OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 12:37:33 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 4 5 6 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: How has becoming Orthodox from Roman Catholic changed you?  (Read 27463 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« on: October 13, 2010, 03:10:24 PM »

Can I also add a question to this?
How has your experience of your relationship with Jesus Christ changed since you converted? I am just curious as to what it is like for a convert.

And MODs, don't worry, I am not asking for the sake of debate. I am genuinely curious.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2010, 03:11:02 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,801



« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2010, 04:06:18 PM »

How has your experience of your relationship with Jesus Christ changed since you converted? I am just curious as to what it is like for a convert.

I'm also a little curious about this and other kinds of day-to-day issues. Especially if you were formerly Byzantine Catholics who share the same liturgical and spiritual tradition with the EO's.
Logged

quietmorning
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,239


St. Photini


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2010, 08:43:08 AM »

I have not been Chrismated as of yet, so I’m a little timid about writing this. . .especially since I’m in the process of learning what the differences are. . .but I can tell you the immediate differences.  The rest, I’ll have to come back in a few years and see what’s different.
 
The biggest thing for me is that I get the WHOLE Catholic . . . the WHOLE WHOLE CHURCH.  I never felt, as much as I tried and tried that I could ever become someone who truly walked her faith – because the support just wasn’t there, the writings weren’t there, the prayer wasn’t there. . .the praise wasn’t there.   It was like, I gathered with the body of Christ, only I only had an eyeball. . .or an ear. . .or a leg. . . dismembered and decapitated.  

One part of the body cannot function without the rest of the body. . .and this is what I experienced. . .something that LOOKED like Christianity, but it didn’t hold its fullness nor its power.  

I would go into mass. . .and experience the hour of mass – and find myself always wanting more. . .another hour. . .and it just wasn’t there.  I do miss the Stations of the Cross – but Pascha in the Orthodox Church?  Wow.  This for me was a LIVING experience that I SHARED in.  What a huge blessing.  It made dying in Christ with Christ . . .that much more real to me.
This is the only thing I’ve missed as everything else is that plus that much more.  

My relationship with My Lord . . . has become facetted.   The way a true relationship with a true person SHOULD BE.  I understand many of the things I really wondered about concerning my own life and the seasons I’ve gone through.  I don’t respond to those as a blind man groping around . . . instead I can in a sense of wonder, praise Him for . . . being the perfect most merciful judge and lover of my soul.  Ah, I’m healing. . . in Him.  I took Him for granted in so many different ways. . . now?  I’m aware of this sin. . .and offer it to Him in repentance. . .and what does He do?  He pulls me closer to Him.  I’m awed at His love.  

The reason my relationship has become facetted is because I have the writings of the Fathers – something I never had before.  I have a culture that understands and supports that we are ALL sinners and have fallen short of His glory. . . a culture that leaves the judgment up to Him who is the perfect Judge.  

I finally have true support from every Christian that’s ever lived . . .I have the WHOLE.  I have the TRUE CATHOLIC. . .and my understanding, from the heart. . .is completely different from what I had before.  I am pulled closer to Him.  

Day to day issues -  More was added to my day (prayer, services and responsibilities to the church), and my office was completely changed around to accommodate my prayer corner on the East Wall – and I’m buying more books. . .’cause there’s just an never ending supply!! Smiley My office smells like Frankincense and Myrrh – I love the smell . . . and there is often more food in the house for my hubby to munch on.   These have not been issues – they’ve been much needed and very appreciated changes.  There are a lot of changes. . .from what was before. . .as I was not active in any church for several years before I entered the Orthodox Church.  I was looking for a church . . . but had pretty much given up on the Southern Hospitality of the Bible-Belt in the USA.  
« Last Edit: October 14, 2010, 08:43:37 AM by quietmorning » Logged

In His Mercy,
BethAnna
chatelaa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia)
Posts: 30


« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2010, 03:20:52 PM »

I feel so much closer to the Orthodox faith (than I did to my RC faith) because Orthodoxy, to me is much closer to the heart.  Even the prayers in the RC religion seem to me to be so ....mental (without emotion). Orthodoxy brings in all life in their prayers, it seems to me; I love that aspect.

However, there are practices that I do miss:  the Rosary is one of them, but I say the rosary anyway (as well as the Jesus Prayer).  I also miss my former devotion to St. Therese of Lisieux; I still hold her close to my heart. 

I don't think God minds that I still say the rosary with great love and that I still love St. Therese.  But I'm so happy being Orthodox!  I feel like I'm home.
Logged
coptic orthodox boy
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 447


« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2010, 04:34:48 PM »

Well, I am no longer Catholic nor Orthodox, but I will give my experience.

I was born into a Protestant (Methodist, but my mother was born a Catholic).  To make a long story short, I was accepted into the Catholic church on the Easter Vigil of 2001 (I believe) at the age of 15, after completing RCIA and receivng my parents permission.
As a Catholic, I was the most devoted to God compared to any other time of my life, and would consider my spirituality strongly "Franicscan" with a pinch of "Carmel"; I focused more on writings on interior prayer (specifically the writings of John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila) in the place of formal theology (most of the Christological and Trinitarian debates I knew little about until I delved into Orthodoxy).  During the summer I would make it to Daily Mass and during the school year I would go to Eucharistic Adoration after school for about two hours daily.  I recited the Rosary around ten times a day (at least 15 decades before the tabernacle daily), as well as the Chaplet of Divine Mercy once per day and, or course, the Stations of the Cross on Friday.  Every Saturday I would make it to Confession.  If it sounds like I didn't have much of a social life, you guess correctly; but I didn't care too much for a social life at the time since I considered it a waste of time.  Due to my love of Francis of Assisi, and a call to the religious life, I was strongly considering the religious life after high school.  I was in contact with three Franicscan Orders (all reform Orders): the Franciscans Friars of the Immaculata, the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, and a reform order which broke away from the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, the Franciscan Friars of teh Primitive Observance (I was strongly considering this Order before converting to Orthodoxy since I felt they most fathly lived out the Rule of Franics as he originally wanted it to be followed).
When I finally was received into the Orthodox church on my 18th birthday, I had to leave a lot of my "Franciscan" practices behind (Eucharistic adoration, daily reception of the Eucharist, etc.) but I felt I made the right choice leaving the Catholic church for Orthodoxy.  To better understand my faith, I joined this website; I have learned much through this forum and the more I learned about Church history and the Christian faith in general, I eventually lost my faith.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2010, 04:36:07 PM by coptic orthodox boy » Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2010, 04:49:38 PM »

Well, I am no longer Catholic nor Orthodox, but I will give my experience.

I was born into a Protestant (Methodist, but my mother was born a Catholic).  To make a long story short, I was accepted into the Catholic church on the Easter Vigil of 2001 (I believe) at the age of 15, after completing RCIA and receivng my parents permission.
As a Catholic, I was the most devoted to God compared to any other time of my life, and would consider my spirituality strongly "Franicscan" with a pinch of "Carmel"; I focused more on writings on interior prayer (specifically the writings of John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila) in the place of formal theology (most of the Christological and Trinitarian debates I knew little about until I delved into Orthodoxy).  During the summer I would make it to Daily Mass and during the school year I would go to Eucharistic Adoration after school for about two hours daily.  I recited the Rosary around ten times a day (at least 15 decades before the tabernacle daily), as well as the Chaplet of Divine Mercy once per day and, or course, the Stations of the Cross on Friday.  Every Saturday I would make it to Confession.  If it sounds like I didn't have much of a social life, you guess correctly; but I didn't care too much for a social life at the time since I considered it a waste of time.  Due to my love of Francis of Assisi, and a call to the religious life, I was strongly considering the religious life after high school.  I was in contact with three Franicscan Orders (all reform Orders): the Franciscans Friars of the Immaculata, the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, and a reform order which broke away from the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, the Franciscan Friars of teh Primitive Observance (I was strongly considering this Order before converting to Orthodoxy since I felt they most fathly lived out the Rule of Franics as he originally wanted it to be followed).
When I finally was received into the Orthodox church on my 18th birthday, I had to leave a lot of my "Franciscan" practices behind (Eucharistic adoration, daily reception of the Eucharist, etc.) but I felt I made the right choice leaving the Catholic church for Orthodoxy.  To better understand my faith, I joined this website; I have learned much through this forum and the more I learned about Church history and the Christian faith in general, I eventually lost my faith.


Thanks for sharing. Your story is interesting, intriguing and shocking at the same time. Do you think that if you had never encountered Orthodoxy, you'd steel be a believer?
« Last Edit: October 14, 2010, 04:54:51 PM by Michał » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2010, 05:02:41 PM »

To better understand my faith, I joined this website; I have learned much through this forum and the more I learned about Church history and the Christian faith in general, I eventually lost my faith.

?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,980


black metal cat


« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2010, 05:07:42 PM »

I have learned much through this forum and the more I learned about Church history and the Christian faith in general, I eventually lost my faith.

Fwiw, while it wasn't due (primarily) to anything I read online, I am with you regarding the idea that learning more and more about Christian history and the Christian faith is what led me to losing faith. Or, as my priest and wife put it at the time, I was reading too much for my own good  police
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2010, 05:17:12 PM »

For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow.  Ecclesiastes 1:18
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
andrewdodd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 11


St. Phanurius


« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2010, 06:09:45 PM »

I'm technically neither Catholic nor Orthodox, but I am an inquirer into both. I'm 15 years old, and I have an account on both these forums and the Catholic forums. I have felt for a while now like something is missing from my life, and that I need to be a Christian. My mother was raised Catholic and I've attended a few Masses, but I was disappointed at how short they were, even though I enjoyed the time there. There is a Ukrainian Orthodox Church in my town but I'm too nervous to go, even though I really want to, because I'm not Ukrainian. I know that they accept people into ethnic parishes, but I'm just afraid the culture barrier will be too great.
Logged
coptic orthodox boy
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 447


« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2010, 07:51:17 PM »

Well, I am no longer Catholic nor Orthodox, but I will give my experience.

I was born into a Protestant (Methodist, but my mother was born a Catholic).  To make a long story short, I was accepted into the Catholic church on the Easter Vigil of 2001 (I believe) at the age of 15, after completing RCIA and receivng my parents permission.
As a Catholic, I was the most devoted to God compared to any other time of my life, and would consider my spirituality strongly "Franicscan" with a pinch of "Carmel"; I focused more on writings on interior prayer (specifically the writings of John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila) in the place of formal theology (most of the Christological and Trinitarian debates I knew little about until I delved into Orthodoxy).  During the summer I would make it to Daily Mass and during the school year I would go to Eucharistic Adoration after school for about two hours daily.  I recited the Rosary around ten times a day (at least 15 decades before the tabernacle daily), as well as the Chaplet of Divine Mercy once per day and, or course, the Stations of the Cross on Friday.  Every Saturday I would make it to Confession.  If it sounds like I didn't have much of a social life, you guess correctly; but I didn't care too much for a social life at the time since I considered it a waste of time.  Due to my love of Francis of Assisi, and a call to the religious life, I was strongly considering the religious life after high school.  I was in contact with three Franicscan Orders (all reform Orders): the Franciscans Friars of the Immaculata, the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, and a reform order which broke away from the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, the Franciscan Friars of teh Primitive Observance (I was strongly considering this Order before converting to Orthodoxy since I felt they most fathly lived out the Rule of Franics as he originally wanted it to be followed).
When I finally was received into the Orthodox church on my 18th birthday, I had to leave a lot of my "Franciscan" practices behind (Eucharistic adoration, daily reception of the Eucharist, etc.) but I felt I made the right choice leaving the Catholic church for Orthodoxy.  To better understand my faith, I joined this website; I have learned much through this forum and the more I learned about Church history and the Christian faith in general, I eventually lost my faith.


Thanks for sharing. Your story is interesting, intriguing and shocking at the same time. Do you think that if you had never encountered Orthodoxy, you'd steel be a believer?

Who knows.  I had my doubts even while Catholic, but Orthodoxy forced me to really read (and attempt) to understand the teachings of the Church Fathers.  The more I read, and the more I discussed, the less sure I became of what was truly orthodox which eventually led to my disbelief.  Most, if not all postitive relationships are based on trust; once one no longer trusts that God is a God of love and compassion (and instead, comes to believe he is a schizophrenic and sadistic psychopath) there is little reason to believe.   
I think it is fair to say that if I had joined one of the Franciscan Orders listed above, my chances of encountering new (to me)/controversial ideas (e.g. universial salvation) would have been limited.  I thank many posters on this forum (GiC, Asteriktos, and a former poster who is now a priest, Fr. Wassen) for helping me think outside the box of strict, orthodox teaching; concerning the posters listed: one is a strict atheist, one isn't quite sure what to believe (and with him I can most relate), and one is an Orthodox priest (OCA).  The more I read the posts of certain atheist/agnostic posters on this web-site, the more confident I become in my belief that there is no God (at least, the God of the Abrahamic faiths).   
I feel it is worth stating that although I enjoyed my Christian experience (and still love and respect certain aspects of Christian culture, for example Gregorian chant and Byzantine architecture), I am embarrassed (and ashamed) with regards to how much pain I caused my parents while I was considering the religious life.  It was quite selfish (and I can only imagine the pain of the mothers' whose sons have "abandoned" the world for such places as Mt. Athos), but thankfully is in the past. 
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #11 on: October 14, 2010, 09:30:34 PM »

I think that for many people, Orthodoxy is a termination point in their investigations. They have done much research into different religions and have 'painted themselves into a corner' so to speak, by eliminating, one by one, all the competing faiths which they determine to be invalid. So I think for many people, their mindframe is "Orthodoxy or bust". That's my take, anyways.
Logged
coptic orthodox boy
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 447


« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2010, 09:42:55 PM »

I think that for many people, Orthodoxy is a termination point in their investigations. They have done much research into different religions and have 'painted themselves into a corner' so to speak, by eliminating, one by one, all the competing faiths which they determine to be invalid. So I think for many people, their mindframe is "Orthodoxy or bust". That's my take, anyways.

I agree with this for the most part. 
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,891



« Reply #13 on: October 15, 2010, 12:36:14 AM »

I think that for many people, Orthodoxy is a termination point in their investigations. They have done much research into different religions and have 'painted themselves into a corner' so to speak, by eliminating, one by one, all the competing faiths which they determine to be invalid. So I think for many people, their mindframe is "Orthodoxy or bust". That's my take, anyways.

Couldn't have said it better myself!
Logged
quietmorning
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,239


St. Photini


WWW
« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2010, 07:46:18 AM »

I think that for many people, Orthodoxy is a termination point in their investigations. They have done much research into different religions and have 'painted themselves into a corner' so to speak, by eliminating, one by one, all the competing faiths which they determine to be invalid. So I think for many people, their mindframe is "Orthodoxy or bust". That's my take, anyways.

I don't know. There seems to be quite the populace who are very willing to believe in God without going to church.  I was one.  I refused to be in a church that did not reflect what I believed - so I didn't go.  Orthodoxy was the first 'practice' that actually coincided with what I believed on so many levels that it actually made it safe to 'go back into the water.'
Logged

In His Mercy,
BethAnna
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,014


"My god is greater."


« Reply #15 on: October 15, 2010, 08:15:15 AM »

The more I read the posts of certain atheist/agnostic posters on this web-site, the more confident I become in my belief that there is no God (at least, the God of the Abrahamic faiths).   

Admins, please take note.

I'm sorry that you have lost your faith in God.

Oftentimes the "knowledge" we accumulate  is not real knowledge- it is an array of information that we apprehend in a distorted manner, which we are unprepared for and which we misinterpret. The internet, in this case, has often been a curse for new Orthodox. We have the phenomenon of "knowbetterdoxy," people whose extensive reading in certain areas has given them a very skewed picture and boosted their pride, so that they think, perhaps subconciously, that they know better than the living Church. Some of these people become "super-correct" and look for schismatic "traditionalist" groups; some of them become ultra-modernists; some of them lose their faith entirely. They think they have attained some higher understanding when in fact they've only succumbed to their lopsided, deceptive reasonings. And, lest anyone accuse me of being obscurantist, I'm not opposed to acquiring knowledge of the faith and the Church's history, but it must be knowledge that is profitable to us and which we are prepared to receive. The idle curiosity that we often engage in can be very dangerous.

You said: "The more I read the posts of certain atheist/agnostic posters on this web-site, the more confident I become in my belief that there is no God."

This is exactly how it is. The reasoning follows the spiritual understanding. For whatever reason, you started with the belief in atheism and then found the reasonings to support it. Without revelation and real spiritual understanding, discursive reasoning is a very malleable tool. You can have a boat that functions very well but that doesn't mean you are sailing in the right direction. That's why people have been able to find seemingly airtight rationalizations for all kinds of contradictory beliefs. True reasoning can only begin when we recognize that discursive reasoning is not our highest faculty, and we allow our spiritual senses to guide us.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 966



« Reply #16 on: October 15, 2010, 10:53:58 AM »

it must be knowledge that is profitable to us and which we are prepared to receive. The idle curiosity that we often engage in can be very dangerous.

