Catholic Church?! Oy the fruits of Vat2! I have spoken with about a dozen Orthodox priests since I began to study the EOC, and NOT one told me the Latin Church is just fine and I don't need to be Orthodox. They ALL told me the Orthodox Church is the true Church, the RCC broke off from the true Church, and I must come to the Church established by Jesus Christ. Both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach they are the ONE true Church. I am so sick of modern day Catholics acting like the EOC is just half of the true Church. This is totally against Catholic dogma. If you are Catholic you MUST believe the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ. If you are Orthodox you must believe the Orthodox Church is the true Church. It seems like the Anglican branch theory is starting to gain some popularity.


Truth is truth. The Church was split by human arrogance and politics which was based of Constintine's division of the Roman Empire into East and West.  The latin Church didn't split off from the EO and the EO didn't split from THE CC they both seperated mutually. The true Church would be the whole Church as it was before our ancestors messed up.  This is why I say EO or RC stay where you are and pray for reunification.  Each side can make their calims but the true Chruch is the one before 1054 AD. For now both sides have ligitiamte sacraments and Eucharist. I stand with the bark of Peter but recognize the EO as part of The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Peace, Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #26 on: November 28, 2003, 08:36:15 PM »

Quote
[CORRECTION: THE RCC DOES NOT CALL THE EOC A SISTER CHURCH. DO YOUR RESEARCH IN THE EARLY CHURCH THE TERM SISTER CHURCH WAS ONLY USED WITH CHURCHES IN COMMUNION WITH EACH OTHER. THIS TERM IS ONE PUT FORWARD AT BALAMAND (sp??) BUT IS NO WHERE NEAR CORRECT RCC TEACHING!]

The term was put forward at Vatican 2 and it is correct RCC teaching.  Who do you think was at Balamand a couple of village idiots??!!??  The representatives at Balamand were official reps of the Holy See enunciating official RCC doctrine.  


Which document out of Vatican II called the EOC a sister Church? And even if Vatican II did so this it is historically and theologically incorrect. The term was only used for churches in communion with each other, the RCC and EOC are no where near being sister Churches.

Balamand was not an offical statement. And as I pointed out in the Fatima thread, Balamand was protested many numerous Church officals. As I have said before I have not run into one Orthodox priest who supported the Balamand statement. I suggest you read the document the monks on Mount Athos sent the Ecumenical Patriarch regarding the Balamand Statement.

Quote
[No what I am saying is that a Catholic in 1000 or 1500 did not believe, or rather did not have to believe, when the Pope speaks ex-cathedra he is NEVER wrong. Niether did he or she believe or have to believe Mary was free from Orginal sin or that she was assumed bodily into heaven.]

A RC of 1000 or 1500 wouldn't have questioned the infallibility of the pope or the immaculate conception or her assumption (something the East believes otherwise the local OCA parish-Holy Assumption of the BVM is misnamed) they would've just believed it.

But it was not dogma in 1000 or 1500 hundred! No Catholic had to believe it. You could be a Catholic in good standing in 1500 and deny Papal Infallibilty, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption.

The EOC does believe in the Assumption of Mary as the early Church did. BUT like the early Church you don't have to believe it. I asked an EO priest once why the Assumption was not EOC dogma and he simply said "Because belief in the Assumption is not needed to be saved".

Quote
You're Catholic?  Are you in communion with the see of Peter?  Where did you get your instruction in the Faith? I'd like to give that nun or priest a good talking to who taught you.  If you are SSPX or one of the sedevacantists then I question whether you are RC.

Yes I have been Catholic for a few years now. I was confirmed in June of 2000 at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Denver, Colorado by Bishop Jose Gomez. I recieved by religious education from the religious director at the Cathedral.

I have attended SSPX chapels before, never recieved communion there tho, and have spent some time at FSSP chapels. I currently attend Mass at Servants of the Holy Family (servi.org) in Colorado Springs.

