OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 22, 2014, 04:10:34 AM *
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 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodoxy vs Catholicism - Help!  (Read 4957 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
wanderer22
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #45 on: September 30, 2010, 01:25:16 PM »

Hello everyone.

First off I want to thank you all again for giving me plenty to think about. I got plenty of though provoking messages that made me really think more deeply on this issue. After much prayer, attending both Catholic and Orthodox churches, speaking with both priests and ultimately going to confession, here is what I have concluded.

First of all, elijahmaria, please forgive me for saying this but I was greatly offended at you saying I became Orthodox in a nominal way. I did plenty of study and prayer before converting, it was only after being faced with these challenges that I started getting cold feet. Not once did I question any belief of the Church, my problem was solely with my personal circumstances. I did not therefore "convert to Orthodoxy in a kind of nominal way" but rather had nominal reasons to be questioning it in the first place.

On the subject of true and false unity, I believe both the RCC and the EOC have a unity in matters of faith and church structure. The Pope serves as a point of unity that the Orthodox don't have, a source that can be the final word and who can't be argued with when speaking ex cathedra. This is both good (for unity's sake) and bad in the sense that from the Orthodox perspective, the Pope has cut himself off from the other bishops and Patriarchs and is thus unable to meet in councils to establish orthodoxy. His errors become the beliefs of the Catholic Church and are thus uncorrectable as long as the Pope doesn't agree to be in communion, and therefore equal footing as the Orthodox patriarchs. So as much as I see the Pope as a focus of unity, I see the repercussions of having one infallible universal bishop as very grave.

There are many things that I can't wrap my mind around in Catholicism that have become fresh since visiting Catholic churches again. It is good to remember that vernacular only became the norm after Vatican II and that before that essentially the WHOLE WORLD would have been in my dilemma of not understanding the Mass (assuming most people don't speak Latin), while the East had vernacular for over a thousand years. Also, I couldn't help but notice at the church I went to, a 16 year old girl (whom I know) with her breasts hanging out, was the Eucharistic minister, giving communion to the faithful. This is silly not just because of the lack of modesty, but the lack of orthodoxy...I have never come across any writings speaking of non-clerical female children giving communion. The RCC truly is ever changing and is therefore a major turn off.

The problem in the Orthodox Church of not knowing who's in communion is a pickle. It is possible to always know who your jurisdiction is in communion with, but the problem arises when a canonical jurisdiction accepts one considered heterodox (like my example in the original post). This is a problem though not as serious a problem as knowing exactly who your Church is in communion with, but having the head of the Church teach heresy.

As for me personally, my attraction to Catholicism is not that of belief but of convenience. I realize that if I was to become a Catholic, I could indeed attempt to defend its dogmas and beliefs, but wouldn't be believing myself in what I would be defending. Essentially I'd be throwing everything I've learned out the window just to be able to listen to a service in English. I have since learned that the issue of the Serbian priest is much worst and that the whole church has just gone into schism. Needless to say, I won't have any need to go there anymore. In agreement with one of the posts, I am setting my roots down at a local Greek church, where the priest is friendly and some of the service is in English.

There is very much beauty in the Catholic Church but the decision I have come to is to stick it out here until the situation gets better. Perhaps one day we'll have an English mission or one church will have entire English services. Until then, I'd rather not sell out my Orthodox faith out of convenience. Prayer and confession has helped boost my faith and I hope to live out the rest of my years, as difficult as it might be, as an Orthodox Christian.

Thanks again for everyone's opinions!
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #46 on: September 30, 2010, 01:37:46 PM »

Hello everyone.

First off I want to thank you all again for giving me plenty to think about. I got plenty of though provoking messages that made me really think more deeply on this issue. After much prayer, attending both Catholic and Orthodox churches, speaking with both priests and ultimately going to confession, here is what I have concluded.

First of all, elijahmaria, please forgive me for saying this but I was greatly offended at you saying I became Orthodox in a nominal way. I did plenty of study and prayer before converting, it was only after being faced with these challenges that I started getting cold feet. Not once did I question any belief of the Church, my problem was solely with my personal circumstances. I did not therefore "convert to Orthodoxy in a kind of nominal way" but rather had nominal reasons to be questioning it in the first place.

Dear Wanderer,

Good to know you are on solid ground!!

Just as a thought:  Over the years I've learned that when I ask for people's opinions, and lay myself out for people to see, I am going to get a range of responses based upon what I say, and if I have said too much or too little those responses are going to reflect on me rather than on the responders.  So I make it a point when asking advice, not to take offense when no offense is intended.  It is spiritually more healthy that way.