What criteria do you propose to meet those two conditions?
Logged
coptic orthodox boy
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 447


« Reply #17 on: October 15, 2010, 07:54:14 PM »

Iconodule

When I first started posting here a number of years ago, GiC was still a practicing Orthodox Christian, as was Asteriktos.  I am not sure when GiC lost his faith, but I am sure that I lost my faith just before he did.  There were a number of doubts I continously encountered while a Christian of various sects, and I was never able to find the answers to my questions.
Too name a few at the time:
*How can I know what the will of God is for me in my life?
*How do I reconcile Christian teaching within a secular society?
*Is the Christian God a God of love?  If yes, how do I resolve and justify the actions of God (who is the same yesterday, today, and forever) in the Old Testament with the teachings of Christ in the New Testament (e.g. Christ's willingness to forgive sinners, yet God's command of genocide within the Old Testament)?
*While Orthodox, how do I explain the miracles and revelations of post-schimatic saints which I strongly adhered to while Catholic?  Do I simply reject them, do I ignore them, or do I try to understand them as demonic?
I discussed these issues mulitple times with my Father of Confession, as well as seminarians and priests of Orthodox forums.  I encountered many ideas, some I found more attractive than others (in fact, even though GiC never accepted the OO churches as truly Orthodox, and thus rejected me being an Orthodox Christian, I found many of the ideas he put forth quite attractive) but I could never be 100 percent sure that I was following orthodox thought.
I know many Catholic and Orthodox Christians encourage those in doubt to "trust in the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and the Hierarchs" (though I found it to be funny when an Orthodox Christian would tell me this after I converted to Orthodoxy; if I had trusted in the teachings of Holy Mother Church, I would never have converted to Orthodoxy in the first place).  This type of thinking is too much of a cop out in my opinion, and the only person I could really trust with the salvation of my eternal soul was myself.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2010, 07:56:19 PM by coptic orthodox boy » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #18 on: October 15, 2010, 08:00:38 PM »

Iconodule

When I first started posting here a number of years ago, GiC was still a practicing Orthodox Christian, as was Asteriktos.  I am not sure when GiC lost his faith, but I am sure that I lost my faith just before he did.  There were a number of doubts I continously encountered while a Christian of various sects, and I was never able to find the answers to my questions.
Too name a few at the time:
*How can I know what the will of God is for me in my life?
*How do I reconcile Christian teaching within a secular society?
*Is the Christian God a God of love?  If yes, how do I resolve and justify the actions of God (who is the same yesterday, today, and forever) in the Old Testament with the teachings of Christ in the New Testament (e.g. Christ's willingness to forgive sinners, yet God's command of genocide within the Old Testament)?
*While Orthodox, how do I explain the miracles and revelations of post-schimatic saints which I strongly adhered to while Catholic?  Do I simply reject them, do I ignore them, or do I try to understand them as demonic?
I discussed these issues mulitple times with my Father of Confession, as well as seminarians and priests of Orthodox forums.  I encountered many ideas, some I found more attractive than others (in fact, even though GiC never accepted the OO churches as truly Orthodox, and thus rejected me being an Orthodox Christian, I found many of the ideas he put forth quite attractive) but I could never be 100 percent sure that I was following orthodox thought.
I know many Catholic and Orthodox Christians encourage those in doubt to "trust in the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and the Hierarchs" (though I found it to be funny when an Orthodox Christian would tell me this after I converted to Orthodoxy; if I had trusted in the teachings of Holy Mother Church, I would never have converted to Orthodoxy in the first place).  This type of thinking is too much of a cop out in my opinion, and the only person I could really trust with the salvation of my eternal soul was myself.
What a difficult palce to find yourself. Do you think you possibly put too much stock in being 100% correct in order to be in God's will?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
coptic orthodox boy
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 447


« Reply #19 on: October 15, 2010, 10:55:17 PM »

Iconodule

When I first started posting here a number of years ago, GiC was still a practicing Orthodox Christian, as was Asteriktos.  I am not sure when GiC lost his faith, but I am sure that I lost my faith just before he did.  There were a number of doubts I continously encountered while a Christian of various sects, and I was never able to find the answers to my questions.
Too name a few at the time:
*How can I know what the will of God is for me in my life?
*How do I reconcile Christian teaching within a secular society?
*Is the Christian God a God of love?  If yes, how do I resolve and justify the actions of God (who is the same yesterday, today, and forever) in the Old Testament with the teachings of Christ in the New Testament (e.g. Christ's willingness to forgive sinners, yet God's command of genocide within the Old Testament)?
*While Orthodox, how do I explain the miracles and revelations of post-schimatic saints which I strongly adhered to while Catholic?  Do I simply reject them, do I ignore them, or do I try to understand them as demonic?
I discussed these issues mulitple times with my Father of Confession, as well as seminarians and priests of Orthodox forums.  I encountered many ideas, some I found more attractive than others (in fact, even though GiC never accepted the OO churches as truly Orthodox, and thus rejected me being an Orthodox Christian, I found many of the ideas he put forth quite attractive) but I could never be 100 percent sure that I was following orthodox thought.
I know many Catholic and Orthodox Christians encourage those in doubt to "trust in the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and the Hierarchs" (though I found it to be funny when an Orthodox Christian would tell me this after I converted to Orthodoxy; if I had trusted in the teachings of Holy Mother Church, I would never have converted to Orthodoxy in the first place).  This type of thinking is too much of a cop out in my opinion, and the only person I could really trust with the salvation of my eternal soul was myself.
What a difficult palce to find yourself. Do you think you possibly put too much stock in being 100% correct in order to be in God's will?

Now, no.  I no longer believe in the Christian God and now I welcome new ideas which force me to understand why I do/think they way I do. 
As a Christian, being 100 % sure was probably impossible; but with my eternal soul hanging in the balance, it most certainly was of utmost importance to be as sure as possible.  Everything I did was scrutinized (e.g. "Protestant parents invited me to their Christmas church service: if I go, is it a sin and should I confess?; if I don't go am I being uncharitable and should I confess? Or "Is entering my old Catholic church, as an Orthodox Christian, a sin?  I just want to see the Tridentine Mass, something I never experienced while being a Catholic, but these guys are heretics and St. Paul and the Fathers clearly don't want me to associate with heretics." Or "Wow, this Orthodox church is beautiful: look at all the icons, the censers, vestments, etc.  But I wonder what St. Lawerance would do (and I wonder if God wants me to do the same) if he entered this church?  Perhaps God wants me, as he wanted St. Lawerance, to take and sell these pricey items and donate the money to the poor." Or "If I were to become the President of the U.S.A., is the concept of freedom of religion compatible with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth?"  Or this scenerio which I pondered often near the end of my run with Christianity, "Interesting, I just found out that biologists believe that Homo Sapien Sapiens may have procreated with Neanderthals.  This does present a problem for me however.  Were Neanderthals a hominid with or without a soul?  If they were with a soul, then were they descendants of Adam and Eve and were they in need of Christ's redemptive act?  If they were without a soul, and were nothing more than an animal, and I happen to be a descendant of a homo sapien sapien and a Neanderthal, than am I completely human and do I have a soul?").  Such questions I could never answer, and I never trusted any priest enough to put my complete trust in his opinion on the matter.
Now, as an agnostic/humanist, I no longer have this mental load to carry.  I no longer have to attempt to understand and believe the "supernatural" in the very natural world.  I know I am probably creeping GiC out since I keep bringing him up, but just reading a lot of his current posts (with regards to atheism and humanist philosophy) I can't help but think to myself, "By golly GiC, you have articulated so well what I currently, and honestly, believe." 
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,014


"My god is greater."


« Reply #20 on: October 15, 2010, 11:53:57 PM »

Iconodule

When I first started posting here a number of years ago, GiC was still a practicing Orthodox Christian, as was Asteriktos.  I am not sure when GiC lost his faith, but I am sure that I lost my faith just before he did.  There were a number of doubts I continously encountered while a Christian of various sects, and I was never able to find the answers to my questions.
Too name a few at the time:
*How can I know what the will of God is for me in my life?
*How do I reconcile Christian teaching within a secular society?
*Is the Christian God a God of love?  If yes, how do I resolve and justify the actions of God (who is the same yesterday, today, and forever) in the Old Testament with the teachings of Christ in the New Testament (e.g. Christ's willingness to forgive sinners, yet God's command of genocide within the Old Testament)?
*While Orthodox, how do I explain the miracles and revelations of post-schimatic saints which I strongly adhered to while Catholic?  Do I simply reject them, do I ignore them, or do I try to understand them as demonic?
I discussed these issues mulitple times with my Father of Confession, as well as seminarians and priests of Orthodox forums.  I encountered many ideas, some I found more attractive than others (in fact, even though GiC never accepted the OO churches as truly Orthodox, and thus rejected me being an Orthodox Christian, I found many of the ideas he put forth quite attractive) but I could never be 100 percent sure that I was following orthodox thought.
I know many Catholic and Orthodox Christians encourage those in doubt to "trust in the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and the Hierarchs" (though I found it to be funny when an Orthodox Christian would tell me this after I converted to Orthodoxy; if I had trusted in the teachings of Holy Mother Church, I would never have converted to Orthodoxy in the first place).  This type of thinking is too much of a cop out in my opinion, and the only person I could really trust with the salvation of my eternal soul was myself.

So your reason for leaving Christ is because you couldn't find neat and easy answers to your questions. What's the real "cop out" here? Some of these questions are just as well left alone; some of them don't have definitive answers comprehensible to ordinary men; some of them are just idle curiosity borne of an urge to be correct about everything. Trying to find a potted answer to all your questions isn't real spiritual struggle- it's a distraction, a form of escapism. Of course it's easier to find your answers when you cut yourself loose from the Church. When the only authority is yourself, the convenient answers to everything are quick in coming (though they have a funny fluidity to them, according to circumstances). I remember- I was an atheist most of my life.  Eventually, I hope, you'll find that the real burden, the one that carries no reward, is that of unbelief, of closing yourself to spiritual realities and the Truth that is beyond yourself. As an atheist, I continually caught glimpses of these realities, through art, through nature, through friendship, and I found myself painfully closing myself to them because they didn't fit with my "principles". I realized that atheism did nothing for me, except imbue me with a sense of being right about everything, which turned out to be hollow. Reason, cut off from higher spiritual realities, is moldable like a piece of clay. It can create countless, seemingly coherent and foolproof ideologies, according to the whims of the wielder and the passions to which he is a slave. Finding a clear, simple answer to a spiritual question, based on your personal reasoning, doesn't really solve it; it just closes you off from a real understanding of it, which may not be entirely apprehensible to rational faculties.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #21 on: October 15, 2010, 11:55:47 PM »

Iconodule

When I first started posting here a number of years ago, GiC was still a practicing Orthodox Christian, as was Asteriktos.  I am not sure when GiC lost his faith, but I am sure that I lost my faith just before he did.  There were a number of doubts I continously encountered while a Christian of various sects, and I was never able to find the answers to my questions.
Too name a few at the time:
*How can I know what the will of God is for me in my life?
*How do I reconcile Christian teaching within a secular society?
*Is the Christian God a God of love?  If yes, how do I resolve and justify the actions of God (who is the same yesterday, today, and forever) in the Old Testament with the teachings of Christ in the New Testament (e.g. Christ's willingness to forgive sinners, yet God's command of genocide within the Old Testament)?
*While Orthodox, how do I explain the miracles and revelations of post-schimatic saints which I strongly adhered to while Catholic?  Do I simply reject them, do I ignore them, or do I try to understand them as demonic?
I discussed these issues mulitple times with my Father of Confession, as well as seminarians and priests of Orthodox forums.  I encountered many ideas, some I found more attractive than others (in fact, even though GiC never accepted the OO churches as truly Orthodox, and thus rejected me being an Orthodox Christian, I found many of the ideas he put forth quite attractive) but I could never be 100 percent sure that I was following orthodox thought.
I know many Catholic and Orthodox Christians encourage those in doubt to "trust in the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and the Hierarchs" (though I found it to be funny when an Orthodox Christian would tell me this after I converted to Orthodoxy; if I had trusted in the teachings of Holy Mother Church, I would never have converted to Orthodoxy in the first place).  This type of thinking is too much of a cop out in my opinion, and the only person I could really trust with the salvation of my eternal soul was myself.
What a difficult palce to find yourself. Do you think you possibly put too much stock in being 100% correct in order to be in God's will?

Now, no.  I no longer believe in the Christian God and now I welcome new ideas which force me to understand why I do/think they way I do. 
As a Christian, being 100 % sure was probably impossible; but with my eternal soul hanging in the balance, it most certainly was of utmost importance to be as sure as possible.  Everything I did was scrutinized (e.g. "Protestant parents invited me to their Christmas church service: if I go, is it a sin and should I confess?; if I don't go am I being uncharitable and should I confess? Or "Is entering my old Catholic church, as an Orthodox Christian, a sin?  I just want to see the Tridentine Mass, something I never experienced while being a Catholic, but these guys are heretics and St. Paul and the Fathers clearly don't want me to associate with heretics." Or "Wow, this Orthodox church is beautiful: look at all the icons, the censers, vestments, etc.  But I wonder what St. Lawerance would do (and I wonder if God wants me to do the same) if he entered this church?  Perhaps God wants me, as he wanted St. Lawerance, to take and sell these pricey items and donate the money to the poor." Or "If I were to become the President of the U.S.A., is the concept of freedom of religion compatible with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth?"  Or this scenerio which I pondered often near the end of my run with Christianity, "Interesting, I just found out that biologists believe that Homo Sapien Sapiens may have procreated with Neanderthals.  This does present a problem for me however.  Were Neanderthals a hominid with or without a soul?  If they were with a soul, then were they descendants of Adam and Eve and were they in need of Christ's redemptive act?  If they were without a soul, and were nothing more than an animal, and I happen to be a descendant of a homo sapien sapien and a Neanderthal, than am I completely human and do I have a soul?").  Such questions I could never answer, and I never trusted any priest enough to put my complete trust in his opinion on the matter.
Now, as an agnostic/humanist, I no longer have this mental load to carry.  I no longer have to attempt to understand and believe the "supernatural" in the very natural world.  I know I am probably creeping GiC out since I keep bringing him up, but just reading a lot of his current posts (with regards to atheism and humanist philosophy) I can't help but think to myself, "By golly GiC, you have articulated so well what I currently, and honestly, believe." 
It seems that your approach to Christianity was a very scrupulous one. Not even I, as a traditionalist Catholic, believe that God holds us to the standard that you were holding yourself to.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,162



WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 16, 2010, 12:46:24 AM »

I never was a RC in the strict sense, but, being born in a RC country, I was baptized, went to cathecism, first communion and that was basically it. In my teens I became a Kardecist, later a searcher, for some months a generic Christian and finally Orthodox.

I can say that my experience was the opposite of coptic orthodox boy. The more I learned, the more I studied, the greater my faith in the God of Abrahan, Isaac and Jacob having sent His Son to die for us, resurrecting and sending His Spirit thus making those who receive it part of His Body which is what we currently call "the Orthodox Church" became clearer and clearer and able to receive my faith.

The one thing I had to overcome was the skeptica demand for ultimate truth. I simply realized that to call for ultimate proofs in the name of reason is what is unreasonable. With the possible exception of mathematical equations nothing can be proved to such a degree. Concerning the resurrection in particular, our claim is that it was a historical fact. So it cannot produce more evidence than any other historical fact. The demand to prove it with the same degree of evidence for what happened yesterday is absolutely unreasonable.