I am being taught of Orthodox teaching and dogma by Fr. Apostolos at Assumption Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Denver, Colorado. I attend Divine Litrugy there on most Sundays.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2003, 08:41:50 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #27 on: November 28, 2003, 08:38:19 PM »

You are right Ben. Polycarp seems to be espousing a branch theory of the Church. Neither the Catholic or Orthodox Churches teach this as each believe they possess the fullness of the Faith. I don't know where Polycarp got the idea that you can nonchalantly switch from one Church to the other, but he is misinformed.

In Christ,
Anthony

"change rites to the EO"??!?!?! When did the Orthodox Church become a rite of the Catholic Church?! Oy the fruits of Vat2! I have spoken with about a dozen Orthodox priests since I began to study the EOC, and NOT one told me the Latin Church is just fine and I don't need to be Orthodox. They ALL told me the Orthodox Church is the true Church, the RCC broke off from the true Church, and I must come to the Church established by Jesus Christ. Both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach they are the ONE true Church. I am so sick of modern day Catholics acting like the EOC is just half of the true Church. This is totally against Catholic dogma. If you are Catholic you MUST believe the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ. If you are Orthodox you must believe the Orthodox Church is the true Church. It seems like the Anglican branch theory is starting to gain some popularity.
I don't think anyone should change. That is the point. The EO are ligitimate churches and so is the RC. No reason to change from one to the other. Better that our leaders reconsile The Church and reuinte Her as she was before 1054AD.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #28 on: November 28, 2003, 08:38:30 PM »

Quote
Byzantino

[or even worse, a travesty of a Liturgy with folk music and all the other gems associated with the Novus Ordo?]

Come on now let's keep above derogatory statements.  I was to a NO liturgy just this am and no folk music.  I just want people to know that not all NO liturgies are accompanied by folk music.  In fact last Sunday we had some rather decent Gregorian chant for the Kyrie, Sanctus and Agnus Dei.

Carpo-Rusyn
Quote


That's wonderful, i'm happy to hear that and i wish it were commonplace.
I'm not sorry for my comment though; if you think it was derogatory then you're ignoring the problems facing the RCC. There are liturgical travesties associated with the Novus Ordo Mass. That's what i was saying.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2003, 08:54:49 PM by Byzantino » Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #29 on: November 28, 2003, 08:46:08 PM »

You are right Ben. Polycarp seems to be espousing a branch theory of the Church. Neither the Catholic or Orthodox Churches teach this as each believe they possess the fullness of the Faith. I don't know where Polycarp got the idea that you can nonchalantly switch from one Church to the other, but he is misinformed.

In Christ,
Anthony

"change rites to the EO"??!?!?! When did the Orthodox Church become a rite of the Catholic Church?! Oy the fruits of Vat2! I have spoken with about a dozen Orthodox priests since I began to study the EOC, and NOT one told me the Latin Church is just fine and I don't need to be Orthodox. They ALL told me the Orthodox Church is the true Church, the RCC broke off from the true Church, and I must come to the Church established by Jesus Christ. Both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach they are the ONE true Church. I am so sick of modern day Catholics acting like the EOC is just half of the true Church. This is totally against Catholic dogma. If you are Catholic you MUST believe the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ. If you are Orthodox you must believe the Orthodox Church is the true Church. It seems like the Anglican branch theory is starting to gain some popularity.
I don't think anyone should change. That is the point. The EO are ligitimate churches and so is the RC. No reason to change from one to the other. Better that our leaders reconsile The Church and reuinte Her as she was before 1054AD.
Peace,
Polycarp


What do you mean by "ligitimate chruches"? Are you saying both are the true Church? If you are than you are putting foward the branch theory, or some type of it. Both the EOC and RCC beleive they are the true Church established by Christ. Both claim to be the ONE true Church. But it seems that you are saying something that niether one teaches, that there are TWO true Chruches.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2003, 08:49:05 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #30 on: November 28, 2003, 08:52:49 PM »

Byzantino

[or even worse, a travesty of a Liturgy with folk music and all the other gems associated with the Novus Ordo?]