In Christ,

Mary
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,365



« Reply #47 on: September 30, 2010, 02:41:02 PM »

Hello everyone.

First off I want to thank you all again for giving me plenty to think about. I got plenty of though provoking messages that made me really think more deeply on this issue. After much prayer, attending both Catholic and Orthodox churches, speaking with both priests and ultimately going to confession, here is what I have concluded.

First of all, elijahmaria, please forgive me for saying this but I was greatly offended at you saying I became Orthodox in a nominal way. I did plenty of study and prayer before converting, it was only after being faced with these challenges that I started getting cold feet. Not once did I question any belief of the Church, my problem was solely with my personal circumstances. I did not therefore "convert to Orthodoxy in a kind of nominal way" but rather had nominal reasons to be questioning it in the first place.

On the subject of true and false unity, I believe both the RCC and the EOC have a unity in matters of faith and church structure. The Pope serves as a point of unity that the Orthodox don't have, a source that can be the final word and who can't be argued with when speaking ex cathedra. This is both good (for unity's sake) and bad in the sense that from the Orthodox perspective, the Pope has cut himself off from the other bishops and Patriarchs and is thus unable to meet in councils to establish orthodoxy. His errors become the beliefs of the Catholic Church and are thus uncorrectable as long as the Pope doesn't agree to be in communion, and therefore equal footing as the Orthodox patriarchs. So as much as I see the Pope as a focus of unity, I see the repercussions of having one infallible universal bishop as very grave.

There are many things that I can't wrap my mind around in Catholicism that have become fresh since visiting Catholic churches again. It is good to remember that vernacular only became the norm after Vatican II and that before that essentially the WHOLE WORLD would have been in my dilemma of not understanding the Mass (assuming most people don't speak Latin), while the East had vernacular for over a thousand years. Also, I couldn't help but notice at the church I went to, a 16 year old girl (whom I know) with her breasts hanging out, was the Eucharistic minister, giving communion to the faithful. This is silly not just because of the lack of modesty, but the lack of orthodoxy...I have never come across any writings speaking of non-clerical female children giving communion. The RCC truly is ever changing and is therefore a major turn off.

The problem in the Orthodox Church of not knowing who's in communion is a pickle. It is possible to always know who your jurisdiction is in communion with, but the problem arises when a canonical jurisdiction accepts one considered heterodox (like my example in the original post). This is a problem though not as serious a problem as knowing exactly who your Church is in communion with, but having the head of the Church teach heresy.

As for me personally, my attraction to Catholicism is not that of belief but of convenience. I realize that if I was to become a Catholic, I could indeed attempt to defend its dogmas and beliefs, but wouldn't be believing myself in what I would be defending. Essentially I'd be throwing everything I've learned out the window just to be able to listen to a service in English. I have since learned that the issue of the Serbian priest is much worst and that the whole church has just gone into schism. Needless to say, I won't have any need to go there anymore. In agreement with one of the posts, I am setting my roots down at a local Greek church, where the priest is friendly and some of the service is in English.

There is very much beauty in the Catholic Church but the decision I have come to is to stick it out here until the situation gets better. Perhaps one day we'll have an English mission or one church will have entire English services. Until then, I'd rather not sell out my Orthodox faith out of convenience. Prayer and confession has helped boost my faith and I hope to live out the rest of my years, as difficult as it might be, as an Orthodox Christian.

Thanks again for everyone's opinions!
The Lord strengthen you and keep you from wandering and inprove your situation!

A tested Faith is a stronger one.

Lord have mercy and guide the Serbian parish!
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
dcointin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 61


« Reply #48 on: September 30, 2010, 06:46:44 PM »

You're in a difficult situation for which there is unfortunately no easy answer  Sad

I was raised Lutheran, and attended a Lutheran college in the pre-seminary program, majoring in Theology.  There I began to recognize the importance of church history, which led me study the early church fathers and church history, and eventually Catholicism and Orthodoxy.  After graduating I chose to covert to Orthodoxy primarily because of my agreement with its ecclesiology, but I can certainly understand the difficulty of making such a decision.

I'm fortunate to be in an area with English speaking Orthodox parishes such as the Antiochian mission I'm a member of, but it would be much more difficult if such places weren't available.  My brother recently decided to become Orthodox and was interested in becoming a catechumen at a Greek parish.  He spoke with the priest, who had reservations about how well he would fit in with the community, and was asked by members if he was Greek.  After a few weeks he decided to attend my parish instead.  If such a place weren't available, it's very likely that he would have chosen to become Catholic.