My conversion, thus, was first intellectual and only afterwards in the heart. I could see with the eyes of reason first that principle of Christianity in general that is the Incarnation and Resurrection, and then among the groups which claim to be the church, that the Orthodox was the only one that is the real thing.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #23 on: October 16, 2010, 12:54:02 AM »

Fabio, my experience is similar to yours. At one point, one realizes that the Cartesian demand for absolute certainty is irrational in itself and impossible to achieve anywhere except for the field of mathematics. However, there are excellent and rational reason to believe in God and to believe that Christ did, in fact, rise from the dead. once one has come to those conclusions, it is incumbent upon such a person to seek out the Church that Jesus has established. Now, I believe that that is the Catholic Church. You believe that it is the Eastern Orthodox Church. Although I disagree with your conclusion, I believe, from what I can tell that you are truly seeking Christ, as I hope that I am.  Thus, I don't see a reason to become as scrupulous as Coptic Orthodox boy, when it comes to trying to untangle the mess that is schism amongst Christians. Is is important to try? Absolutely. Should we be branch theorist ecumenists? Absolutely NOT. But I think that the God of infinite mercy understands our struggle.
Logged

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

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #24 on: October 16, 2010, 02:43:02 AM »

Papist my friend, I have come to reel you in before you receive an admonishment. I understand you sincerity but I don't think this thread is appropriate for you, nor me, to say the least. Please don't feel offended by my words. Let's go have an ice cold,smooth one...yeah, that's the ticket  Smiley. Vieni qui fratello, vieni qui


My apologies to the original poster.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2010, 03:06:51 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
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 #25 on: October 16, 2010, 04:01:14 AM »

Iconodule

When I first started posting here a number of years ago, GiC was still a practicing Orthodox Christian, as was Asteriktos.  I am not sure when GiC lost his faith, but I am sure that I lost my faith just before he did.  There were a number of doubts I continuously encountered while a Christian of various sects, and I was never able to find the answers to my questions.
Too name a few at the time:
*How can I know what the will of God is for me in my life?
*How do I reconcile Christian teaching within a secular society?
*Is the Christian God a God of love?  If yes, how do I resolve and justify the actions of God (who is the same yesterday, today, and forever) in the Old Testament with the teachings of Christ in the New Testament (e.g. Christ's willingness to forgive sinners, yet God's command of genocide within the Old Testament)?
*While Orthodox, how do I explain the miracles and revelations of post-schimatic saints which I strongly adhered to while Catholic?  Do I simply reject them, do I ignore them, or do I try to understand them as demonic?
I discussed these issues multiple times with my Father of Confession, as well as seminarians and priests of Orthodox forums.  I encountered many ideas, some I found more attractive than others (in fact, even though GiC never accepted the OO churches as truly Orthodox, and thus rejected me being an Orthodox Christian, I found many of the ideas he put forth quite attractive) but I could never be 100 percent sure that I was following orthodox thought.
I know many Catholic and Orthodox Christians encourage those in doubt to "trust in the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and the Hierarchs" (though I found it to be funny when an Orthodox Christian would tell me this after I converted to Orthodoxy; if I had trusted in the teachings of Holy Mother Church, I would never have converted to Orthodoxy in the first place).  This type of thinking is too much of a cop out in my opinion, and the only person I could really trust with the salvation of my eternal soul was myself.

"*How can I know what the will of God is for me in my life?"

You'll know.

"*How do I reconcile Christian teaching within a secular society?"

Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Those outside of the Church will be judged by God.

"*Is the Christian God a God of love?  If yes, how do I resolve and justify the actions of God (who is the same yesterday, today, and forever) in the Old Testament with the teachings of Christ in the New Testament (e.g. Christ's willingness to forgive sinners, yet God's command of genocide within the Old Testament)?"

Everything which God ordained for Israel in the OT was the ultimate act of love - because it allowed the Lion of Judah, Jesus the Christ to come into the world as a Man... and to enter into death, and to defeat death for all of us.

The actions of the Israelites were tame compared to the norm in those days. Infanticide, child sacrifice and other abominations unto false 'gods' were everywhere... 

Most importantly though - everything the Israelites did allowed the Messiah from the Israelite tribe of Judah to be born.

Through Judah came the Saviour of the World; the Christ; Jesus... and in His coming defeated death itself - for everyone, including those who died in the conquest of Canaan. Those in the grave were presented with Christ, God Himself and were able to accept Him.

Anyone who was persecuted and killed by the Israelites was persecuted for His Name; for His Glory; for His Coming... Were they enemies for our sake - for the sake of the world? Were they blessed in being cursed? Only God knows for sure I guess.

We can all eventually look forward to physical death... but physical death becomes insignificant in the context of eternal life in Christ.

"*While Orthodox, how do I explain the miracles and revelations of post-schimatic saints which I strongly adhered to while Catholic?  Do I simply reject them, do I ignore them, or do I try to understand them as demonic?"

While these are stimulating things to ponder... ultimately they are irrelevant to your salvation. Worry about your soul first and foremost. Trust and pray sincerely that through your faith and witness, all will be revealed to you in time.

Test the spirits. All spirits that do not confess that Jesus is the Christ; that He is the Eternal Son of God come in the flesh are not of God. Do you feel in your heart that these "miracles and revelations" are of God?

If they are or are not of God - does this relate in any way to your ultimate salvation? No. So I believe these things must be put into perspective. Look at the big picture; the bottom line...

Are you being saved from the curse of death - or not?

I hope I haven't spoken out of turn here... It's unfortunate to see the resident atheists here affecting your frame of mind as they do...

The paradox is this:

As long as you reject God intellectually, He will forever remain hidden from you... Accept Him and He will reveal Himself and His truths to you. Trust in Him - not in regurgitated Communist atheist propaganda.

†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.
Feanor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 205



« Reply #26 on: October 16, 2010, 06:00:52 AM »

I became Orthodox in 2009 and was passionate about it for a while. In August this year I officially went back to the Roman Catholic Church.

"You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church."
Logged
Come Back
Dan-Romania
Moderated
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Ecumenical
Posts: 50


« Reply #27 on: October 16, 2010, 06:16:06 AM »

Iconodule

When I first started posting here a number of years ago, GiC was still a practicing Orthodox Christian, as was Asteriktos.  I am not sure when GiC lost his faith, but I am sure that I lost my faith just before he did.  There were a number of doubts I continously encountered while a Christian of various sects, and I was never able to find the answers to my questions.
Too name a few at the time:
*How can I know what the will of God is for me in my life?


Though question... The will of God is that anyone should be saved and come to the knowledge of truth.. Truth for me is a way of life, a way of living, not just a concept...

*How do I reconcile Christian teaching within a secular society?


It`s hard to reconcile Christian teachings with secularism.. christianity and secularism are two different things.. the society is in many ways incompatible with the christian life because it spins around wickidness and lies.. the proper solution is to stick to the christian way of life, always try to do the right thing, be truthfull and just firstly with yourself and then with the others while not isolating yourself completely from the society.. Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to Christ what belongs to Christ.

*Is the Christian God a God of love?  If yes, how do I resolve and justify the actions of God (who is the same yesterday, today, and forever) in the Old Testament with the teachings of Christ in the New Testament (e.g. Christ's willingness to forgive sinners, yet God's command of genocide within the Old Testament)?


The Old Testament still remains.. The Law is still in action , but now it has been added a spiritual serving unto it... God was just than as He is just now.. God was merciful than as He is mercifull now.. He is always prepared to forgive and leave aside His punishment... See Ninive..

*While Orthodox, how do I explain the miracles and revelations of post-schimatic saints which I strongly adhered to while Catholic?  Do I simply reject them, do I ignore them, or do I try to understand them as demonic?
I discussed these issues mulitple times with my Father of Confession, as well as seminarians and priests of Orthodox forums.  I encountered many ideas, some I found more attractive than others (in fact, even though GiC never accepted the OO churches as truly Orthodox, and thus rejected me being an Orthodox Christian, I found many of the ideas he put forth quite attractive) but I could never be 100 percent sure that I was following orthodox thought.
I know many Catholic and Orthodox Christians encourage those in doubt to "trust in the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and the Hierarchs" (though I found it to be funny when an Orthodox Christian would tell me this after I converted to Orthodoxy; if I had trusted in the teachings of Holy Mother Church, I would never have converted to Orthodoxy in the first place).  This type of thinking is too much of a cop out in my opinion, and the only person I could really trust with the salvation of my eternal soul was myself.

The answer is God can work wherever He wants... There is no problem in liking philosophies from non-orthodox people.. Paul even quote from the philosophy of pagan greeks in his epistles..
Logged

A half-truth is a lie.
Feanor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 205



« Reply #28 on: October 16, 2010, 06:17:21 AM »

I became Orthodox last year, and have since reverted to Catholicism.

I am much happier since I left the Orthodox Church, to be honest. I feel closer to God and I feel that my sacramental relationship with God is better facilitated by Catholicism.
Logged
Come Back
Dan-Romania
Moderated
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Ecumenical
Posts: 50


« Reply #29 on: October 16, 2010, 06:29:17 AM »

God is wherever love is..

1John 4:7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

1John 4:12No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

1John 4:16 (..)God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.

1John 2:3We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God’s loveb is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.


1John 4:4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
Logged

A half-truth is a lie.
Come Back
Dan-Romania
Moderated
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Ecumenical
Posts: 50


« Reply #30 on: October 16, 2010, 06:35:31 AM »

Iconodule

*How do I reconcile Christian teaching within a secular society?


Whatever you do have love.. "Many are forgiven unto this women because she loves much"
Logged

A half-truth is a lie.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #31 on: October 16, 2010, 06:38:35 AM »

I became Orthodox last year, and have since reverted to Catholicism.

I am much happier since I left the Orthodox Church, to be honest. I feel closer to God and I feel that my sacramental relationship with God is better facilitated by Catholicism.

Interesting. Would you be willing to share a few more details about your experiences and how you feel Catholicism improves your relationship? If you would rather not share it on the public forum you can pm me if you like.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2010, 06:42:32 AM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Come Back
Dan-Romania
Moderated
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Ecumenical
Posts: 50


« Reply #32 on: October 16, 2010, 06:44:41 AM »

All churches fell under the spiritual adulter and people are becoming more deprived of the grace of Christ and the Holy Spirit.That is why people lose their faiths, when they see that even the EO is not perfect(most of it) and when people are so graceless... Is hard to find hope without a true believer,in faith,word and work.This is the truth the EO is involved in the whoredom of Ecumenism.. Because of wicked ierarhs grace is rarified into the Church..
Logged

A half-truth is a lie.
Feanor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 205



« Reply #33 on: October 16, 2010, 07:55:03 AM »

I became Orthodox last year, and have since reverted to Catholicism.

I am much happier since I left the Orthodox Church, to be honest. I feel closer to God and I feel that my sacramental relationship with God is better facilitated by Catholicism.

Interesting. Would you be willing to share a few more details about your experiences and how you feel Catholicism improves your relationship? If you would rather not share it on the public forum you can pm me if you like.

I often felt quite uncomfortable in Orthodoxy. So much of the talk, in sermons and in general parish fellowship, was about how much better Orthodoxy is compared to all other denominations. The anti-Catholic attitudes were intense and disgusting.

Furthermore, I disliked how the parish I attended, and every other parish, was just an ethnic community. I felt out of place and I found it tedious having to explain why I was coming to an Orthodox parish when ethnically I don’t belong there.

I also had a few problems in regards to theology and practice in Orthodoxy.

First of all, Catholicism is far better at facilitating my sacramental relationship with God. Confession is available every day in the Catholic Cathedral and some churches here, and weekly at all other Catholic parishes. In comparison, at my Orthodox parish confession was only available once per year, and it was conducted without any privacy at all… and most people didn’t even go. When I converted to Orthodoxy I had to make a confession, and some of the ‘cradle’ members of the parish commented that they had never been to confession in their lives. I believe that I should be going to confession before I partake of the Eucharist – Catholicism facilitates this, Orthodoxy doesn’t.

There’s also the problem of the Liturgy only being on Sundays in most Orthodox parishes. As a Catholic now I can receive the Eucharist every day. I also love Eucharistic adoration, the Rosary, the Summa Theologia, the Tridentine Mass and many Catholic saints whom the Orthodox Church refuses to recognise.

Now, as a Catholic, I feel that my relationship with God is stronger because I can more regularly go to confession, receive communion, and I can pray in groups where I am accepted without any awkwardness. It was always awkward going into Orthodox parishes because I am obviously not of their ethnic backgroup. Also, most people at the various Orthodox parishes were only their for family or cultural reasons… I did not meet any young people, at all, who were attending Liturgy independently of their parents. They only went to church if their parents dragged them along. By comparison, in the Catholic Church there are many young people who are there for their own sake, independently of their parents. It’s nice to meet other young people who are interested in religion and God on a serious level.

Many Easterners criticised Catholicism as being far too ‘scholastic.’ That really only applies to the Dominicans and their spirituality and theology. The spirituality and theology of the Carmelites is very contemplative and hesychastic. The Franciscans have their own brand of spirituality as well. The Orthodox Church insists that there is only one way of thinking and worshipping and pursuing a relationship with the Trinity, and anything else is heretical. The Catholic Church is mature enough to appreciate that there are different valid ways to approach God, in terms of our theology and our spirituality. I like this ‘unity in diversity’ that is present in Catholicism. I certainly did not see anything like it in the Orthodox Church.
Logged
chatelaa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia)
Posts: 30


« Reply #34 on: October 16, 2010, 08:31:45 AM »

For Coptic Orthodox Boy:  May I give a small/humble  suggestion?  I feel you are too much in your head about all of this.  You need to 'pull down your thoughts---your analyzing---and place them in your heart.  How do you do this?  Instead of thinking/typing thoughts, etc...just go somewhere quiet and SIT by yourself.   Don't ask yourself any questions, don't analyze, just concentrate on your heart and what you are feeling.  Sit still for as long as you can.  Do this as often as you can.  You might be surprised at what you will discover.  Right now, your thoughts, your analyzing everything, your 'talking online' is like a heavy curtain blocking out all Light.   You are blocking out the Light/Love  of God.
Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #35 on: October 16, 2010, 08:40:13 AM »

First of all, Catholicism is far better at facilitating my sacramental relationship with God. Confession is available every day in the Catholic Cathedral and some churches here, and weekly at all other Catholic parishes. In comparison, at my Orthodox parish confession was only available once per year . . . and most people didn’t even go. When I converted to Orthodoxy I had to make a confession, and some of the ‘cradle’ members of the parish commented that they had never been to confession in their lives. I believe that I should be going to confession before I partake of the Eucharist – Catholicism facilitates this, Orthodoxy doesn’t.

I believe that some Orthodox jurisdictions consider the prayer before the Eucharist to be enough (especially when said sincerely and after reflecting upon one's sins and regretting them):
I believe, O Lord, and I confess, that thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who didst come into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. And I believe that this is thine own immaculate Body, and that this is thine own precious Blood. Wherefore, I pray thee, have mercy on me, and pardon my trespasses, voluntary and involuntary, in word, or in deed, in knowledge and in ignorance, and make me worthy without condemnation to partake of thine immaculate Mysteries unto forgiveness of sins and unto life eternal. Of thy mystical supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant, for I will not speak of thy mystery to thine enemies, neither will I give thee a kiss as did Judas, but like the thief will I confess thee, remember me, O Lord, in thy kingdom. Not unto judgment nor unto condemnation be my partaking of thy holy Mysteries, O Lord, but unto healing of soul and body.
Logged
Feanor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 205



« Reply #36 on: October 16, 2010, 08:59:41 AM »

I have thought about that too, but then I think: What is the point of confession? Confessing ones sins to a priest has always been an important part of Christian teaching and praxis in the East and the West, and it has always been quite soundly understood that confession is for the absolution of sins. It can't be done just by sincerely being repentant. Repentance, of course, is the first step, but to be 'cleared' of our sins, so to speak, we need confession. My Orthodox priest often said this to me when I was being catechised, that confession is very important and absolutely necessary. I found it ironic that he only made time to hear confessions on Easter Saturday.
Logged
coptic orthodox boy
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 447


« Reply #37 on: October 16, 2010, 09:02:45 AM »

Iconodule

Thank you for your reply. 
It's fair to say me leaving Christianity due to my inability to answer certain questions was a cop out.  I won't try to justify leaving the church (since no explanation will satisfy a practicing Christian), or explain it too much other than the more I read into philosophical and theological debates the less I believed. But now I can honestly say life is much more enjoyable and fulfilling (for me at least) as a non-believer. 

Saint Iaint
I thank you for your replies.  I see a parallel between your justification of God's actions in the Old Testament with the justification of American Evangelicals have with regards to the actions of the state of Israel against the Palestinians (essentially Israel is justified in all its acts because the Jews have to rebuild the Temple so Jesus can return in glory, etc, etc, etc).   A number of years ago I asked this question ore in depth on this forum, you are welcome to read it if you wish (it is titled "OT vs. NT" I believe).

Concerning the private revelations of certain Catholic saints, contrary to what you have stated, they do have major importance on my eternal soul; specifically the revelations of Mary to the three children at Fatima and her revelations to Bernadette at Lourdes.  I am not trying to misquote Catholic doctrine, but it is my understanding that the belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary (as it was revealed in these two cases and how it is currently taught by the Catholic church) is needed for salvation.  As a Catholic I didn’t know too much about Fatima (and now as a non-believer I know even less), but I did have a strong devotion to Our Lady of Lourdes and to St. Bernadette.  After converting to Orthodoxy I struggled with explaining these two revelations; although I read and more or less agreed with the Orthodox P.O.V. I always had my personal doubts (i.e. “What if when I die I truly left the true church (the Roman Catholic church) and while I stand before the judgment seat of Christ I am condemned to eternal hell for rejecting the Immaculate Conception of Mary”).
Logged
Feanor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 205



« Reply #38 on: October 16, 2010, 09:07:32 AM »

The Orthodox believe that Mary was sinless for her entire life. That's what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception states.

Catholic theology extends this to say that 'therefore, she must also have been free of original sin.' Orthodox don't believe in original sin. So what? They still believe that Mary was sinless for her entire life. That's what the Immaculate Conception is about.

Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #39 on: October 16, 2010, 09:21:28 AM »

I have thought about that too, but then I think: What is the point of confession? Confessing ones sins to a priest has always been an important part of Christian teaching and praxis in the East and the West, and it has always been quite soundly understood that confession is for the absolution of sins. It can't be done just by sincerely being repentant. Repentance, of course, is the first step, but to be 'cleared' of our sins, so to speak, we need confession.

Actually, the form, frequency and understanding of the mystery of confession was varying and changing throughout the centuries and places. The fact that today in the Orthodox Church there are different approaches to it, is due to various historical circumstances, etc. Are all of these approaches equally (a) beneficial, and (b) valid? Well, I think that as for (a): it depends (probably one practice may be very beneficial for one person, while not so much for someone else), and as for (b): yes, if a given practice is blessed by the bishop in whose diocese it takes place.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2010, 09:22:35 AM by Michał » Logged
coptic orthodox boy
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 447


« Reply #40 on: October 16, 2010, 09:22:10 AM »

The Orthodox believe that Mary was sinless for her entire life. That's what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception states.

Catholic theology extends this to say that 'therefore, she must also have been free of original sin.' Orthodox don't believe in original sin. So what? They still believe that Mary was sinless for her entire life. That's what the Immaculate Conception is about.



Can't say that was my understanding on the subject (that essentially both churches proclaim the same belief, except for Original Sin).  If it were, why is this one of the touchy topics when Catholics and Orthodox Christians engage in ecumenical dialogue?
Logged
Feanor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 205



« Reply #41 on: October 16, 2010, 09:25:17 AM »

I have thought about that too, but then I think: What is the point of confession? Confessing ones sins to a priest has always been an important part of Christian teaching and praxis in the East and the West, and it has always been quite soundly understood that confession is for the absolution of sins. It can't be done just by sincerely being repentant. Repentance, of course, is the first step, but to be 'cleared' of our sins, so to speak, we need confession.

Actually, the form, frequency and understanding of the mystery of confession was varying and changing throughout the centuries and places. The fact that today in the Orthodox Church there are different approaches to it, is due to various historical circumstances, etc. Are all of these approaches equally (a) beneficial, and (b) valid? Well, I think that as for (a): it depends (probably one practice may be very beneficial for one person, while not so much for someone else), and as for (b): yes, if a given practice is blessed by the bishop in whose diocese it takes place.

Perhaps that is so. I'm not trying to convert Orthodox or change their beliefs. However, I need regular confession. I need it.
Logged
Feanor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 205



« Reply #42 on: October 16, 2010, 09:27:41 AM »

The Orthodox believe that Mary was sinless for her entire life. That's what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception states.

Catholic theology extends this to say that 'therefore, she must also have been free of original sin.' Orthodox don't believe in original sin. So what? They still believe that Mary was sinless for her entire life. That's what the Immaculate Conception is about.



Can't say that was my understanding on the subject (that essentially both churches proclaim the same belief, except for Original Sin).  If it were, why is this one of the touchy topics when Catholics and Orthodox Christians engage in ecumenical dialogue?


I think Orthodox Christians misunderstand the IC. An Orthodox nun once told me "the Catholics believe that St Anna conceived the Virgin Mary without any involvement from Mary's father, St Joachim. That's rubbish, the Theotokos was conceived naturally." The Catholics believe that the Theotokos was indeed conceived naturally, by means of sexual intercourse between her parents. However, they believe that from her conception she was free of sin, including original sin.
Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #43 on: October 16, 2010, 09:29:04 AM »

Orthodox don't believe in original sin.

We certainly believe in the original (i.e., the first) sin and its consequences (to which we refer as original or, more preferably, ancestral sin).
Logged
Feanor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 205



« Reply #44 on: October 16, 2010, 09:30:39 AM »

So what's the problem with the Catholic doctrine, then?

I really think that there is no problem.
Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #45 on: October 16, 2010, 09:32:59 AM »

I think Orthodox Christians misunderstand the IC.

Vast majority of Catholics I meet, think that the dogma of the IC of the BVM says that Christ was conceived without means of sexual intercourse.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #46 on: October 16, 2010, 09:35:12 AM »

I have thought about that too, but then I think: What is the point of confession? Confessing ones sins to a priest has always been an important part of Christian teaching and praxis in the East and the West, and it has always been quite soundly understood that confession is for the absolution of sins. It can't be done just by sincerely being repentant. Repentance, of course, is the first step, but to be 'cleared' of our sins, so to speak, we need confession.

Actually, the form, frequency and understanding of the mystery of confession was varying and changing throughout the centuries and places. The fact that today in the Orthodox Church there are different approaches to it, is due to various historical circumstances, etc. Are all of these approaches equally (a) beneficial, and (b) valid? Well, I think that as for (a): it depends (probably one practice may be very beneficial for one person, while not so much for someone else), and as for (b): yes, if a given practice is blessed by the bishop in whose diocese it takes place.

Perhaps that is so. I'm not trying to convert Orthodox or change their beliefs. However, I need regular confession. I need it.

Do you receive a face-to-face confession or any confession? Is one or the other more important to you? (if this isn't to personal)
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #47 on: October 16, 2010, 09:36:32 AM »

So what's the problem with the Catholic doctrine, then?

We don't like the wording of the dogma which leaves open doors for further developments such as the belief that the Theotokos never really died, etc.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2010, 09:37:42 AM by Michał » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #48 on: October 16, 2010, 09:39:21 AM »

I think Orthodox Christians misunderstand the IC.

Vast majority of Catholics I meet, think that the dogma of the IC of the BVM says that Christ was conceived without means of sexual intercourse.

Though that is mistake many people who are unfamiliar make (mostly children), they must not go to church, because I've always seen it explained multiple times when a feast of Mary is around. And that's if you only go to Mass.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
coptic orthodox boy
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 447


« Reply #49 on: October 16, 2010, 09:43:48 AM »

Papist

I am not trying to compare myself to the saints, but many saints struggled with scruples (as I am sure you are quite familiar with).  When reading many biographies on Francis of Assisi (my favorite was "The Perfect Joy of St. Francis" written by Felix Timmermans, which I read probably 5 times in a two year period) I would often giggle at some of the struggles of Francis and his scruples; it can't be denied that he truly approached Christ as a child.  And of course Teresa of Avila went through a long duration where she lost all faith in God as a Carmelite (I only point this out since I was aware of some of my scruples and did discuss them with my Catholic FOC).
However, unlike these two, I live in a different time.  I live in an age where freedom of (and from) religion and freedom of thought are protected.  I used these freedoms to encounter new ideas (some philosophical and religous, others not) and  I went through my "dark night of the soul", as John of the Cross would put it, and exited not as a stronger Christian but as a disbeliever.  I now see the light, not in Christianity, but in the ideals of the philosophies of the philosophers of the European Enlightenment.
Logged
Feanor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 205



« Reply #50 on: October 16, 2010, 10:22:16 AM »

So what's the problem with the Catholic doctrine, then?

We don't like the wording of the dogma which leaves open doors for further developments such as the belief that the Theotokos never really died, etc.

I think you're referring to the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which was worded to leave open the possibility that she might not have died, although it is strongly believed by most Catholics that she did. The point of the doctrine is that she went straight to Heaven.

Vast majority of Catholics I meet, think that the dogma of the IC of the BVM says that Christ was conceived without means of sexual intercourse.

That hasn't been my experience with Catholics. Most of them know what the church teaches. It's irrelevant, though - there will always be poorly catechized Christians, both Catholic and Orthodox. I've met Orthodox Christians who believe in toll houses.

Do you receive a face-to-face confession or any confession? Is one or the other more important to you? (if this isn't to personal)

I simply go into the confessional and sit down behind the screen. It's not face-to-face. The only time I ever made a confession to a priest face-to-face was when I was received into Orthodoxy. The priest asked me to make my confession with other people in the room. I was very uncomfortable with that and yet the priest didn't seem to mind. On Easter Saturday the priest was hearing confessions in front of the iconostasis even though there were people sitting in the front pews, listening to other people's confessions.

I much prefer the Catholic method. I think that privacy is absolutely essential in confession. In Catholicism, the priest takes seriously his commitment to never utter a word of someone else's confession outside the confessional booth. In Orthodoxy, this doesn't seem to be the case. The Orthodox priest who heard by confession made a direct reference to what I had told him, in front of a large group of people.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #51 on: October 16, 2010, 10:43:30 AM »

Papist

I am not trying to compare myself to the saints, but many saints struggled with scruples (as I am sure you are quite familiar with).  When reading many biographies on Francis of Assisi (my favorite was "The Perfect Joy of St. Francis" written by Felix Timmermans, which I read probably 5 times in a two year period) I would often giggle at some of the struggles of Francis and his scruples; it can't be denied that he truly approached Christ as a child.  And of course Teresa of Avila went through a long duration where she lost all faith in God as a Carmelite (I only point this out since I was aware of some of my scruples and did discuss them with my Catholic FOC).
However, unlike these two, I live in a different time.  I live in an age where freedom of (and from) religion and freedom of thought are protected.  I used these freedoms to encounter new ideas (some philosophical and religous, others not) and  I went through my "dark night of the soul", as John of the Cross would put it, and exited not as a stronger Christian but as a disbeliever.  I now see the light, not in Christianity, but in the ideals of the philosophies of the philosophers of the European Enlightenment.
Interesting. I went through a perioud of struggle with my faith as well when I was in college. My exposure (at a secular university) to the ideas of unbelievers only demonstrated to me how shallow, self contradictory, and poorly conceived are the doctrines of the unbelievers. Thus, I came out of this struggle, with a much stronger faith in God.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #52 on: October 16, 2010, 03:40:23 PM »

I think you're referring to the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. . .

Actually, my comment applies to both. What is, for us Orthodox, problematic in Ineffabilis Deus? The ambiguous phrases such as "free from all stain of original sin" and "entirely free from . . . all corruption of body, soul and mind".

I simply go into the confessional and sit down behind the screen. It's not face-to-face. The only time I ever made a confession to a priest face-to-face was when I was received into Orthodoxy. The priest asked me to make my confession with other people in the room. I was very uncomfortable with that and yet the priest didn't seem to mind. On Easter Saturday the priest was hearing confessions in front of the iconostasis even though there were people sitting in the front pews, listening to other people's confessions.

I much prefer the Catholic method. I think that privacy is absolutely essential in confession. In Catholicism, the priest takes seriously his commitment to never utter a word of someone else's confession outside the confessional booth. In Orthodoxy, this doesn't seem to be the case. The Orthodox priest who heard by confession made a direct reference to what I had told him, in front of a large group of people.

First of all, we have to remember that during the first centuries of Christianity, it was the norm to have confession with other people listening. Secondly, why are you making such unfair generalizations basing them upon your limited experience? I used to be a Catholic and in my former parish there was (and, as far as I know, still is) a very limited privacy of confession, while in my current parish there is full intimacy (the same applies to all the Orthodox parishes and monasteries I have visited so far).
« Last Edit: October 16, 2010, 03:59:39 PM by Michał » Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #53 on: October 16, 2010, 04:54:53 PM »

Vast majority of Catholics I meet, think that the dogma of the IC of the BVM says that Christ was conceived without means of sexual intercourse.

That hasn't been my experience with Catholics. Most of them know what the church teaches. It's irrelevant, though - there will always be poorly catechized Christians, both Catholic and Orthodox. I've met Orthodox Christians who believe in toll houses.

So what? I can't see any link. The belief in toll houses is a theologumen, not a misconception about an existing dogma.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #54 on: October 16, 2010, 04:56:38 PM »

The Orthodox believe that Mary was sinless for her entire life. That's what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception states.

Catholic theology extends this to say that 'therefore, she must also have been free of original sin.' Orthodox don't believe in original sin. So what? They still believe that Mary was sinless for her entire life. That's what the Immaculate Conception is about.



Are you serious here? This shows a grave misunderstanding both of the IC and the Orthodox perspective on it. The IC states that Mary was born without the ancestral curse. We believe in the ancestral curse, and hold that Mary was conceived with 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 #55 on: October 16, 2010, 04:58:32 PM »

However, they believe that from her conception she was free of sin, including original sin.

If by "original sin" you simply mean the ancestral curse, that is the spiritual death we all inherit as a loss of original holiness, then we certainly believe in original sin and uphold that Mary was conceived with 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 #56 on: October 16, 2010, 04:59:20 PM »

So what's the problem with the Catholic doctrine, then?

The problem is we believe that Mary was conceived with the ancestral curse and you do not.
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 #57 on: October 16, 2010, 05:00:02 PM »

I think Orthodox Christians misunderstand the IC.

Vast majority of Catholics I meet, think that the dogma of the IC of the BVM says that Christ was conceived without means of sexual intercourse.

LOL

Yeah, that much is true.  Tongue
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
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #58 on: October 16, 2010, 08:05:38 PM »

So what's the problem with the Catholic doctrine, then?

I really think that there is no problem.

I was hoping that this thread wouldn't turn into a doctrine battle, but since it's no longer mine, and papist has more than likely recused himself from the thread, I suppose it's open game.  Undecided
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,891



« Reply #59 on: October 16, 2010, 10:08:40 PM »

I was raised Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist at the same time. I was baptized Roman Catholic in secret by my mother as my Southern Baptist father refused to allow this, even though promising my mother that she could raise any children as Roman Catholic if or when they came.

My parents divorced when I was 2 years old, and after that my father left town, but his parents lived in town and would take us to their Southern Baptist church when my mother worked on the weekends. When my older sister was about 6 years old, she decided she wanted a "believer's baptism" and to give her life to Jesus according to the ritual forms of that sect, and my mother was shocked that my grandparents supported it, presumably because she was already baptized, although I don't know if they were or are aware of that fact, but I'm sure they would have rejected it as being "valid" in their framework.

Anyway, after that (when I was about 5) we started going to Roman Catholic Mass every weekend, as my mother could see that the mixed religious upbringing wasn't a good thing. So from ages 5 to about 13, I went to Mass weekly, and vaguely remember going to either Sunday school or some kind of catechism or something like that. I also remember that we watch the musical "Jesus Christ Superstar."  Cheesy

I really didn't understand too much, but I was a child, so what can you expect? I'm sure they did a great job, I was just pulled out at the wrong time.

At age 14 I had to go live with my dad for getting into a lot of trouble and ended up dedicating my life to Jesus in a personal way, with deep inner commitment, when I was 15 in the Southern Baptist Church.

Looking back on things, I can clearly see that I was an open book to their teaching. They had wonderful hearts and a great love for God, but at the same time they poisoned me against the Roman Catholic Church. I didn't know how I felt about it, and they managed to tell me how I felt about it.

Add on a decade of a million sects and theological considerations, a kind of despairing reluctant agnosticism for a couple of years, and then God brought me to Orthodoxy. (I'm skipping over this huge part of my life because of the focus of the thread with Roman Catholicism, and because I've mentioned it numerous times in other threads. This were my Protestant, Agnostic, Esoteric Whateverism, Metal/Occult/Theistic Satanism dabblings, etc. years)

The Orthodox Church and the books I have been reading since stumbling into it have really given me a deeper understanding of Apostolic Christianity. I even briefly considered "returning to Rome" (even though I had personally never "confirmed" my being there), I didn't try too hard because I bought into the Orthodox apologetics against Papal Infallibility, and I still don't think he has a rightful claim to universal jurisdiction. Since I couldn't admit that from the start, I didn't really even bother getting into filioque issues, purgatory, etc. But I did attend one traditional Latin Mass as well as a Ruthenian "Byzantine" Catholic Church, but never had a serious conversation with a priest over the issues. I had a sense of confirmation and resolution in my soul concerning where God had led me, and it was to my particular Orthodox parish community.

Orthodoxy has brought me so much closer to Christ and my life has been completely transformed beyond anything I could imagine. This is not at the expense of my Roman Catholic upbringing, and I really don't see myself as a Roman Catholic who converted to Orthodoxy, because I never really understood it (which was NOT the fault of the Roman Catholic Church, I was just too young and it wasn't cultivated at home by my mother). I wasn't devout at any point, nor ever loving God in my heart in a real way.

From everything I have come to learn about Roman Catholicism and mainly the people and saints in their church, I feel nothing but gratitude for the foundation it provided for me. Those deep roots all came back at my first Orthodox liturgy. I knew the Creed (well, with a few extra words), I recognized vestments, an altar, consecration, etc. It all came flooding back to me in a wonderful way.

I am at peace with the Roman Catholic Church in my soul. I have some disagreements over the above mentioned issues which prevents my being a part of that communion based on my current understanding of things, but I hope and pray that there is validity in their sacraments, and I think anyone who deliberately wishes the contrary might be full of pride in their church and lacking compassion. Why wouldn't we want them to have a "valid" Eucharist?

Anyway, hopefully I will learn more about that part of my upbringing as the years progress. I plan to attend a SSPX church down the road from me at some point when I am not so "newly" illumined, with my priest's blessing of course, if I can get it. I am mainly interested in the liturgical exposure, so I plan to do the same with the various Oriental Non-Chalcedonian liturgies available in my city. At some point I want to read a few books to help my head and heart to understand Roman Catholic spirituality, so I want to read writings of John of the Cross, Thomas Merton's Seven-Story Mountain, and any other suggestions.