Come on now let's keep above derogatory statements.  I was to a NO liturgy just this am and no folk music.  I just want people to know that not all NO liturgies are accompanied by folk music.  In fact last Sunday we had some rather decent Gregorian chant for the Kyrie, Sanctus and Agnus Dei.

Carpo-Rusyn


Wow Carpo..praise God! I wish such a NO liturgy exsisted around here. Sadly Catholics around here are stuck with folk music ,and sometimes christian rock, priests leaving out certain prayers and/or changing the wording to fit his agenda. You are lucky.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2003, 08:53:46 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #31 on: November 28, 2003, 08:56:32 PM »

You are right Ben. Polycarp seems to be espousing a branch theory of the Church. Neither the Catholic or Orthodox Churches teach this as each believe they possess the fullness of the Faith. I don't know where Polycarp got the idea that you can nonchalantly switch from one Church to the other, but he is misinformed.

In Christ,
Anthony

"change rites to the EO"??!?!?! When did the Orthodox Church become a rite of the Catholic Church?! Oy the fruits of Vat2! I have spoken with about a dozen Orthodox priests since I began to study the EOC, and NOT one told me the Latin Church is just fine and I don't need to be Orthodox. They ALL told me the Orthodox Church is the true Church, the RCC broke off from the true Church, and I must come to the Church established by Jesus Christ. Both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach they are the ONE true Church. I am so sick of modern day Catholics acting like the EOC is just half of the true Church. This is totally against Catholic dogma. If you are Catholic you MUST believe the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ. If you are Orthodox you must believe the Orthodox Church is the true Church. It seems like the Anglican branch theory is starting to gain some popularity.
I don't think anyone should change. That is the point. The EO are ligitimate churches and so is the RC. No reason to change from one to the other. Better that our leaders reconsile The Church and reuinte Her as she was before 1054AD.
Peace,
Polycarp


What do you mean by "ligitimate chruches"? Are you saying both are the true Church? If you are than you are putting foward the branch theory, or some type of it. Both the EOC and RCC beleive they are the true Church established by Christ. Both claim to be the ONE true Church. But it seems that you are saying something that niether one teaches, that there are TWO true Chruches.
Can Christ be seperated into different pieces? Can The "True" Church really be seperated into two or more? Or is it our human error which is the problem. The EO churches can be traced back to Christ and the apostles. The Latin(Roman) Church can also. We were one till 1054AD. Our seperation is along human lines. We can not truly seperate the body of Christ. Where is the heresy in the EO that would cause them to loose apostolic succession and ligitimate authority? Where is the heresy in the RC that would cause it to loose apostolic succession and ligitimate authority? The seperation of The Catholic Church is a scandal which we should endevor to end. The past errors should not be repeated.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #32 on: November 28, 2003, 09:05:49 PM »

Polycarp....

As I have said before the EOC and the RCC both teach there is only one true Church. You seem to want them both to be the true Church which is impossible.

According to Orthodox teaching the heresy in the RCC are as follows....

- the dogma of Papal Infalibility

- the dogma of the Filioque

- Rome's interpretation of original sin and the dogma of the Immaculate conception

According to Catholic teaching the heresy in the EOC are as follows:

- not accepting Papal primacy of jurisdiction

- not accepting Papal Infallibility

- not accepting the Immaculate Conception

and previous to Vat 2

- not accepting the Filioque

The RCC teaches the Filioque and the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibilty to be DOGMA. No matter what any pope says they are still DOGMA. And the RCC and EOC both teach one must believe in the dogmas of the Church to be saved.

[CORRECTION: A POPE COULD, WITH ALL RCC BISHOPS, DENY PREVIOUSLY DECLARED DOGMAS OF THE RCC AND JOIN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH. SO WHEN I SAY "NO MATTER WHAT ANY POPE SAYS" I MEAN NO MATTER HOW FRIENDLY OR TOLERANT AND POPE IS OF UN-CATHOLIC TEACHINGS, IT DOESN'T MEAN THOSE DOGMAS CAN BE IGNORED]

However niether the EOC or the RCC makes the claim that the other one has no apostolic succesion. They both have apostolic succesion, however they both claim the other is in schism from the true Church.