Personally, the biggest non theological problem I have with Catholicism is its liturgy.  My girlfriend is Catholic and we've visited 5 or more Catholic parishes together and most celebrated the liturgy in a way that strongly reminded me of Protestantism.  Most of these parishes were old, urban, and traditional in their architecture, so I was surprised at what I found.  Examples of what saw were:

1. Hymns.  Most of the text and/or melodies of the hymns that were sung were dated at 1960 or later.

2. Orientation.  The priest faced the people for the entire liturgy, regardless of what action he was performing.

3. Speaking.  The priest would speak many parts of the liturgy that were traditionally chanted such as the litanies.

4. Communion.  Communion was distributed by lay people who handed communicants the chalice.  Most parishes had no altar rail, and the people communed standing.

5. Altars.  Most parishes had a *gorgeous* altar, but instead used a simple table set in front of it, and the previous altar had no function any longer.

6. Incense.  Only one parish I visited (the cathedral) used incense.  Perhaps some do on the most important feast days, but I attended a Christmas liturgy and they didn’t.



Logged
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #49 on: September 30, 2010, 09:14:53 PM »

You're in a difficult situation for which there is unfortunately no easy answer  Sad

I was raised Lutheran, and attended a Lutheran college in the pre-seminary program, majoring in Theology.  There I began to recognize the importance of church history, which led me study the early church fathers and church history, and eventually Catholicism and Orthodoxy.  After graduating I chose to covert to Orthodoxy primarily because of my agreement with its ecclesiology, but I can certainly understand the difficulty of making such a decision.

I'm fortunate to be in an area with English speaking Orthodox parishes such as the Antiochian mission I'm a member of, but it would be much more difficult if such places weren't available.  My brother recently decided to become Orthodox and was interested in becoming a catechumen at a Greek parish.  He spoke with the priest, who had reservations about how well he would fit in with the community, and was asked by members if he was Greek.  After a few weeks he decided to attend my parish instead.  If such a place weren't available, it's very likely that he would have chosen to become Catholic.

Personally, the biggest non theological problem I have with Catholicism is its liturgy.  My girlfriend is Catholic and we've visited 5 or more Catholic parishes together and most celebrated the liturgy in a way that strongly reminded me of Protestantism.  Most of these parishes were old, urban, and traditional in their architecture, so I was surprised at what I found.  Examples of what saw were:

1. Hymns.  Most of the text and/or melodies of the hymns that were sung were dated at 1960 or later.

2. Orientation.  The priest faced the people for the entire liturgy, regardless of what action he was performing.

3. Speaking.  The priest would speak many parts of the liturgy that were traditionally chanted such as the litanies.

4. Communion.  Communion was distributed by lay people who handed communicants the chalice.  Most parishes had no altar rail, and the people communed standing.

5. Altars.  Most parishes had a *gorgeous* altar, but instead used a simple table set in front of it, and the previous altar had no function any longer.

6. Incense.  Only one parish I visited (the cathedral) used incense.  Perhaps some do on the most important feast days, but I attended a Christmas liturgy and they didn’t.




As a Roman Catholic, this is immensely frustrating. I love going to Orthodox Churches because the liturgy is celebrated correctly. My Catholic parish is a pleasant exception, except that we don't always do ad orientem, and we have altar girls. I also wish we chanted the propers and antiphons instead of singing hymns. We also don't have a great altar.

I hate it when I go into parishes that have three beautiful high altars and a table set in front of them. It makes no sense.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #50 on: September 30, 2010, 11:19:30 PM »

Quote from: Papist
"I don't know about that. The Novus Ordo celebrated properly is absolutely breathtaking as well. Have you been to Easter Vigil or Midnight Mass at St. Thomas Aquinas Parish?"

What does 'Novus Ordo' mean? What is the significance of this moniker?

The Novus Ordo Mass is the new mass that sprung from Vatican II. The Tridentine (Latin) Mass being the old mass. Novus Ordo means "new order" in Latin.

'New Order'? What new order?