I love all of the Christians who truly believe in Christ, and hope that all the divisions will be set right in the world to come, by the Lord's great mercy and compassion. May He guide us all to salvation!
« Last Edit: October 16, 2010, 10:14:15 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #60 on: October 16, 2010, 10:11:03 PM »

lol, Ortho-cat, I was about to post a similar comment!

Please, there are a whole lot of threads dealing with the IC - could y'all talk about some of the other issues raised here? I'd especially like to find  out from RC's who became EO if they miss receiving daily Eucharist.  And the stuff about the differences in Confession interests me too.

Carry on!  Cheesy
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #61 on: October 16, 2010, 11:07:29 PM »

but I hope and pray that there is validity in their sacraments, and I think anyone who deliberately wishes the contrary might be full of pride in their church and lacking compassion. Why wouldn't we want them to have a "valid" Eucharist?

I wish that they had a legitimate Eucharist, but I nonetheless confidently believe that they do not.
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
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #62 on: October 16, 2010, 11:08:55 PM »

but I hope and pray that there is validity in their sacraments, and I think anyone who deliberately wishes the contrary might be full of pride in their church and lacking compassion. Why wouldn't we want them to have a "valid" Eucharist?

I wish that they had a legitimate Eucharist, but I nonetheless confidently believe that they do not.

Let us hope then that God is more 'gracious'.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #63 on: October 16, 2010, 11:13:44 PM »

but I hope and pray that there is validity in their sacraments, and I think anyone who deliberately wishes the contrary might be full of pride in their church and lacking compassion. Why wouldn't we want them to have a "valid" Eucharist?

I wish that they had a legitimate Eucharist, but I nonetheless confidently believe that they do not.

Let us hope then that God is more 'gracious'.

I don't know about that.

For one thing, there is the perspective of Traditionalists on the Latin side who say the the Easterners have legitimate Sacraments but that they are heaping damnation upon themselves by partaking of them. That would be a possibility if they had a legitimate Eucharist. If that were the case, I would hope that they do not have a legitimate Eucharist.

Further, for a group outside of the Church to have legitimate Sacraments would be highly problematic ecclesiologically as it would divide the Body of Christ and render the unity of the Church redundant. That idea is just a mess and I don't hope for it to be true.

I certainly hope that God will have mercy upon those who are outside the Church and that somehow they may eventually be redeemed, but I don't really hope that legitimate Sacraments exist outside the Church.

What I meant when I said that I wish the Romanists had a legitimate Eucharist was mostly wishing that they were 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
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #64 on: October 16, 2010, 11:38:13 PM »

Let us hope then that God is more 'gracious'.

I don't know about that.

For one thing, there is the perspective of Traditionalists on the Latin side who say the the Easterners have legitimate Sacraments but that they are heaping damnation upon themselves by partaking of them. That would be a possibility if they had a legitimate Eucharist. If that were the case, I would hope that they do not have a legitimate Eucharist.

First of all, I can't say I've ever heard of this "traditionalist" point of view. Especially since the Roman Catholic Church's (hsssss, gnashing of teeth) officially stated point of view (since the RCC is centralized in it's ecclesiology) states that the 'other lung of the church', i.e. the Eastern Orthodox, are a valid part of the true church with valid sacraments, albeit in schism.

Further, for a group outside of the Church to have legitimate Sacraments would be highly problematic ecclesiologically as it would divide the Body of Christ and render the unity of the Church redundant. That idea is just a mess and I don't hope for it to be true.

So... what if you have one Orthodox church (A) in communion with church B, but not C, but C is in communion with A... is the Body of Christ whole or separate? I guess it depends on which church you ask.

My point is, you're inserting an accusation that may be a bit harsher than is deserved. The human divisions of the church does not necessarily equal the lack of grace. That would place human decision higher than the graces of God. Same for the 'redundancy' of the sacraments? We're not talking Protestant vs Catholic, we are discussing a Church, with disagreeable theology or not, has ecclesial genealogy to the Apostles.

If we are to accept an Eastern view of Church authority, then assuming the East and West resume communion, does this still leave all previous faithful who died Roman Catholic in a state of sin? Despite their desire and faithfulness to God, because they accepted the IC, purgatory, etc, yet did not have official communion with another church?

I certainly hope that God will have mercy upon those who are outside the Church and that somehow they may eventually be redeemed, but I don't really hope that legitimate Sacraments exist outside the Church.

What I meant when I said that I wish the Romanists had a legitimate Eucharist was mostly wishing that they were part of the Church.

I'm sorry, but your lack of compassion in your desire for authenticity (in kind) is repulsive. Even if such is true, I couldn't hope for the lack of grace on any man, especially for motives that appear self serving.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #65 on: October 16, 2010, 11:51:52 PM »

I was involved with Traditionalist RC's for a while, have read a lot of their books & materials, but never came across the opinion that the Orthodox are "heaping damnation upon themselves" by partaking of their valid sacraments.  That's certainly not the official teaching of the RC church (not even pre-Vatican II) AFAIK.
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,065



« Reply #66 on: October 17, 2010, 02:08:47 AM »

I was Greek Catholic but had to attend Roman Catholic worship services as well.  It's nice to see a service that isn't gender neutral, short-cutted, that participates in lex orendi lex credendi, is void of Marty Haugen, doesn't have 10 laity handing out wafers and wine, the prayers mean something and aren't watered down.  It's nice the prayers include the whole trinity and not just Father...prayer...we ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ amen... sabellianism is gone.  The communal aspect is awesome.
I was at a Roman Catholic parish for a family member's funeral mass last week.
My great uncle went to mass DAILY.  the priest has been there for YEARS, and only ONE priest..  the priest admitted in his homily he didn't really know my uncle.  Probably sent laity to take him communion in hospital as well, because he said he saw him once or twice in hospital and my uncle was in there so much I think they are renaming the wing after him.  Come on, even if you have 800 members you should know the devout man and his wife who show up to daily mass for years and sit up front.  No excuse.  
What don't miss is the fact that the post Vatican 2 church is a failed experiment in liberalism that started in the early 1900's.  The other problem is that grew out of the seperation between clergy and laity that was the status quo for the Roman Catholic church for oh 500 600 700 800 years.  I guess its hard to fix something that has been broken for centuries.  It can be fixed but it has to return to the original deposit of faith, get the laity's hands off the wafer, let the priest teach fire and brimstone and proper Vatican teaching and not go on about how their aunt reminded them of the parable in todays gospel.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 02:10:34 AM by username! » Logged

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

Posts: 29,980


black metal cat


« Reply #67 on: October 17, 2010, 02:17:32 AM »

I was involved with Traditionalist RC's for a while, have read a lot of their books & materials, but never came across the opinion that the Orthodox are "heaping damnation upon themselves" by partaking of their valid sacraments.  That's certainly not the official teaching of the RC church (not even pre-Vatican II) AFAIK.

I don't know what this fellow thought of Orthodox sacraments, but the traditionalist Catholic priest at the parish my wife attended told her that she'd go to hell if she became Orthodox.
Logged

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

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,065



« Reply #68 on: October 17, 2010, 02:42:03 AM »

I was involved with Traditionalist RC's for a while, have read a lot of their books & materials, but never came across the opinion that the Orthodox are "heaping damnation upon themselves" by partaking of their valid sacraments.  That's certainly not the official teaching of the RC church (not even pre-Vatican II) AFAIK.

I don't know what this fellow thought of Orthodox sacraments, but the traditionalist Catholic priest at the parish my wife attended told her that she'd go to hell if she became Orthodox.

Aye, I've heard it from many many many many Roman Catholic ministers.  Sticks and stones may break my bones but the Ecumenical Councils will save me.
Logged

Feanor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 205



« Reply #69 on: October 17, 2010, 03:54:14 AM »

^ sounds like American Christianity in general.

I spoke with several Catholic priests about my uncertainty over whether I should be Catholic or Orthodox. They encouraged me to explore both and to go where my heart led me. They all affirmed that both Orthodoxy and Catholicism are valid expressions of Christian faith with historical continuity from the early Church and that I should go where I felt closest to God.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #70 on: October 17, 2010, 08:21:28 AM »

So what's the problem with the Catholic doctrine, then?

We don't like the wording of the dogma which leaves open doors for further developments such as the belief that the Theotokos never really died, etc.

I think you're referring to the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which was worded to leave open the possibility that she might not have died, although it is strongly believed by most Catholics that she did. The point of the doctrine is that she went straight to Heaven.

Have you ever read that particular dogmatic constitution?

Mary
Logged

Russian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (Patriarchate of Moscow)
Posts: 13


St. martyr Daniel, prays to God for us!


« Reply #71 on: October 17, 2010, 10:57:52 AM »

^ sounds like American Christianity in general.

I spoke with several Catholic priests about my uncertainty over whether I should be Catholic or Orthodox. They encouraged me to explore both and to go where my heart led me. They all affirmed that both Orthodoxy and Catholicism are valid expressions of Christian faith with historical continuity from the early Church and that I should go where I felt closest to God.
No, they are wrong. You must use your intelligence firstly, then heart! The Third Ecumenical Council banned to include any changes in the Symbol of the Faith. Roman Catholic Church has broken this rule and hasn't the Orthodox faith. Christian Church has NEVER had the Pope as the head of all Church. Only Ecumenical Council is the head and the voice of Christian Catholic Church.(Now it is named the Orthodox Catholic Church and it has seven Ecumenical Councils.) This has always been since the Apostle Council till now.
I hope God will lead you to the truth and i will pray for you.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 11:20:15 AM by Russian » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #72 on: October 17, 2010, 12:45:57 PM »

^ sounds like American Christianity in general.

I spoke with several Catholic priests about my uncertainty over whether I should be Catholic or Orthodox. They encouraged me to explore both and to go where my heart led me. They all affirmed that both Orthodoxy and Catholicism are valid expressions of Christian faith with historical continuity from the early Church and that I should go where I felt closest to God.
No, they are wrong. You must use your intelligence firstly, then heart! Third Ecumenical Council banned to include any changes in the Symbol of the Faith. Roman Catholic Church has broken this rule and hasn't the Orthodox faith. Christian Church has NEVER had the Pope as the head of all Church. Only Ecumenical Council is the head and the voice of Christian Catholic Church.(Now it is named the Orthodox Catholic Church.) This has always been since the Apostle Council till now.
I hope God will lead you to the truth and i will pray for you.

Are you suggesting that there were NO changes made to the Creed after the Third General Council, except for the filioque?

Sometimes our intelligence has to be informed by reality.

Mary
Logged

biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,643


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #73 on: October 17, 2010, 01:28:12 PM »

I am still in the catechist process. For me, the faith is much more immediate. When I was in a Catholic parish, this is how they dealt with a saint's feast, for instance: "Today is the feast of St. (Name)." And that's it. Sometimes they wouldn't even mention that, even on the feast of an Apostle. Forgive me, but it seemed to be living the faith with much less zeal than we used to in the parish to which I had gone years ago. It added up.

Whereas when I started going to an Orthodox parish and I got the Orthros booklet and the liturgy book, I could read just voluminous poetry about the vivid faith, the deeds of the saints, the way they lived out their beliefs-- the Orthodox talked about these things as if they just happened. I stayed for the services and they were just beautiful. It took me a while to get used to them, but I did. The icons add to this fully 'fleshed out' reminder, that the faith is real, it is not something that you have to do alone. I have plenty of learning and spiritual 'growing up' still to do; but in the Orthodox Church I get the sense that, with help, (God willing) I may be able to do so.   Smiley   angel
« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 01:28:55 PM by biro » Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,891



« Reply #74 on: October 17, 2010, 03:11:52 PM »

Are you suggesting that there were NO changes made to the Creed after the Third General Council, except for the filioque?

Sometimes our intelligence has to be informed by reality.

I'm sorry, but could you clarify the changes in the Symbol of the Faith after this time which you are referring to?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,980


black metal cat


« Reply #75 on: October 17, 2010, 03:19:08 PM »

Only Ecumenical Council is the head and the voice of Christian Catholic Church.(Now it is named the Orthodox Catholic Church and it has seven Ecumenical Councils.) This has always been since the Apostle Council till now.

Exactly. Everyone should just follow the 7 Ecumenical Councils and be happy. Or the 9 Ecumenical Councils. Or 2. Or 3. Or maybe it's 21. Well anyway, the point is that we can be certain that either 2, 3, 7, 9, or 21 Ecumenical Councils provide an infallible and definitive cornerstone for right belief. Very simple, really. Unless you're Protestant, then you could pick and choose which number you like. Those silly Protestants, I'm glad traditional Christians don't argue over things like that!  Tongue
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (Patriarchate of Moscow)
Posts: 13


St. martyr Daniel, prays to God for us!


« Reply #76 on: October 17, 2010, 03:38:11 PM »

Quote
Are you suggesting that there were NO changes made to the Creed after the Third General Council, except for the filioque?

Sometimes our intelligence has to be informed by reality.

Mary
Yes, im quite sure of it. Church has never made changes in the Creed Wink

Quote
Exactly. Everyone should just follow the 7 Ecumenical Councils and be happy. Or the 9 Ecumenical Councils. Or 2. Or 3. Or maybe it's 21. Well anyway, the point is that we can be certain that either 2, 3, 7, 9, or 21 Ecumenical Councils provide an infallible and definitive cornerstone for right belief. Very simple, really. Unless you're Protestant, then you could pick and choose which number you like. Those silly Protestants, I'm glad traditional Christians don't argue over things like that!
Church has only 7 Ecumenical Councils.(in 325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 680-681, 787 AD they were held) If somebody wants to be a Christian, he must admit them. If he doesn't want to be a Christian, he can choose any other number. It's more simple, than you can imagine  Wink
« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 03:52:55 PM by Russian » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #77 on: October 17, 2010, 03:55:29 PM »

Church has only 7 Ecumenical Councils.(in 325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 680-681, 787 AD they were held) If somebody wants to be a Christian, he must admit them. If he doesn't want to be a Christian, he can choose any other number. It's more simple, than you can imagine  Wink

So what are you, if you're not an Orthodox and in your words "Christian"?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,980


black metal cat


« Reply #78 on: October 17, 2010, 03:59:05 PM »

Church has only 7 Ecumenical Councils.(in 325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 680-681, 787 AD)    If somebody wants to be a Christian, he must admit them. If he doesn't want to be a Christian, he can choose any other number. It's more simple, than you can imagine  

Well then, I guess Met. Hierotheos, Fr. John S. Romanides, the signers of the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (1848), and so forth, are/were not Christians (since they all advocated accepting more than 7 Ecumenical Councils). Also, your argument amounts to "It's 7 because I say so, ignore all other opinions," which I must admit is a very refreshing and persuasive approach. Thanks for clearing this up for me.  angel
« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 03:59:46 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (Patriarchate of Moscow)
Posts: 13


St. martyr Daniel, prays to God for us!


« Reply #79 on: October 17, 2010, 04:04:21 PM »

Church has only 7 Ecumenical Councils.(in 325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 680-681, 787 AD they were held) If somebody wants to be a Christian, he must admit them. If he doesn't want to be a Christian, he can choose any other number. It's more simple, than you can imagine  Wink

So what are you, if you're not an Orthodox and in your words "Christian"?
Im a member of the Orthodox Catholic Church, its the name of Christian Church now. I dont understand what were you confused about Huh
Logged
Russian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (Patriarchate of Moscow)
Posts: 13


St. martyr Daniel, prays to God for us!


« Reply #80 on: October 17, 2010, 04:29:28 PM »

Church has only 7 Ecumenical Councils.(in 325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 680-681, 787 AD)    If somebody wants to be a Christian, he must admit them. If he doesn't want to be a Christian, he can choose any other number. It's more simple, than you can imagine  

Well then, I guess Met. Hierotheos, Fr. John S. Romanides, the signers of the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (1848), and so forth, are/were not Christians (since they all advocated accepting more than 7 Ecumenical Councils). Also, your argument amounts to "It's 7 because I say so, ignore all other opinions," which I must admit is a very refreshing and persuasive approach. Thanks for clearing this up for me.  angel
I dont pretend on infallibility, maybe my English isn't very well Wink It's 7, because the Church says so.
Do you mean Councils of 879-880 and 1341-1351 ? They are legitimate Orthodox councils, but they aren't generally considered as Ecumenicals. Its my mistake,i forgot about them, but its another case, i mean denying legitimate councils and admitting heretic councils
« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 04:41:13 PM by Russian » Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #81 on: October 17, 2010, 05:35:25 PM »

I became Orthodox last year, and have since reverted to Catholicism.

Dear brother, I did not know... It's your decision and I respect it, but maybe don't shut the door just yet? 

I often felt quite uncomfortable in Orthodoxy. So much of the talk, in sermons and in general parish fellowship, was about how much better Orthodoxy is compared to all other denominations. The anti-Catholic attitudes were intense and disgusting.