The differences between east and west are no longer simple customs or litrugical traditions. But rather they are seperated doctrinally. For union to be established between the two the EOC must accept RCC dogmas, or the RCC must get rid of all of their dogmas declared after the break between east and west.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2003, 09:30:28 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #33 on: November 28, 2003, 09:16:37 PM »

Byzantino

We agree to disagree.  Again I'm surprised so much verbiage is expended on the RC liturgy on an EO forum.

Peace
Hope you Thanksgiving was well.

CR
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #34 on: November 28, 2003, 09:23:17 PM »

Just honest criticism, and only the Novus Ordo, not the Tridentine Mass. My fondest memories of RC were at a Tridentine parish - the Mass was simply unforgettable.

Happy thanksgiving to you, bro! I don't celebrate thanksgiving, i'm from the land of Oz :-)
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #35 on: November 28, 2003, 09:40:48 PM »

Ben

[Yes I have been Catholic for a few years now. I was confirmed in June of 2000 at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Denver, Colorado by Bishop Jose Gomez. I recieved by religious education from the religious director at the Cathedral.]

Congrats on being RC since 2000.

[I have attended SSPX chapels before, never recieved communion there tho, and have spent some time at FSSP chapels. I currently attend Mass at Servants of the Holy Family (servi.org) in Colorado Springs.]

I checked this site and they don't seem to be in communion with the local RC ordinary Abp Chaput.  If they're not in communion with the local ordinary then they are not RC.  Many groups say they are RC just as many groups say they are Orthodox but aren't.

[Balamand was not an offical statement. And as I pointed out in the Fatima thread, Balamand was protested many numerous Church officals. As I have said before I have not run into one Orthodox priest who supported the Balamand statement. I suggest you read the document the monks on Mount Athos sent the Ecumenical Patriarch regarding the Balamand Statement.]

Not an official statement???!!!  You could've fooled me it had the pope's approval.  As far as church officials protesting the only one whose opinion counts is the person sitting in the chair of Peter.  You also don't need to run into an EO priest who supports it the point is the RCC supports it.  I've read the letter the Athonites sent to the EP.  Nice letter and everyone is entitled to their opinion but we were talking about the RCC.

[For union to be established between the two the EOC must accept RCC dogmas, or the RCC must get rid of all of their dogmas declared after the break between east and west. ]

Ben were you a Calvinist prior to becoming Catholic? Calvinsits are very much into an "either or " mentality. What if through dialogue we came to a mutual understanding?

[I am being taught of Orthodox teaching and dogma by Fr. Apostolos at Assumption Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Denver, Colorado. I attend Divine Litrugy there on most Sundays.]

I'm glad you're getting instruction in Orthodoxy.  But you did say you were going to mass too.  Is the priest who is giving you direction your spiritual father?  Is he giving you permission to attend mass while under instruction?  What happens when the Creed is recited when you attend the Holy Family place?  When I was getting instruction in Orthodoxy my spiritual father forbade me from attending mass.  Well maybe they have different rules out West.

Carpo-Rusyn




Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #36 on: November 28, 2003, 10:01:56 PM »



Quote
Congrats on being RC since 2000.

Thanks!

Quote
I checked this site and they don't seem to be in communion with the local RC ordinary Abp Chaput.  If they're not in communion with the local ordinary then they are not RC.  Many groups say they are RC just as many groups say they are Orthodox but aren't.

Firsly the local ordinary is not Abp Chaput. The diocese of Colorado Springs was established in 1984. The local ordinary is Bishop Hanifen.

To be RCC you do not have to be in communion with the local ordinary. I have no idea where you got that! Please provide evidence for this statement.

Servants of the Holy Family is a Catholic place, and a very wonderful one at that. I find it odd that you feel as if you have the power to excomunicate a group of priests, monks, and nuns hundreds of miles away from you.