Like the 'New World Order'? What do you think... is there any relation to this 'New Order'? :



†IC XC†
†NI KA†
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #51 on: September 30, 2010, 11:44:31 PM »

^ Now that's silly.  Cheesy
« Last Edit: September 30, 2010, 11:45:20 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #52 on: September 30, 2010, 11:45:42 PM »

In the Latin New Testament, "saecula" is the equivalent Latin word for the Greek word for "ages", so strictly speaking, the Dollar Bill insignia is actually the "new order of the ages." By way of comparison, "saecula saeculorum" (from the Gloria patria "doxology") is "ages of ages".  This is all blurred in the Anglican form of "world without end", which also colours the King James bible, using "world" throughout instead of "age" in many passages.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2010, 11:48:05 PM by John Larocque » Logged
Paisius
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Multi-Jurisdictional
Posts: 816


Reframed


« Reply #53 on: September 30, 2010, 11:51:48 PM »

I hate it when I go into parishes that have three beautiful high altars and a table set in front of them. It makes no sense.


I thought that was strange too. I met a gentleman at work the other day who is the head of maintenance at a large Catholic parish here in town. The parish was established in 1854 and the current building was erected in 1910. I had always wanted to see the inside but could never get there when the doors were open. He agreed to let me in to see the church.

I have to say the inside was absolutely stunning. The Stations of the Cross were enormous sculptures that protruded from the wall in some places over two feet. The high altar was extremely elaborate. Then there was this small altar sitting in front of the high altar. I couldn't help but wonder what in the world these people were thinking when they abandoned the Tridentine Mass.  Undecided



In Christ
Joe
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 12:02:14 AM by Paisius » Logged

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" - Milton Friedman
Paisius
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Multi-Jurisdictional
Posts: 816


Reframed


« Reply #54 on: September 30, 2010, 11:52:29 PM »



'New Order'? What new order?

Like the 'New World Order'? What do you think... is there any relation to this 'New Order'? :




Uh......no.
Logged

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" - Milton Friedman
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #55 on: October 01, 2010, 12:02:54 AM »

Either the Orthodox Church is the true Church and the Catholic Church is not, or vice versa.
Could you explain why it would be impossible for there to be other alternatives?
Logged
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #56 on: October 01, 2010, 01:10:12 AM »

Quote from: Papist
"I don't know about that. The Novus Ordo celebrated properly is absolutely breathtaking as well. Have you been to Easter Vigil or Midnight Mass at St. Thomas Aquinas Parish?"

What does 'Novus Ordo' mean? What is the significance of this moniker?

The Novus Ordo Mass is the new mass that sprung from Vatican II. The Tridentine (Latin) Mass being the old mass. Novus Ordo means "new order" in Latin.

'New Order'? What new order?

Like the 'New World Order'? What do you think... is there any relation to this 'New Order'? :



†IC XC†
†NI KA†

You tell me (although I am not really interested). Yet, I am sure you have those in your bank account as well.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 01:32:09 AM by ChristusDominus » Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #57 on: October 01, 2010, 01:19:26 AM »

Either the Orthodox Church is the true Church and the Catholic Church is not, or vice versa.
Could you explain why it would be impossible for there to be other alternatives?

Because they are not in communion with each other and even differ in their dogmatic definitions.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #58 on: October 01, 2010, 01:30:48 AM »

To be specific, "Novus Ordo Missae" translates into "New Order of the Mass". Most folks simply call it "Novus Ordo' for short.
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #59 on: October 01, 2010, 02:57:03 AM »

Either the Orthodox Church is the true Church and the Catholic Church is not, or vice versa.
Could you explain why it would be impossible for there to be other alternatives?

Because they are not in communion with each other and even differ in their dogmatic definitions.
I think I see here the logical fallacy of the excluded middle.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #60 on: October 01, 2010, 03:23:33 PM »

Either the Orthodox Church is the true Church and the Catholic Church is not, or vice versa.
Could you explain why it would be impossible for there to be other alternatives?

Because they are not in communion with each other and even differ in their dogmatic definitions.
I think I see here the logical fallacy of the excluded middle.

Well, it should be clear that most of us are operating on the assumption that two groups who are not in communion with each other cannot both be part of the Church.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #61 on: October 01, 2010, 09:12:10 PM »

Either the Orthodox Church is the true Church and the Catholic Church is not, or vice versa.
Could you explain why it would be impossible for there to be other alternatives?

Because they are not in communion with each other and even differ in their dogmatic definitions.
I think I see here the logical fallacy of the excluded middle.

Well, it should be clear that most of us are operating on the assumption that two groups who are not in communion with each other cannot both be part of the Church.

I thought that someone said that it must be the case that one is the true Church and the other is not.
I see another possiblity which was not stated.
That possibility is that there may be shortcomings in both Churches.


« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 09:14:47 PM by stanley123 » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #62 on: October 01, 2010, 10:11:03 PM »

I thought that someone said that it must be the case that one is the true Church and the other is not.
I see another possiblity which was not stated.
That possibility is that there may be shortcomings in both Churches.

Although Christ did promise that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, so if both Churches failed to the point where they could no longer be considered the Church of the Apostles then that would mean Christ did not keep his promise. Because of this, I think we can all agree that one of the Churches must be the True Church.
Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #63 on: October 01, 2010, 10:35:49 PM »

I thought that someone said that it must be the case that one is the true Church and the other is not.
I see another possiblity which was not stated.
That possibility is that there may be shortcomings in both Churches.

Although Christ did promise that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, so if both Churches failed to the point where they could no longer be considered the Church of the Apostles then that would mean Christ did not keep his promise. Because of this, I think we can all agree that one of the Churches must be the True Church.

That is the difference between our churches. Our church can exist even when it's down to one member. St. Mark of ephesus comes to mind. This clearly takes the coop out of cooperative. Wink Ahh the mystery of it all.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #64 on: October 01, 2010, 10:38:30 PM »

I thought that someone said that it must be the case that one is the true Church and the other is not.
I see another possiblity which was not stated.
That possibility is that there may be shortcomings in both Churches.

Although Christ did promise that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, so if both Churches failed to the point where they could no longer be considered the Church of the Apostles then that would mean Christ did not keep his promise. Because of this, I think we can all agree that one of the Churches must be the True Church.

That is the difference between our churches. Our church can exist even when it's down to one member. St. Mark of ephesus comes to mind. This clearly takes the coop out of cooperative. Wink Ahh the mystery of it all.

Doesn't that kind of go against what Christ said about when two or three are gathered in His Name that He will be there in their midst. You can't have a one person Church.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #65 on: October 01, 2010, 10:44:51 PM »

I thought that someone said that it must be the case that one is the true Church and the other is not.
I see another possiblity which was not stated.
That possibility is that there may be shortcomings in both Churches.

Although Christ did promise that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, so if both Churches failed to the point where they could no longer be considered the Church of the Apostles then that would mean Christ did not keep his promise. Because of this, I think we can all agree that one of the Churches must be the True Church.
No. I don't think so.
I believe that both Churches are apostolic churches, but that it is possible that there have been shortcomings in both Churches. And i can easily give you at least one example of a shortcoming in both Churches.
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #66 on: October 01, 2010, 11:00:47 PM »

I thought that someone said that it must be the case that one is the true Church and the other is not.
I see another possiblity which was not stated.
That possibility is that there may be shortcomings in both Churches.

Although Christ did promise that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, so if both Churches failed to the point where they could no longer be considered the Church of the Apostles then that would mean Christ did not keep his promise. Because of this, I think we can all agree that one of the Churches must be the True Church.

That is the difference between our churches. Our church can exist even when it's down to one member. St. Mark of ephesus comes to mind. This clearly takes the coop out of cooperative. Wink Ahh the mystery of it all.

Doesn't that kind of go against what Christ said about when two or three are gathered in His Name that He will be there in their midst. You can't have a one person Church.

So if the pope was the last man alive he would not be in the Church according to your understanding? Obviously an unlikely scenario but just trying to figure out what you mean. Haven't there been plenty of hermit saints that would not have known if there was anyone left nor cared are they not in the Church?
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #67 on: October 02, 2010, 01:17:59 AM »

Either the Orthodox Church is the true Church and the Catholic Church is not, or vice versa.
Could you explain why it would be impossible for there to be other alternatives?

Because they are not in communion with each other and even differ in their dogmatic definitions.
I think I see here the logical fallacy of the excluded middle.

Well, it should be clear that most of us are operating on the assumption that two groups who are not in communion with each other cannot both be part of the Church.

I thought that someone said that it must be the case that one is the true Church and the other is not.
I see another possiblity which was not stated.
That possibility is that there may be shortcomings in both Churches.




"Shortcomings"?

What sort of "shortcomings"?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #68 on: October 02, 2010, 01:18:41 AM »

I thought that someone said that it must be the case that one is the true Church and the other is not.
I see another possiblity which was not stated.
That possibility is that there may be shortcomings in both Churches.

Although Christ did promise that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, so if both Churches failed to the point where they could no longer be considered the Church of the Apostles then that would mean Christ did not keep his promise. Because of this, I think we can all agree that one of the Churches must be the True Church.