I guess this varies from parish to parish. Honestly, in my small Greek mission parish, where my wife and I worship since 2007, I have never, ever heard even one word from a priest about how "better" is the Orthodox faith compared to other. Really, nothing like this at all. And there is never any talk in our parish about how "bad" Roman Catholics are. 

Furthermore, I disliked how the parish I attended, and every other parish, was just an ethnic community. I felt out of place and I found it tedious having to explain why I was coming to an Orthodox parish when ethnically I don’t belong there.

Again, depends on the parish. My wife and I are not Greeks, but we never had to explain to anyone in our Greek parish why we were coming. No one ever asked. We have Greeks, half-Greeks (children of mixed marriages), and non-Greeks, and we all get along very well... 

Confession is available every day in the Catholic Cathedral and some churches here, and weekly at all other Catholic parishes. In comparison, at my Orthodox parish confession was only available once per year, and it was conducted without any privacy at all…

How strange. That's just wrong, wrong. Confession should be available any time there is a penitent who wishes to confess his sins. And privacy should be absolute. There are no confessionals in Orthodox church buildings, but the priest takes confessions covering the penitent with a piece of special cloth, and you wisper in his ear. No one except God and the priest should hear you.

and most people didn’t even go. When I converted to Orthodoxy I had to make a confession, and some of the ‘cradle’ members of the parish commented that they had never been to confession in their lives.

That's the matter of their consciousness and that should not bother other people. We do not read other people's hearts, only God does. After all, maybe all of them are perfect and sinless. As far as I know, it is one really beautiful Orthodox teaching that I should always consider myself THE MOST sinful and THE LEAST deserving salvation. In this regard, we should only rejoice if our brother and sister says, "I have no sins to confess." Maybe they really do not have them!

I believe that I should be going to confession before I partake of the Eucharist – Catholicism facilitates this, Orthodoxy doesn’t.

In Slavic parishes, that's pretty much the rule. You partake in the Holy Eucharist after confessing your sins, which you do early in the morning before the Divine Liturgy starts, or the day before. 

The Orthodox Church insists that there is only one way of thinking and worshipping and pursuing a relationship with the Trinity, and anything else is heretical. The Catholic Church is mature enough to appreciate that there are different valid ways to approach God, in terms of our theology and our spirituality. I like this ‘unity in diversity’ that is present in Catholicism. I certainly did not see anything like it in the Orthodox Church.

I don't know. Maybe your exposition to the Orthodox Church was just a bit too short?I am sure there are very different voices in the Orthodox Church as well.
Logged

Love never fails.
Paisius
Warned
High Elder
******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 929


Reframed


« Reply #82 on: October 17, 2010, 07:28:55 PM »

I often felt quite uncomfortable in Orthodoxy. So much of the talk, in sermons and in general parish fellowship, was about how much better Orthodoxy is compared to all other denominations. The anti-Catholic attitudes were intense and disgusting.

I guess this varies from parish to parish. Honestly, in my small Greek mission parish, where my wife and I worship since 2007, I have never, ever heard even one word from a priest about how "better" is the Orthodox faith compared to other. Really, nothing like this at all. And there is never any talk in our parish about how "bad" Roman Catholics are.

I thought that sounded a little strange as well. I regularly attend a heavily convert OCA parish and a heavily ethnic Greek parish and in five years I've never heard a negative word spoken about Catholicism or any other Christian confession for that matter. In fact on several occasions I've heard specifically Catholic saints quoted in homilies.

Furthermore, I disliked how the parish I attended, and every other parish, was just an ethnic community. I felt out of place and I found it tedious having to explain why I was coming to an Orthodox parish when ethnically I don’t belong there.

Again, depends on the parish. My wife and I are not Greeks, but we never had to explain to anyone in our Greek parish why we were coming. No one ever asked. We have Greeks, half-Greeks (children of mixed marriages), and non-Greeks, and we all get along very well...


I'm sure there are parishes like the one Feanor describes but I've never encountered one. I've attended an almost exclusively ethnic Antiochian parish (there were three white guys there, me included), a mostly ethnic Greek parish and a heavily ethnic Russian parish. I've never felt out of place. In fact the people in the ethnic parishes went out of their way to make me feel comfortable.  

Confession is available every day in the Catholic Cathedral and some churches here, and weekly at all other Catholic parishes. In comparison, at my Orthodox parish confession was only available once per year, and it was conducted without any privacy at all…

How strange. That's just wrong, wrong. Confession should be available any time there is a penitent who wishes to confess his sins. And privacy should be absolute. There are no confessionals in Orthodox church buildings, but the priest takes confessions covering the penitent with a piece of special cloth, and you wisper in his ear. No one except God and the priest should hear you.

Every priest I know is more than happy to make an appointment for confession almost any day of the week with only you and the priest alone in the nave. When I go to confession it is just as Heorhij describes. No one else can hear what you are saying.  

and most people didn’t even go. When I converted to Orthodoxy I had to make a confession, and some of the ‘cradle’ members of the parish commented that they had never been to confession in their lives.

That's the matter of their consciousness and that should not bother other people. We do not read other people's hearts, only God does. After all, maybe all of them are perfect and sinless. As far as I know, it is one really beautiful Orthodox teaching that I should always consider myself THE MOST sinful and THE LEAST deserving salvation. In this regard, we should only rejoice if our brother and sister says, "I have no sins to confess." Maybe they really do not have them!

I agree. Worrying about how often other people go to confession is very spiritually unhealthy. As St Theophan says, "study yourself and your own sins." How often others confess is between themselves, God and their spiritual fathers. It's absolutely none of your concern.

I believe that I should be going to confession before I partake of the Eucharist – Catholicism facilitates this, Orthodoxy doesn’t.

In Slavic parishes, that's pretty much the rule. You partake in the Holy Eucharist after confessing your sins, which you do early in the morning before the Divine Liturgy starts, or the day before.
 

Confession is offered twice a week in my parish and any time with an appointment. Perhaps you should look for another parish?




« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 07:32:11 PM by Paisius » Logged

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frédéric Bastiat
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #83 on: October 17, 2010, 08:04:08 PM »



Thanks, I appreciate it. Very informative.
Logged
Feanor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 205



« Reply #84 on: October 18, 2010, 02:30:35 AM »

I should probably clarify some matters here.

I believe Orthodoxy to be a beautiful, reverent and spiritually-fulfilling member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I don’t have anything against Orthodoxy or Orthodox people, and I admire and adore its liturgical and spiritual traditions.

I “went home to Rome” because that was where I felt more comfortable and where I could be closer to God. In Orthodoxy I felt trapped, strangled and like a stranger. I felt out of place, constantly uncomfortable, and awkward. I couldn’t receive the nourishment which I need, sacramentally or pastorally. I went ‘home’ to Catholicism because it really feels like ‘home,’ and the practices of the Catholic Church happen to suit my spiritual needs far better.

I am happy being home in the Catholic Church. I can once again share my religious and spiritual life with my family and friends. Last night my family and I stayed up late together to watch the canonization of St Mary of the Cross, Australia’s first saint, who was an inspirational woman to all of us. It felt good to be able to share my faith with my family, even in such a small way as that. When I was Orthodox I felt like I had betrayed my own heritage. My grandfathers all fought for this country, and they attended daily Mass and prayed daily rosaries. My grandmother is a devout Catholic, and my sister is becoming more devout and soon wants to undergo her confirmation. I am thrilled that finally I have made peace with my own religious tradition.

When I first discovered Orthodoxy, I ‘bought’ the story hook, line and sinker: “The Catholics seperated themselves from the True Church by inserting their heretical doctrines into the faith, now they have no valid sacraments and their faith is defficient.” I actually believed it, and I was drawn towards the beautiful traditions of Orthodox liturgical and spiritual life. However, as time went on I began to see great signs of holiness and sanctification in other traditions, and I realised that despite the various doctrinal and political schisms which have beset the history of Christianity, the Holy Spirit is not denied or absent from any church. That is what I believe. I know in my heart that the Catholic Church is a completely valid Church with valid Eucharist, and I believe in the importance of Petrine Primacy. However, I wanted to stay with Orthodoxy, because I had fallen in love with its traditions and its mystical spirituality. However, after a while I began to ache for home, I missed being able to share my faith with my family and friends. I was dreading Christmas, when my family would go together to the Catholic Cathedral and I would have to go seperately to an Orthodox Liturgy in Greek, Russian or Arabic, on my own, a stranger in a church full of families celebrating together. That didn’t make me feel happy, it made me feel lonely and isolated.

I still love Orthodoxy, but I also love my own tradition, the Catholic faith, and I am grateful to be at home once again. I now feel far closer to God than I ever have in my life in many ways, and I am growing spiritually, slowly making progress in my battle against sin. Daily Eucharist has helped me in so many ways, amongst many other aspects of Catholic life which have helped me to grow. 

Who knows. Perhaps I might return to Orthodoxy some day. Maybe in a year, maybe in ten years. Maybe never. I am not bitter about Orthodoxy and I have great respect for the EO Church in many ways. It simply wasn't working for me - I was unhappy and isolated. That was not spiritually healthy for me.

I hope that my Orthodox brothers and sisters can understand and respect this, even if they do not agree.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #85 on: October 18, 2010, 02:37:46 AM »

I should probably clarify some matters here...
...
 

Thanks again for your input. I appreciate your honesty.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #86 on: October 18, 2010, 07:38:48 AM »

Feanor,

Is there anything which you 'kept' from Orthodoxy, i.e. beliefs/non-conflicting-doctrines, traditions, prayers, chokti, etc?

Or are you full up Roman Catholic again? Or did you ever really find a difference?
« Last Edit: October 18, 2010, 07:39:35 AM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #87 on: October 18, 2010, 12:07:34 PM »

Are you suggesting that there were NO changes made to the Creed after the Third General Council, except for the filioque?

Sometimes our intelligence has to be informed by reality.

I'm sorry, but could you clarify the changes in the Symbol of the Faith after this time which you are referring to?

Here is what we have from Ephesus:

Quote
Definition of the faith at Nicaea [6th session 22 July 431]

The synod of Nicaea produced this creed: We believe ... [the Nicene Creed follows]

It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. But since some pretend to confess and accept it, while at the same time distorting the force of its expressions to their own opinion and so evading the truth, being sons of error and children of destruction, it has proved necessary to add testimonies from the holy and orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given to the words and their courage in proclaiming it. All those who have a clear and blameless faith will understand, interpret and proclaim it in this way.

When these documents had been read out, the holy synod decreed the following.

   1. It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea.
   2. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised.
   3. In the same way if any should be discovered, whether bishops, clergy or laity, thinking or teaching the views expressed in his statement by the priest Charisius about the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God or the disgusting, perverted views of Nestorius, which underlie them, these should be subject to the condemnation of this holy and ecumenical synod. A bishop clearly is to be stripped of his bishopric and deposed, a cleric to be deposed from the clergy, and a lay person is to be anathematised, as was said before.


There was no mention at all of the text from the first Council of Constantinople so we need to consider the following and begin to moderate our assertions about this Creed our ours and how it must never be changed.

Quote

http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum02.htm

Scholars find difficulties with the creed attributed to the council of Constantinople. Some say that the council composed a new creed. But no mention is made of this creed by ancient witnesses until the council of Chalcedon; and the council of Constantinople was said simply to have endorsed the faith of Nicaea, with a few additions on the holy Spirit to refute the Pneumatomachian heresy. Moreover, if the latter tradition is accepted, an explanation must be given of why the first two articles of the so-called Constantinopolitan creed differ considerably from the Nicene creed.

It was J. Lebon, followed by J. N. D. Kelly and A. M. Ritter, who worked at the solution of this problem. Lebon said that the Nicene creed, especially since it was adapted to use at baptism, had taken on a number of forms. It was one of these which was endorsed at the council of Constantinople and developed by additions concerning the holy Spirit. All the forms, altered to some extent or other, were described by a common title as "the Nicene faith". Then the council of Chalcedon mentioned the council of Constantinople as the immediate source of one of them, marked it out by a special name "the faith of the 150 fathers", which from that time onwards became its widely known title, and quoted it alongside the original simple form of the Nicene creed. The Greek text of the Constantinopolitan creed, which is printed below, is taken from the acts of the council of Chalcedon.
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #88 on: October 18, 2010, 03:17:47 PM »

Church has only 7 Ecumenical Councils.(in 325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 680-681, 787 AD they were held) If somebody wants to be a Christian, he must admit them. If he doesn't want to be a Christian, he can choose any other number. It's more simple, than you can imagine  Wink

So what are you, if you're not an Orthodox and in your words "Christian"?

Indeed, those outside the Church are not Christian in the same sense that those in the Church are.
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 #89 on: October 18, 2010, 03:21:31 PM »

Are you suggesting that there were NO changes made to the Creed after the Third General Council, except for the filioque?

Sometimes our intelligence has to be informed by reality.

I'm sorry, but could you clarify the changes in the Symbol of the Faith after this time which you are referring to?

Here is what we have from Ephesus:

Quote
Definition of the faith at Nicaea [6th session 22 July 431]

The synod of Nicaea produced this creed: We believe ... [the Nicene Creed follows]

It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. But since some pretend to confess and accept it, while at the same time distorting the force of its expressions to their own opinion and so evading the truth, being sons of error and children of destruction, it has proved necessary to add testimonies from the holy and orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given to the words and their courage in proclaiming it. All those who have a clear and blameless faith will understand, interpret and proclaim it in this way.

When these documents had been read out, the holy synod decreed the following.

   1. It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea.
   2. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised.
   3. In the same way if any should be discovered, whether bishops, clergy or laity, thinking or teaching the views expressed in his statement by the priest Charisius about the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God or the disgusting, perverted views of Nestorius, which underlie them, these should be subject to the condemnation of this holy and ecumenical synod. A bishop clearly is to be stripped of his bishopric and deposed, a cleric to be deposed from the clergy, and a lay person is to be anathematised, as was said before.


There was no mention at all of the text from the first Council of Constantinople so we need to consider the following and begin to moderate our assertions about this Creed our ours and how it must never be changed.

Quote

http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum02.htm

Scholars find difficulties with the creed attributed to the council of Constantinople. Some say that the council composed a new creed. But no mention is made of this creed by ancient witnesses until the council of Chalcedon; and the council of Constantinople was said simply to have endorsed the faith of Nicaea, with a few additions on the holy Spirit to refute the Pneumatomachian heresy. Moreover, if the latter tradition is accepted, an explanation must be given of why the first two articles of the so-called Constantinopolitan creed differ considerably from the Nicene creed.

It was J. Lebon, followed by J. N. D. Kelly and A. M. Ritter, who worked at the solution of this problem. Lebon said that the Nicene creed, especially since it was adapted to use at baptism, had taken on a number of forms. It was one of these which was endorsed at the council of Constantinople and developed by additions concerning the holy Spirit. All the forms, altered to some extent or other, were described by a common title as "the Nicene faith". Then the council of Chalcedon mentioned the council of Constantinople as the immediate source of one of them, marked it out by a special name "the faith of the 150 fathers", which from that time onwards became its widely known title, and quoted it alongside the original simple form of the Nicene creed. The Greek text of the Constantinopolitan creed, which is printed below, is taken from the acts of the council of Chalcedon.

Mary, the Church more universally affirmed the Creed of Constantinople shortly thereafter and after that there was certainty in its content with no modification until the filioque.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #90 on: October 19, 2010, 02:24:10 AM »

Are you suggesting that there were NO changes made to the Creed after the Third General Council, except for the filioque?

Sometimes our intelligence has to be informed by reality.

I'm sorry, but could you clarify the changes in the Symbol of the Faith after this time which you are referring to?

Here is what we have from Ephesus:

Quote
Definition of the faith at Nicaea [6th session 22 July 431]

The synod of Nicaea produced this creed: We believe ... [the Nicene Creed follows]

It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. But since some pretend to confess and accept it, while at the same time distorting the force of its expressions to their own opinion and so evading the truth, being sons of error and children of destruction, it has proved necessary to add testimonies from the holy and orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given to the words and their courage in proclaiming it. All those who have a clear and blameless faith will understand, interpret and proclaim it in this way.

When these documents had been read out, the holy synod decreed the following.

   1. It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea.
   2. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised.
   3. In the same way if any should be discovered, whether bishops, clergy or laity, thinking or teaching the views expressed in his statement by the priest Charisius about the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God or the disgusting, perverted views of Nestorius, which underlie them, these should be subject to the condemnation of this holy and ecumenical synod. A bishop clearly is to be stripped of his bishopric and deposed, a cleric to be deposed from the clergy, and a lay person is to be anathematised, as was said before.


There was no mention at all of the text from the first Council of Constantinople so we need to consider the following and begin to moderate our assertions about this Creed our ours and how it must never be changed.

Quote

http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum02.htm

Scholars find difficulties with the creed attributed to the council of Constantinople. Some say that the council composed a new creed. But no mention is made of this creed by ancient witnesses until the council of Chalcedon; and the council of Constantinople was said simply to have endorsed the faith of Nicaea, with a few additions on the holy Spirit to refute the Pneumatomachian heresy. Moreover, if the latter tradition is accepted, an explanation must be given of why the first two articles of the so-called Constantinopolitan creed differ considerably from the Nicene creed.