I suggest you send an email to Servants of the Holy Family and ask them about what they are before dismissing them as non-Catholics.

Quote
Not an official statement???!!!  You could've fooled me it had the pope's approval.  As far as church officials protesting the only one whose opinion counts is the person sitting in the chair of Peter.  You also don't need to run into an EO priest who supports it the point is the RCC supports it.  I've read the letter the Athonites sent to the EP.  Nice letter and everyone is entitled to their opinion but we were talking about the RCC.

The statement was not offical in the since that it had no affect on the current relations between east and west. If it did when my Greek Orthodox friend converted to Roman Catholicism, the priest would have told him to go away. Also when I said it was not an offical statement I was looking at it from an Orthodox point of view. I have spoken with an OCA, GOA, and ROCOR priest and all three have said the Balamand statement is un-offical and is not binding to them in their every day work.

Quote
Ben were you a Calvinist prior to becoming Catholic? Calvinsits are very much into an "either or " mentality. What if through dialogue we came to a mutual understanding?

No I was not Calvinist...lol.

I do not see how they can come to a "mutual understanding".

The EOC believes the RCC to be in schism, therefore the RCC must come back to the true Church, the EOC.

or

The RCC believes the EOC to be in schism, therefore the EOC must come back to the true Church, the RCC.

I mean how else could it happen? If they come to a "mutual understanding" then both sides must admitt the other side is the true Church, and that right there screws up the claims of both the RCC and EOC to be the true Church.

Quote
I'm glad you're getting instruction in Orthodoxy.  But you did say you were going to mass too.  Is the priest who is giving you direction your spiritual father?  Is he giving you permission to attend mass while under instruction?  What happens when the Creed is recited when you attend the Holy Family place?  When I was getting instruction in Orthodoxy my spiritual father forbade me from attending mass.  Well maybe they have different rules out West.

The priest who is giving me intruction is just that, a priest giving me instruction. Of course if I were to enter Orthodoxy he would be my spiritual Father. Since I live a ways away from the GOA Cathedral he has no problem with me attending mass.

As far as the creed issue that is a difficult one. But since the creed at a Tridentine Mass is said in Latin, I ussually don't recite the Creed, my Latin is horrible. But at the GOA cathedral I recite it, as everyone else does, without the Filioque.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #37 on: November 28, 2003, 10:34:37 PM »

Ben

[To be RCC you do not have to be in communion with the local ordinary. I have no idea where you got that! Please provide evidence for this statement]

It's in Canon Law.  It'll take me awhile but I can look up the exact number of the statute.  I believe it works the same way in the EOC.  You have to be in communion with a canonical bishop to be considered Orthodox.  

[Servants of the Holy Family is a Catholic place, and a very wonderful one at that. I find it odd that you feel as if you have the power to excomunicate a group of priests, monks, and nuns hundreds of miles away from you.]

Not being a bishop I have no power to excommunicate anyone.  I did check the website for the diocese of Colorado Springs and they are not listed as being connected with the diocese.

[The statement was not offical in the since that it had no affect on the current relations between east and west.] If it did when my Greek Orthodox friend converted to Roman Catholicism, the priest would have told him to go away. Also when I said it was not an offical statement I was looking at it from an Orthodox point of view. I have spoken with an OCA, GOA, and ROCOR priest and all three have said the Balamand statement is un-offical and is not binding to them in their every day work.]

I was speaking from an RC point of view and it is an official statement.  

[The priest who is giving me intruction is just that, a priest giving me instruction. Of course if I were to enter Orthodoxy he would be my spiritual Father. Since I live a ways away from the GOA Cathedral he has no problem with me attending mass.]

Things must be pretty lax in the GOA or I've had experience with very tough EO priests.

Carpo-Rusyn

Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #38 on: November 29, 2003, 12:05:58 AM »

Quote
It's in Canon Law.  It'll take me awhile but I can look up the exact number of the statute.  I believe it works the same way in the EOC.  You have to be in communion with a canonical bishop to be considered Orthodox.  