Precisely. I'm glad someone in your crowd gets it!
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #69 on: October 02, 2010, 01:20:01 AM »

Our church can exist even when it's down to one member.

Ummmm.....

I think the Church would have to include at least 2 persons and at least one of them being a Bishop.

Anyway, I don't think Wyatt was saying otherwise; perhaps you missed his point.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2010, 01:20:19 AM by deusveritasest » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #70 on: October 02, 2010, 01:21:12 AM »

I thought that someone said that it must be the case that one is the true Church and the other is not.
I see another possiblity which was not stated.
That possibility is that there may be shortcomings in both Churches.

Although Christ did promise that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, so if both Churches failed to the point where they could no longer be considered the Church of the Apostles then that would mean Christ did not keep his promise. Because of this, I think we can all agree that one of the Churches must be the True Church.

That is the difference between our churches. Our church can exist even when it's down to one member. St. Mark of ephesus comes to mind. This clearly takes the coop out of cooperative. Wink Ahh the mystery of it all.

Doesn't that kind of go against what Christ said about when two or three are gathered in His Name that He will be there in their midst. You can't have a one person Church.

Most likely you are correct, yes. There must be at least enough people to celebrate the Eucharist and enough clergyman of authority to do so. Which means at the very least one Bishop and another of any rank.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #71 on: October 02, 2010, 01:22:00 AM »

I thought that someone said that it must be the case that one is the true Church and the other is not.
I see another possiblity which was not stated.
That possibility is that there may be shortcomings in both Churches.

Although Christ did promise that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, so if both Churches failed to the point where they could no longer be considered the Church of the Apostles then that would mean Christ did not keep his promise. Because of this, I think we can all agree that one of the Churches must be the True Church.
No. I don't think so.
I believe that both Churches are apostolic churches, but that it is possible that there have been shortcomings in both Churches. And i can easily give you at least one example of a shortcoming in both Churches.


You believe that both are the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?!
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #72 on: October 02, 2010, 03:25:21 AM »

That is the difference between our churches. Our church can exist even when it's down to one member. St. Mark of ephesus comes to mind. This clearly takes the coop out of cooperative. Wink Ahh the mystery of it all.

There were many more Orthodox who were not present at the robber council. The Church has never been down to one man
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #73 on: October 02, 2010, 02:25:18 PM »

Either the Orthodox Church is the true Church and the Catholic Church is not, or vice versa.
Could you explain why it would be impossible for there to be other alternatives?

Because they are not in communion with each other and even differ in their dogmatic definitions.
I think I see here the logical fallacy of the excluded middle.

Well, it should be clear that most of us are operating on the assumption that two groups who are not in communion with each other cannot both be part of the Church.

I thought that someone said that it must be the case that one is the true Church and the other is not.
I see another possiblity which was not stated.
That possibility is that there may be shortcomings in both Churches.




"Shortcomings"?

What sort of "shortcomings"?
Take for one example, the widespread use of slaves by Catholic and Orthodox priests and monks and the failure of the Church to stop it. 
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #74 on: October 02, 2010, 02:27:19 PM »

I thought that someone said that it must be the case that one is the true Church and the other is not.
I see another possiblity which was not stated.
That possibility is that there may be shortcomings in both Churches.

Although Christ did promise that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, so if both Churches failed to the point where they could no longer be considered the Church of the Apostles then that would mean Christ did not keep his promise. Because of this, I think we can all agree that one of the Churches must be the True Church.
No. I don't think so.
I believe that both Churches are apostolic churches, but that it is possible that there have been shortcomings in both Churches. And i can easily give you at least one example of a shortcoming in both Churches.


You believe that both are the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?!
Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, yes, but I am not so sure about the ONE part.
Logged
Carefree T
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 43


« Reply #75 on: October 02, 2010, 02:50:44 PM »

I thought that someone said that it must be the case that one is the true Church and the other is not.
I see another possiblity which was not stated.
That possibility is that there may be shortcomings in both Churches.

Although Christ did promise that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, so if both Churches failed to the point where they could no longer be considered the Church of the Apostles then that would mean Christ did not keep his promise. Because of this, I think we can all agree that one of the Churches must be the True Church.
On the contrary, if both churches failed to the point where they could no longer be considered the Church of the Apostles, then that would not mean that Christ did not keep His promise; it would mean the Oriental Orthodox are the "gathered two or three" and human folly got the better of us for 1600 years. Again.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #76 on: October 02, 2010, 03:06:33 PM »

Either the Orthodox Church is the true Church and the Catholic Church is not, or vice versa.
Could you explain why it would be impossible for there to be other alternatives?