It was J. Lebon, followed by J. N. D. Kelly and A. M. Ritter, who worked at the solution of this problem. Lebon said that the Nicene creed, especially since it was adapted to use at baptism, had taken on a number of forms. It was one of these which was endorsed at the council of Constantinople and developed by additions concerning the holy Spirit. All the forms, altered to some extent or other, were described by a common title as "the Nicene faith". Then the council of Chalcedon mentioned the council of Constantinople as the immediate source of one of them, marked it out by a special name "the faith of the 150 fathers", which from that time onwards became its widely known title, and quoted it alongside the original simple form of the Nicene creed. The Greek text of the Constantinopolitan creed, which is printed below, is taken from the acts of the council of Chalcedon.

Mary, the Church more universally affirmed the Creed of Constantinople shortly thereafter and after that there was certainty in its content with no modification until the filioque.

Oh that may well be true, however the Creed that was referenced at Ephesus was the Creed from Nicaea and there's clearly evidence that very very strongly suggests that there were exceptionally substantial changes made to more than one version after Ephesus.

So the idea that the west added filioque to a Latin verb phrase that was already different from the exclusivity of the meaning of the Greek verb is hardly a shocking development, taken in context, and given the fact that the Church was NEVER one in the sense that every jot and tittle of doctrine or theology was identical, within territories or between them.

Indicating that the standards of parity that are set today by many Orthodox believers are capricious and do not grow organically out of the lived experiences of the Church...as the Creed did, for example.

Mary
Logged

Feanor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 205



« Reply #91 on: October 19, 2010, 05:38:28 AM »

Feanor,

Is there anything which you 'kept' from Orthodoxy, i.e. beliefs/non-conflicting-doctrines, traditions, prayers, chokti, etc?

Or are you full up Roman Catholic again? Or did you ever really find a difference?

I continue to ask for the prayers of several Saints who I only became devoted to whilst I was Orthodox. St Isaac the Syrian, and to a lesser extent St Seraphim of Sarov. I still pray the Jesus prayer and like to pray using my prayer rope. In my personal prayers in the evening, I often use formulas which I memorized when I was Orthodox, and when I am at Mass I often pray what I can remember of the Orthodox pre-Eucharist prayers, "I believe Lord and I confess" etc (as fragmented parts of my personal pre-Communion meditation). I also really like Orthodox hesychastic spirituality, and I hope to read more of the Philokalia and eventually put its methods into practice. I like Byzantine-style icons and still have a few.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #92 on: October 19, 2010, 06:02:57 AM »

Feanor,

Is there anything which you 'kept' from Orthodoxy, i.e. beliefs/non-conflicting-doctrines, traditions, prayers, chokti, etc?

Or are you full up Roman Catholic again? Or did you ever really find a difference?

I continue to ask for the prayers of several Saints who I only became devoted to whilst I was Orthodox. St Isaac the Syrian, and to a lesser extent St Seraphim of Sarov. I still pray the Jesus prayer and like to pray using my prayer rope. In my personal prayers in the evening, I often use formulas which I memorized when I was Orthodox, and when I am at Mass I often pray what I can remember of the Orthodox pre-Eucharist prayers, "I believe Lord and I confess" etc (as fragmented parts of my personal pre-Communion meditation). I also really like Orthodox hesychastic spirituality, and I hope to read more of the Philokalia and eventually put its methods into practice. I like Byzantine-style icons and still have a few.

Do you have a byzantine-rite church in your area? If not, would you prefer to attend there if you had the option? If yes, why do you still prefer the latin rite?
« Last Edit: October 19, 2010, 06:03:56 AM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Feanor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 205



« Reply #93 on: October 19, 2010, 06:18:52 AM »

Yes, there are Byzantine rite churches in my area, I am good friends with the local Russian Greek-Catholic priest and I plan to visit his parish soon. However, I would much rather attend a Latin rite church. I am currently very happy with the Extraordinary Form parish I attend. Gregorian chant is angelic. Smiley
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #94 on: October 19, 2010, 06:28:21 AM »

Yes, there are Byzantine rite churches in my area, I am good friends with the local Russian Greek-Catholic priest and I plan to visit his parish soon. However, I would much rather attend a Latin rite church. I am currently very happy with the Extraordinary Form parish I attend. Gregorian chant is angelic. Smiley

Oh wow, you're lucky!
Logged
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #95 on: October 19, 2010, 04:45:26 PM »

Yes, there are Byzantine rite churches in my area, I am good friends with the local Russian Greek-Catholic priest and I plan to visit his parish soon. However, I would much rather attend a Latin rite church. I am currently very happy with the Extraordinary Form parish I attend. Gregorian chant is angelic. Smiley
I hear you, brother. The parish I attend celebrates the Latin Mass with Gregorian  chant. It leaves me in awe. (not saying it's better than the Eastern liturgy, just that I personally experience something rather profound every time I attend)
« Last Edit: October 19, 2010, 04:46:56 PM 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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #96 on: October 19, 2010, 06:20:17 PM »

For me, (and I know this is subjective), there is nothing more beautiful than liturgical chant.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,643


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #97 on: October 19, 2010, 07:29:08 PM »

For me, (and I know this is subjective), there is nothing more beautiful than liturgical chant.

Me too!   Smiley
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #98 on: October 19, 2010, 08:28:10 PM »

Yes, the Byzantine chant is what drew me into the Byzantine Catholic church (well, that and my husband! Wink ), but I do love and miss the Gregorian chant as well.

Do WRO churches use Gregorian chant?  That might be the tipping point for me! Cheesy
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #99 on: October 19, 2010, 08:52:37 PM »

Yes, the Byzantine chant is what drew me into the Byzantine Catholic church (well, that and my husband! Wink ), but I do love and miss the Gregorian chant as well.

Do WRO churches use Gregorian chant?  That might be the tipping point for me! Cheesy

I would be extremely surprised if any of them did.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,980


black metal cat


« Reply #100 on: October 19, 2010, 09:00:26 PM »

Yes, the Byzantine chant is what drew me into the Byzantine Catholic church (well, that and my husband! Wink ), but I do love and miss the Gregorian chant as well.

Do WRO churches use Gregorian chant?  That might be the tipping point for me! Cheesy

I would be extremely surprised if any of them did.

I think it'd be cool if Orthodoxy had it's own "Gregorian" chant... like if someone stood around chanting the Orations and Letters of St. Gregory the Theologian or something. "That... which... is... not... assumed... is... not... healed..."  Cool
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,254



« Reply #101 on: October 19, 2010, 09:04:52 PM »

Yes, the Byzantine chant is what drew me into the Byzantine Catholic church (well, that and my husband! Wink ), but I do love and miss the Gregorian chant as well.

Do WRO churches use Gregorian chant?  That might be the tipping point for me! Cheesy

I would be extremely surprised if any of them did.
Why? What would make you think that? I'm sure many, if not most of them do. That is the ideal style of chanting for them to use.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #102 on: October 19, 2010, 09:07:48 PM »

Yes, the Byzantine chant is what drew me into the Byzantine Catholic church (well, that and my husband! Wink ), but I do love and miss the Gregorian chant as well.
Do WRO churches use Gregorian chant?  That might be the tipping point for me! Cheesy
I would be extremely surprised if any of them did.
Why? What would make you think that? I'm sure many, if not most of them do. That is the ideal style of chanting for them to use.
In Christ,Andrew

Yes, in the Orthodox "WR parishes," there are some that are Gregorian and some that are Anglican.  The Gregorian parishes use Gregorian chant. 
Logged
coptic orthodox boy
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 447


« Reply #103 on: October 19, 2010, 09:58:27 PM »

a bit of heaven:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT-WW9Uq62M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqwV9l-U8ds
« Last Edit: October 19, 2010, 09:59:26 PM by coptic orthodox boy » Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #104 on: October 19, 2010, 09:59:46 PM »

I stand corrected. I believe the WRO in my city is Anglican, I'll find out for sure though tomorrow.
Logged
coptic orthodox boy
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 447


« Reply #105 on: October 19, 2010, 10:03:16 PM »

I remember while still Catholic, while standing in line on Saturday to go to confession our pastor would play "Chant" albums over the intercom.  It was very moving and very relaxing; also nice to listen to while doing penance after confession.
Logged
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #106 on: October 19, 2010, 10:42:37 PM »

Very nice, I liked the second link most. Thank you for sharing,
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
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #107 on: October 19, 2010, 10:45:16 PM »

 It's nice the prayers include the whole trinity and not just Father...prayer...we ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ amen... sabellianism is gone.  

Actually this styling shows the antiquity of many of the Roman Rite prayers.  Since Rome was unaffected by most of the Eastern heresies, Ariansim being the big exception, it did not Trinitize (I should copyright that one) its prayers as the Eastern Churches did.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
StGeorge
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 707


St. George


« Reply #108 on: October 19, 2010, 10:59:17 PM »

Yes, there are Byzantine rite churches in my area, I am good friends with the local Russian Greek-Catholic priest and I plan to visit his parish soon. However, I would much rather attend a Latin rite church. I am currently very happy with the Extraordinary Form parish I attend. Gregorian chant is angelic. Smiley
I hear you, brother. The parish I attend celebrates the Latin Mass with Gregorian  chant. It leaves me in awe. (not saying it's better than the Eastern liturgy, just that I personally experience something rather profound every time I attend)

The Tridentine Latin Mass is very beautiful and profound.  I felt drawn in that direction somewhat, but ultimately found Carpatho-Russian (prostopinije), Ukrainian, Serbian and Romanian chant closer to my heart.  Smiley   
Logged
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #109 on: October 20, 2010, 01:31:13 AM »

Yes, there are Byzantine rite churches in my area, I am good friends with the local Russian Greek-Catholic priest and I plan to visit his parish soon. However, I would much rather attend a Latin rite church. I am currently very happy with the Extraordinary Form parish I attend. Gregorian chant is angelic. Smiley
I hear you, brother. The parish I attend celebrates the Latin Mass with Gregorian  chant. It leaves me in awe. (not saying it's better than the Eastern liturgy, just that I personally experience something rather profound every time I attend)

The Tridentine Latin Mass is very beautiful and profound.  I felt drawn in that direction somewhat, but ultimately found Carpatho-Russian (prostopinije), Ukrainian, Serbian and Romanian chant closer to my heart.  Smiley   
God works in mysterious ways. But I'll have you know that God speaks Latin....I'm kidding laugh
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
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,477


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #110 on: October 20, 2010, 08:28:01 PM »



We've moved away from the OP.  If you want to discuss how the council of Chalcedon is heretical or not, please start a new thread.  If you want to discuss the differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholic ecclesiology, please start another thread.

If you are Eastern or Oriental Orthodox and were formerly Roman or Eastern Catholic, please feel free to contribute to this thread and keep it going.

Thank you.

-Schultz
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion moderator
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,603


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #111 on: October 20, 2010, 08:29:45 PM »

I have been an Orthodox Christian for 14 years now. Ever since my conversion to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism, I have been so thankful to God. Within the RCC, there was always discontent and constant change. Of course, at that time Cardinal Mahony stressed that there should be constant "revolution" in the liturgy, but that shook my faith to the core.

However, within Orthodoxy, I found stability, and with stability, my faith blossomed.

Glory to Jesus Christ.
Glory forever.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #112 on: October 20, 2010, 11:20:50 PM »

I have been an Orthodox Christian for 14 years now. Ever since my conversion to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism, I have been so thankful to God. Within the RCC, there was always discontent and constant change. Of course, at that time Cardinal Mahony stressed that there should be constant "revolution" in the liturgy, but that shook my faith to the core.

However, within Orthodoxy, I found stability, and with stability, my faith blossomed.

Glory to Jesus Christ.
Glory forever.

Yes, this stability and reassurance thereof is very important to alot of people. Thanks for your input.
Logged
StGeorge
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 707


St. George


« Reply #113 on: October 21, 2010, 02:42:48 AM »

I became Orthodox last year, and have since reverted to Catholicism.

I am much happier since I left the Orthodox Church, to be honest. I feel closer to God and I feel that my sacramental relationship with God is better facilitated by Catholicism.

Interesting. Would you be willing to share a few more details about your experiences and how you feel Catholicism improves your relationship? If you would rather not share it on the public forum you can pm me if you like.

I often felt quite uncomfortable in Orthodoxy. So much of the talk, in sermons and in general parish fellowship, was about how much better Orthodoxy is compared to all other denominations. The anti-Catholic attitudes were intense and disgusting.

Furthermore, I disliked how the parish I attended, and every other parish, was just an ethnic community. I felt out of place and I found it tedious having to explain why I was coming to an Orthodox parish when ethnically I don’t belong there.

I also had a few problems in regards to theology and practice in Orthodoxy.

First of all, Catholicism is far better at facilitating my sacramental relationship with God. Confession is available every day in the Catholic Cathedral and some churches here, and weekly at all other Catholic parishes. In comparison, at my Orthodox parish confession was only available once per year, and it was conducted without any privacy at all… and most people didn’t even go. When I converted to Orthodoxy I had to make a confession, and some of the ‘cradle’ members of the parish commented that they had never been to confession in their lives. I believe that I should be going to confession before I partake of the Eucharist – Catholicism facilitates this, Orthodoxy doesn’t.

There’s also the problem of the Liturgy only being on Sundays in most Orthodox parishes. As a Catholic now I can receive the Eucharist every day. I also love Eucharistic adoration, the Rosary, the Summa Theologia, the Tridentine Mass and many Catholic saints whom the Orthodox Church refuses to recognise.

Now, as a Catholic, I feel that my relationship with God is stronger because I can more regularly go to confession, receive communion, and I can pray in groups where I am accepted without any awkwardness. It was always awkward going into Orthodox parishes because I am obviously not of their ethnic backgroup. Also, most people at the various Orthodox parishes were only their for family or cultural reasons… I did not meet any young people, at all, who were attending Liturgy independently of their parents. They only went to church if their parents dragged them along. By comparison, in the Catholic Church there are many young people who are there for their own sake, independently of their parents. It’s nice to meet other young people who are interested in religion and God on a serious level.

Many Easterners criticised Catholicism as being far too ‘scholastic.’ That really only applies to the Dominicans and their spirituality and theology. The spirituality and theology of the Carmelites is very contemplative and hesychastic. The Franciscans have their own brand of spirituality as well. The Orthodox Church insists that there is only one way of thinking and worshipping and pursuing a relationship with the Trinity, and anything else is heretical. The Catholic Church is mature enough to appreciate that there are different valid ways to approach God, in terms of our theology and our spirituality. I like this ‘unity in diversity’ that is present in Catholicism. I certainly did not see anything like it in the Orthodox Church.


Interesting perspective.  I happened to be attracted to Orthodoxy, in part, because it was culturally relevant.  I felt the [Latin] Catholic parishes I attended were sterile, and I never felt a part.  But when I started attending Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox parishes, there was a stronger sense of community and culture that attracted me.  I'm a good part Slavic, so the cultural things hit a chord.  

The whole Eucharistic adoration thing never really caught on with me, and I found the spiritualities either overly sentimental or rationalistic. When I started becoming more educated in the Catholic faith, I became especially attracted to the early Church Fathers.  When I started reading about the Orthodox saints of modern times, I saw a definite mind-heart connection between them.  

The Tridentine Latin Mass of the Latin Church is beautiful, but other than that, I now feel rather distanced from all the other stuff that goes on in the Latin Church.  I read your post and think that my experience was rather in reverse.  I don't have any serious regrets about becoming Orthodox.  I have confidence now in teaching that I did not have as a Catholic.  I no longer struggle with the doctrinal debates of the West.  I experience dryness and very rough times, but even through this, it does not lead me to doubt the truths of Orthodoxy.  
« Last Edit: October 21, 2010, 02:51:42 AM by StGeorge » Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #114 on: October 21, 2010, 05:01:37 AM »

...
Interesting perspective.  I happened to be attracted to Orthodoxy, in part, because it was culturally relevant.  I felt the [Latin] Catholic parishes I attended were sterile, and I never felt a part.  But when I started attending Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox parishes, there was a stronger sense of community and culture that attracted me.  I'm a good part Slavic, so the cultural things hit a chord.  

The whole Eucharistic adoration thing never really caught on with me, and I found the spiritualities either overly sentimental or rationalistic. When I started becoming more educated in the Catholic faith, I became especially attracted to the early Church Fathers.  When I started reading about the Orthodox saints of modern times, I saw a definite mind-heart connection between them.  

The Tridentine Latin Mass of the Latin Church is beautiful, but other than that, I now feel rather distanced from all the other stuff that goes on in the Latin Church.  I read your post and think that my experience was rather in reverse.  I don't have any serious regrets about becoming Orthodox.  I have confidence now in teaching that I did not have as a Catholic.  I no longer struggle with the doctrinal debates of the West.  I experience dryness and very rough times, but even through this, it does not lead me to doubt the truths of Orthodoxy.  