Servants of the Holy Family is in communion with a canonical bishop(s). However they are not under the jurisdiction of the local ordinary, Bishop Hanifen. You are correct, you must be in communion with a canonical bishop, but I am curious where you got the idea that you have to be under the jurisdiction/in communion with your local ordinary.


Quote
I was speaking from an RC point of view and it is an official statement.  


I have spoken with many Catholic priests and bishops who do not view it as offical. If it was offical all Catholic parishes in Russia would be abandoned and the RCC wouldn't except converts from the EOC.


Quote
Things must be pretty lax in the GOA or I've had experience with very tough EO priests.

The GOA is noted for its liberalism and for being a little too lax on some issues.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2003, 12:12:39 AM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #39 on: November 29, 2003, 09:55:22 AM »

Oh Ben

I will have to speak to that priest at the Cathedral in Denver!!!

[Servants of the Holy Family is in communion with a canonical bishop(s). However they are not under the jurisdiction of the local ordinary, Bishop Hanifen. You are correct, you must be in communion with a canonical bishop, but I am curious where you got the idea that you have to be under the jurisdiction/in communion with your local ordinary.]

In RC Canon Law (both the new Code and the old 1917 Code) a religious community has to be in communion and under the jurisdiction of the local ordinary.  In the RCC we don't speak of "canonical bishops" as all our bishops are canonical.  The term "canonical bishops" is usually code for a vagante group.  Such groups usually say they are Catholic but they aren't RC.

[I have spoken with many Catholic priests and bishops who do not view it as offical. If it was offical all Catholic parishes in Russia would be abandoned and the RCC wouldn't except converts from the EOC.]

Are we sure you're talking about RC priests and bishops here?  The parishes in Russia wouldn't be abandoned as there are RCs who live in Russia.  They are usually from ethnic groups that either migrated or were froced to migrate into Russia either by the czars or the Soviets.  

[The GOA is noted for its liberalism and for being a little too lax on some issues.]

Ahh!  So why aren't you going for one of the more traditonalist EOCs.

Carpo-Rusyn




Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #40 on: November 30, 2003, 03:42:33 PM »

Quote
I will have to speak to that priest at the Cathedral in Denver!!!

Huh? You lost me there.

Quote
In RC Canon Law (both the new Code and the old 1917 Code) a religious community has to be in communion and under the jurisdiction of the local ordinary.  In the RCC we don't speak of "canonical bishops" as all our bishops are canonical.  The term "canonical bishops" is usually code for a vagante group.  Such groups usually say they are Catholic but they aren't RC.

What I was trying to say is that Servants of the Holy Family is in communion with regular NO bishops, canonical is the only term I could think of. NO bishops from this country and from around the world sponsor ordinations and confirmations there.

Quote
Are we sure you're talking about RC priests and bishops here?  The parishes in Russia wouldn't be abandoned as there are RCs who live in Russia.  They are usually from ethnic groups that either migrated or were froced to migrate into Russia either by the czars or the Soviets.  


Umm pretty sure....but you know these days its hard to tell if your in a Catholic church or an Episcopal church, who knows maybe I was speaking with Episcopal priests and bishops Wink.

I have heard and read that those in Russia are "fufilling" our Lady of Fatima's wish for the conversion of Russia. There are not that many Catholics in Russia to justify the extensive ministry that goes on there.

And if the Balamand statement was binding in the RCC there would be no eastern rite. The eastern rite was established to bring Orthodox Christians in communion with the Pope but keep their own customs. But since according to Balamand, the EOC is fine, then why doesn't the RCC scrap the eastern rite? And tell all the eastern rite Catholics to be Orthodox? I mean in light of the Balamand statment, why is there a need for the eastern rite?

Quote
Ahh!  So why aren't you going for one of the more traditonalist EOCs.

Who said I was going for the more traditionalist EOCs?!? I'm happy with GOA.
 Cheesy
« Last Edit: November 30, 2003, 03:44:09 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.151 seconds with 68 queries.