Because they are not in communion with each other and even differ in their dogmatic definitions.
I think I see here the logical fallacy of the excluded middle.

Well, it should be clear that most of us are operating on the assumption that two groups who are not in communion with each other cannot both be part of the Church.

I thought that someone said that it must be the case that one is the true Church and the other is not.
I see another possiblity which was not stated.
That possibility is that there may be shortcomings in both Churches.




"Shortcomings"?

What sort of "shortcomings"?
Take for one example, the widespread use of slaves by Catholic and Orthodox priests and monks and the failure of the Church to stop it. 

That is not a shortcoming of the fundamental nature of the Church as a whole. It has no real effect on whether one party or the other is the True Church.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #77 on: October 02, 2010, 03:07:45 PM »

I thought that someone said that it must be the case that one is the true Church and the other is not.
I see another possiblity which was not stated.
That possibility is that there may be shortcomings in both Churches.

Although Christ did promise that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, so if both Churches failed to the point where they could no longer be considered the Church of the Apostles then that would mean Christ did not keep his promise. Because of this, I think we can all agree that one of the Churches must be the True Church.
No. I don't think so.
I believe that both Churches are apostolic churches, but that it is possible that there have been shortcomings in both Churches. And i can easily give you at least one example of a shortcoming in both Churches.


You believe that both are the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?!
Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, yes, but I am not so sure about the ONE part.

 Shocked Shocked Shocked
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #78 on: October 02, 2010, 06:09:15 PM »


Take for one example, the widespread use of slaves by Catholic and Orthodox priests and monks and the failure of the Church to stop it. 

How widespread was the use of slaves by Orthodox priests and monks? Was it happening in Alaska?  Greece?   Was sexual slavery part of it?
Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #79 on: October 02, 2010, 06:18:18 PM »

Fr. Im Confused....
I never Heard Or read anything about slavery that the Orthodox church was involved with ever.....How can he bring this up and have  nothing to back it up with, a link would be nice....I know in Orthodoxy we Would do what we can ,free willingly to help Orthodoxy it wouldn't have to be forced on us to do it... Huh




Take for one example, the widespread use of slaves by Catholic and Orthodox priests and monks and the failure of the Church to stop it. 

How widespread was the use of slaves by Orthodox priests and monks? Was it happening in Alaska?  Greece?   Was sexual slavery part of it?

Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #80 on: October 02, 2010, 07:58:25 PM »


Take for one example, the widespread use of slaves by Catholic and Orthodox priests and monks and the failure of the Church to stop it. 

How widespread was the use of slaves by Orthodox priests and monks? Was it happening in Alaska?  Greece?   Was sexual slavery part of it?

Here is a link to a wikipedia article on slavery and sexual abuse in Romania.
According to the sources given, the Orthodox Church was a major slaveholder.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Romania
 
« Last Edit: October 02, 2010, 08:03:34 PM by stanley123 » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #81 on: October 02, 2010, 08:28:05 PM »

Fr. Im Confused....
I never Heard Or read anything about slavery that the Orthodox church was involved with ever.....How can he bring this up and have  nothing to back it up with, a link would be nice....I know in Orthodoxy we Would do what we can ,free willingly to help Orthodoxy it wouldn't have to be forced on us to do it... Huh
"The church has committed an immoral act for five centuries" by holding slaves, said Ciprian Necula, a Roma activist taking part in the march. "We want the church and the government to apologize as a moral reparation."
Romania's Roma community and activists called on the Orthodox Church and the government Monday to issue a formal apology for subjecting them to forced labor until 1856 as they celebrated 150 years since being freed from slavery. About 100 activists took part in an anti-slavery march which ended in front of main Orthodox cathedral in the capital.

http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/20-02-2006/76198-0/
Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #82 on: October 02, 2010, 08:30:09 PM »

You Made it sound like all of Holy Orthodoxy was involved , it wasn't, but for some just for a brief time...Plus The Wiki pedia didn't mention serbs at all Ha Ha Ha... Grin




Take for one example, the widespread use of slaves by Catholic and Orthodox priests and monks and the failure of the Church to stop it. 

How widespread was the use of slaves by Orthodox priests and monks? Was it happening in Alaska?  Greece?   Was sexual slavery part of it?

Here is a link to a wikipedia article on slavery and sexual abuse in Romania.
According to the sources given, the Orthodox Church was a major slaveholder.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Romania
 
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #83 on: October 02, 2010, 08:47:32 PM »

You Made it sound like all of Holy Orthodoxy was involved , it wasn't, but for some just for a brief time...Plus The Wiki pedia didn't mention serbs at all Ha Ha Ha... Grin




Take for one example, the widespread use of slaves by Catholic and Orthodox priests and monks and the failure of the Church to stop it. 

How widespread was the use of slaves by Orthodox priests and monks? Was it happening in Alaska?  Greece?   Was sexual slavery part of it?

Here is a link to a wikipedia article on slavery and sexual abuse in Romania.
According to the sources given, the Orthodox Church was a major slaveholder.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Romania
 
Obviously, not all Catholics and not all Orthodox were involved in the slave trade. 
As far as Romania was concerned, the slavery was going on for five  centuries and the Roma are asking for an apology from the Orthodox Church since slaves were held on the monasteries.
http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/20-02-2006/76198-0/
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #84 on: October 02, 2010, 08:50:55 PM »

You Made it sound like all of Holy Orthodoxy was involved , it wasn't, but for some just for a brief time...Plus The Wiki pedia didn't mention serbs at all Ha Ha Ha... Grin

Kind of like when its made to seem like all Catholic priests are child molesters?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #85 on: October 02, 2010, 08:53:39 PM »

How can the romainians Practice slavery all these centuries and the slaves not flee to serbia for protection ,since serbia and romainia share a border... Huh ???Something is being over exaggerated
Some How..... If this was really 100 % true serbia would be Known as Little Romainia in this time and place, by all the slaves that were fleeing slavery..



You Made it sound like all of Holy Orthodoxy was involved , it wasn't, but for some just for a brief time...Plus The Wiki pedia didn't mention serbs at all Ha Ha Ha... Grin




Take for one example, the widespread use of slaves by Catholic and Orthodox priests and monks and the failure of the Church to stop it.  

How widespread was the use of slaves by Orthodox priests and monks? Was it happening in Alaska?  Greece?   Was sexual slavery part of it?

Here is a link to a wikipedia article on slavery and sexual abuse in Romania.
According to the sources given, the Orthodox Church was a major slaveholder.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Romania
 
Obviously, not all Catholics and not all Orthodox were involved in the slave trade.  
As far as Romania was concerned, the slavery was going on for five  centuries and the Roma are asking for an apology from the Orthodox Church since slaves were held on the monasteries.
http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/20-02-2006/76198-0/

« Last Edit: October 02, 2010, 09:13:47 PM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #86 on: October 02, 2010, 08:55:19 PM »

You Made it sound like all of Holy Orthodoxy was involved , it wasn't, but for some just for a brief time...Plus The Wiki pedia didn't mention serbs at all Ha Ha Ha... Grin

Kind of like when its made to seem like all Catholic priests are child molesters?
One to many of those is one too many, there shouldn't be any period.....
« Last Edit: October 02, 2010, 08:57:15 PM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #87 on: October 02, 2010, 09:00:03 PM »

You Made it sound like all of Holy Orthodoxy was involved , it wasn't, but for some just for a brief time...Plus The Wiki pedia didn't mention serbs at all Ha Ha Ha... Grin

Kind of like when its made to seem like all Catholic priests are child molesters?
One to many of those is one too many, there shouldn't be any period.....

Oh, ok. I see how that's worse than 500 years of OWNING a person.

You've both got history. Get over it.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #88 on: October 02, 2010, 09:10:34 PM »

Plus The Wiki pedia didn't mention serbs at all Ha Ha Ha... Grin
I think that there were serfs in Serbia in the Middle Ages, but they were a whole lot freer than serfs in the western countries. This was due at least in part  to the looseness of structure in Serbian society.  See: History of Serbia by H.W.V. Temperley, London 1917, p. 90

Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #89 on: October 02, 2010, 09:20:27 PM »

Plus The Wiki pedia didn't mention serbs at all Ha Ha Ha... Grin
I think that there were serfs in Serbia in the Middle Ages, but they were a whole lot freer than serfs in the western countries. This was due at least in part  to the looseness of structure in Serbian society.  See: History of Serbia by H.W.V. Temperley, London 1917, p. 90



Im sure there where,that was the way things were run wayback then ,because of the eastern monarchy were picking bad ,Lousey Idea's from the western Monarchs,,,Nothing Good Comes out of the west Just Darkness...
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  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 0.185 seconds with 72 queries.