Thanks for your insight!
« Last Edit: October 21, 2010, 05:02:21 AM by Ortho_cat » Logged
android
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GO Archdiocese of America- Southeast US
Posts: 158


« Reply #115 on: November 20, 2010, 11:23:01 PM »

I have learned much through this forum and the more I learned about Church history and the Christian faith in general, I eventually lost my faith.

Fwiw, while it wasn't due (primarily) to anything I read online, I am with you regarding the idea that learning more and more about Christian history and the Christian faith is what led me to losing faith. Or, as my priest and wife put it at the time, I was reading too much for my own good  police

it is telling indeed that the forbidden tree in the garden was the tree of knowledge. in this day and age, with widespread literacy, access to information, the internet, etc. it's easy to overwhelm oneself. intellectual curiosity and discourse are great, but i think intellectual pride is underestimated, especially considering one could read the story of the Fall as being precipitated by it.

sola scriptura is fundamentally intellectual pride.

many of the heresies and schisms are essentially academic/intellectual disputes.

many of the stories of people who fall away from faith are based upon faith in their own intellect- "if i can't understand it, it must not be true".

i'm not saying anything personal to anyone, but i do think that intellectual pride is not discussed very much.

to be clear- reading, understanding and using our intellect are all great - but i just don't think people are inclined to guard their intellect like they perhaps are with other things.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2010, 11:25:09 PM by android » Logged
finbar
Finbar
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: antiochian
Posts: 52



« Reply #116 on: November 25, 2010, 12:59:01 PM »

I struggled with Roman Catholicism for years, i was brought up in it. I saw it change little by little. In the end my cynicism about the RC church , its cover up of paedophilia, its obsession with the institition and its importance over the true teachings of  Christ began to undermine my faith itself...Ask any Roman catholic and they will express at the very least a sense of disappointment about the where the church has gone. I encountered Orthodoxy over a number of years and gradually my prejudices peeled away...Most importantly Orthodoxy helped to  restore my faith.... Roman catholicism had slowly but surely undermined my faith to the point that the secular world seemed to be offering an attraction which thanks to orthodoxy I see for what it is. I believe Satan entered and corrupted Roman catholicism and in so doing achieved an enormous victory. I was abused at the age of 13 by a Roman catholic priest, the response of the RC church was to transfer him to a girls school where he abused two girls, he was then 'retired' and as far as I know still wears the garb of the priest....Dont talk to me about the Holy roman catholic church....
Logged

"Nothing troubles the man who is given over to the will of God.....He knows that the Lord in His mercy is solicitous for us.....But the proud and the self-willed do not want to surrender to God's will.." St Siluan the Athonite
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,603


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #117 on: November 25, 2010, 01:55:20 PM »

I struggled with Roman Catholicism for years, i was brought up in it. I saw it change little by little. In the end my cynicism about the RC church , its cover up of paedophilia, its obsession with the institition and its importance over the true teachings of  Christ began to undermine my faith itself...Ask any Roman catholic and they will express at the very least a sense of disappointment about the where the church has gone. I encountered Orthodoxy over a number of years and gradually my prejudices peeled away...Most importantly Orthodoxy helped to  restore my faith.... Roman catholicism had slowly but surely undermined my faith to the point that the secular world seemed to be offering an attraction which thanks to orthodoxy I see for what it is. I believe Satan entered and corrupted Roman catholicism and in so doing achieved an enormous victory. I was abused at the age of 13 by a Roman catholic priest, the response of the RC church was to transfer him to a girls school where he abused two girls, he was then 'retired' and as far as I know still wears the garb of the priest....Dont talk to me about the Holy roman catholic church....

Becoming Orthodox has also restored my faith in Christ. And struggling with my sinfulness has become easier. The prayers and fastings, the feast days, the Divine Liturgy, and the icons all help.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,162



WWW
« Reply #118 on: November 25, 2010, 02:12:59 PM »

it is telling indeed that the forbidden tree in the garden was the tree of knowledge.

Actually, it was not the tree of knowledge. It was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If you remember that after each day of creation we have "And God saw that it was good", and that the Garden and all creation was explicitly described as being *good*, *everything* that you have known so far is good. What is the novelty the tree would bring? Just knowing evil. Now, it's not intellectual knowledge of evil, knowing "about it". It was knowing what it is to be like it. Once Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they knew evil like putting your hand in fire, not having lessons about the physics of it. In a sense they became, at least partially, evil. And that is what the fall is about, either for humans or for angels: becoming evil.

The commandment is still there and there are a lot of "serpents" today who still say you have to experience everything to have a real "knowledge" of the world. That's why so many people go into drugs and other bad things. They feel they have to have this existential knowledge of it, they have to feel it in their guts. What the lesson of Eden teaches us is that, no, you don't have to burn your own leg on fire to "know" fire.  It's funny that the actual anti-intellectual act is that of *eating* the fruit, thus refusing to know evil just with the mind and diving into the existential experience. Now, we have to do the opposite way by eating the fruit of the Tree of Life, the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, to go the opposite way: to know God existentially and evil just intellectually.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2010, 02:16:30 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
android
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GO Archdiocese of America- Southeast US
Posts: 158


« Reply #119 on: November 27, 2010, 11:47:18 AM »

it is telling indeed that the forbidden tree in the garden was the tree of knowledge.

Actually, it was not the tree of knowledge. It was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If you remember that after each day of creation we have "And God saw that it was good", and that the Garden and all creation was explicitly described as being *good*, *everything* that you have known so far is good. What is the novelty the tree would bring? Just knowing evil. Now, it's not intellectual knowledge of evil, knowing "about it". It was knowing what it is to be like it. Once Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they knew evil like putting your hand in fire, not having lessons about the physics of it. In a sense they became, at least partially, evil. And that is what the fall is about, either for humans or for angels: becoming evil.

The commandment is still there and there are a lot of "serpents" today who still say you have to experience everything to have a real "knowledge" of the world. That's why so many people go into drugs and other bad things. They feel they have to have this existential knowledge of it, they have to feel it in their guts. What the lesson of Eden teaches us is that, no, you don't have to burn your own leg on fire to "know" fire.  It's funny that the actual anti-intellectual act is that of *eating* the fruit, thus refusing to know evil just with the mind and diving into the existential experience. Now, we have to do the opposite way by eating the fruit of the Tree of Life, the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, to go the opposite way: to know God existentially and evil just intellectually.

actually, it depends on the translation and "tree of knowledge " is one of the options. there is some discussion/scholarship on this and "tree of conscience", "tree of knowledge of good and evil" and other options have support ("tree of life"):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_the_knowledge_of_good_and_evil

so my point still remains, although you make some valuable points as well.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2010, 11:48:26 AM by android » Logged
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,897


« Reply #120 on: November 28, 2010, 12:02:29 AM »

I thought of this thread when today I read the conversion story provided below.  This is a very moving story of a French Roman Catholic who converted to Orthodoxy at an advanced age, after many years of marriage to an Orthodox woman, and after just as many years of opposing such a conversion. This man was received into the Orthodox Church by baptism, and following his Orthodox baptism he experienced Divine Grace as he never before did as a pious Roman Catholic.  The story beautifully describes the man's life after baptism and the circumstances surrounding his repose.  Though brief, this is one of the best conversion stories I have read:

http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/2010/11/25/they-must-learn-for-they-do-not-know/#axzz16XsX3zUR
Logged
android
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GO Archdiocese of America- Southeast US
Posts: 158


« Reply #121 on: November 28, 2010, 01:20:56 PM »

I thought of this thread when today I read the conversion story provided below.  This is a very moving story of a French Roman Catholic who converted to Orthodoxy at an advanced age, after many years of marriage to an Orthodox woman, and after just as many years of opposing such a conversion. This man was received into the Orthodox Church by baptism, and following his Orthodox baptism he experienced Divine Grace as he never before did as a pious Roman Catholic.  The story beautifully describes the man's life after baptism and the circumstances surrounding his repose.  Though brief, this is one of the best conversion stories I have read:

http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/2010/11/25/they-must-learn-for-they-do-not-know/#axzz16XsX3zUR

thanks for posting that- i did not know about that website.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,162



WWW
« Reply #122 on: November 28, 2010, 02:20:00 PM »

it is telling indeed that the forbidden tree in the garden was the tree of knowledge.

Actually, it was not the tree of knowledge. It was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If you remember that after each day of creation we have "And God saw that it was good", and that the Garden and all creation was explicitly described as being *good*, *everything* that you have known so far is good. What is the novelty the tree would bring? Just knowing evil. Now, it's not intellectual knowledge of evil, knowing "about it". It was knowing what it is to be like it. Once Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they knew evil like putting your hand in fire, not having lessons about the physics of it. In a sense they became, at least partially, evil. And that is what the fall is about, either for humans or for angels: becoming evil.

The commandment is still there and there are a lot of "serpents" today who still say you have to experience everything to have a real "knowledge" of the world. That's why so many people go into drugs and other bad things. They feel they have to have this existential knowledge of it, they have to feel it in their guts. What the lesson of Eden teaches us is that, no, you don't have to burn your own leg on fire to "know" fire.  It's funny that the actual anti-intellectual act is that of *eating* the fruit, thus refusing to know evil just with the mind and diving into the existential experience. Now, we have to do the opposite way by eating the fruit of the Tree of Life, the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, to go the opposite way: to know God existentially and evil just intellectually.

actually, it depends on the translation and "tree of knowledge " is one of the options. there is some discussion/scholarship on this and "tree of conscience", "tree of knowledge of good and evil" and other options have support ("tree of life"):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_the_knowledge_of_good_and_evil

so my point still remains, although you make some valuable points as well.

Android,

I read the translation issues in the wikipedia article and, as a professional traslator, I can guarantee to you that the arguments are very weak.

To claim that "good and evil" is a merism goes against all the exegetical interpretations in the last 3 thousand years. It does not make literary sense in that particular story and simply servers the bias of a particular group, in this case, of those who think the Church is anti-knowledge.  It is a petition of principle, a falacy of reasoning in which the conclusion intended is assumed as the very principle of investigation. Basically "because we *know* the church is anti-knowledge we interpret that passage is anti-knowledge which in turn proves she is anti-knowledge".

This understanding of the tree being the tree of knowledge simply makes no sense exegetically, linguistically, in terms of literary criticism or historically.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #123 on: November 28, 2010, 02:41:49 PM »

it is telling indeed that the forbidden tree in the garden was the tree of knowledge.

Actually, it was not the tree of knowledge. It was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If you remember that after each day of creation we have "And God saw that it was good", and that the Garden and all creation was explicitly described as being *good*, *everything* that you have known so far is good. What is the novelty the tree would bring? Just knowing evil. Now, it's not intellectual knowledge of evil, knowing "about it". It was knowing what it is to be like it. Once Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they knew evil like putting your hand in fire, not having lessons about the physics of it. In a sense they became, at least partially, evil. And that is what the fall is about, either for humans or for angels: becoming evil.

The commandment is still there and there are a lot of "serpents" today who still say you have to experience everything to have a real "knowledge" of the world. That's why so many people go into drugs and other bad things. They feel they have to have this existential knowledge of it, they have to feel it in their guts. What the lesson of Eden teaches us is that, no, you don't have to burn your own leg on fire to "know" fire.  It's funny that the actual anti-intellectual act is that of *eating* the fruit, thus refusing to know evil just with the mind and diving into the existential experience. Now, we have to do the opposite way by eating the fruit of the Tree of Life, the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, to go the opposite way: to know God existentially and evil just intellectually.

actually, it depends on the translation and "tree of knowledge " is one of the options. there is some discussion/scholarship on this and "tree of conscience", "tree of knowledge of good and evil" and other options have support ("tree of life"):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_the_knowledge_of_good_and_evil

so my point still remains, although you make some valuable points as well.

Android,

I read the translation issues in the wikipedia article and, as a professional traslator, I can guarantee to you that the arguments are very weak.

To claim that "good and evil" is a merism goes against all the exegetical interpretations in the last 3 thousand years. It does not make literary sense in that particular story and simply servers the bias of a particular group, in this case, of those who think the Church is anti-knowledge.  It is a petition of principle, a falacy of reasoning in which the conclusion intended is assumed as the very principle of investigation. Basically "because we *know* the church is anti-knowledge we interpret that passage is anti-knowledge which in turn proves she is anti-knowledge".

This understanding of the tree being the tree of knowledge simply makes no sense exegetically, linguistically, in terms of literary criticism or historically.

Being fluent in Klingon doesn't make you a professional translator.  Roll Eyes

 Grin Cheesy Grin
Logged


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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #124 on: November 28, 2010, 07:14:43 PM »

I tagged some similar threads for those interested.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,162



WWW
« Reply #125 on: November 28, 2010, 08:52:08 PM »

Being fluent in Klingon doesn't make you a professional translator.  Roll Eyes
 Grin Cheesy Grin

Even if we perform Hamlet in Klingon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiRMGYQfXrs
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #126 on: November 28, 2010, 08:53:31 PM »

Being fluent in Klingon doesn't make you a professional translator.  Roll Eyes
 Grin Cheesy Grin

Even if we perform Hamlet in Klingon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiRMGYQfXrs

I could have died a happy man without having seen that... Cry
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #127 on: November 28, 2010, 09:01:42 PM »

Being fluent in Klingon doesn't make you a professional translator.  Roll Eyes
 Grin Cheesy Grin

Even if we perform Hamlet in Klingon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiRMGYQfXrs

Bwahahhahaha! That's awesome.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Agia Marina
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Bulgarian Diocese
Posts: 414


Father Theodor Micka


WWW
« Reply #128 on: November 28, 2010, 09:12:56 PM »

Being fluent in Klingon doesn't make you a professional translator.  Roll Eyes
 Grin Cheesy Grin

Even if we perform Hamlet in Klingon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiRMGYQfXrs

I could have died a happy man without having seen that... Cry
Ditto  Undecided
Logged

“When I have a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.” - Erasmus

"God became man so that man might become a god." ~St. Athanasius the Great

Poster formerly known as EVOO.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,162



WWW
« Reply #129 on: November 28, 2010, 09:23:09 PM »

More into the topic of the thread, Presbytera Irene shares her own experience in her journey from Roman Catholicism back into the Church.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhJTPNYGA3g
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
johnl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2


« Reply #130 on: March 08, 2011, 02:52:53 PM »

  As I write this I have been Orthodox 20 years.  I was raised a Calvinist Presbyterian.  I knew that I was predestined for Hell. I liked girls and movies.  I got into drugs and alcohol to speed the process of getting to Hell. Later I got into a 12 Step Program
  I had trouble believing in a merciful God and a loving God.  I went to an Anglican Church, and met a Priest who reminded me that ''God so loved the world" and that I was a part of that world that God so loved.  I slowly became more Catholic and with the ordination of women to the Priesthood I left the Anglican Communion. At first I tried the Roman Catholic Church, but could not accept Roman Catholic Doctrine about Papal Supremacy.  I went to an Orthodox Church, and my questions were answered and others posed.
  Orthodoxy to me is an experience. For the first time I experience the walk of being a Christian.

John     
Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #131 on: March 15, 2011, 06:08:18 PM »

First off, I am new here.  Thank you for this beautiful forum!

So what's the problem with the Catholic doctrine, then?

We don't like the wording of the dogma which leaves open doors for further developments such as the belief that the Theotokos never really died, etc.

I have studied Munificentissimus Deus (Pius XII's 1950 bull that dogmatically defined the Immaculate Conception) in great detail.  Michal, you are quite right that the ambiguity of document _could_ lead one to believe that Our Lady did not die.  However, it is perfectly "acceptable" for a Catholic to believe in the Orthodox understanding of the Holy Dormition/Assumption.  Personally, I believe as the Orthodox do, that she indeed died as she is mortal.  Most educated orthodox Catholics I know agree.  Our Lady's mortality, however, does not detract from all the veneration due to her as Theotokos/Genetrix Dei/Deipara etc.

I am still a cradle Catholic, but I find myself contemplating conversion to Orthodoxy all the time.  Roman Catholicism is in a dire sort nowadays, as most all here probably know.  The Novus Ordo was an inexplicable move with disastrous consequences (why did Paul VI have to go there?).  It's liturgy by academics, not liturgy by revelation.  I only worship at the Extraordinary Form or at an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy.  At the moment I attend the DL since I cannot get to a Latin Mass.  I love the Divine Liturgy because it is, of course, the unbloody sacrifice and a historic orthodox liturgy, but my spirituality is still very western.  I respect the Eastern spirituality deeply (especially the profound Eastern veneration and love of Our Lady), but I still feel as if I'm in exile.

The real reason why I have not converted is because I love the classical Roman liturgy, the Roman Canon, and the Latin language.  Still, I am so distraught at what has happened to the Roman Church that I just want to flee.  Something tells me, though, that the Roman Rite will indeed survive this tribulation and emerge again in its ancient form.  We will not only survive, but emerge with a vigorous liturgical orthodoxy.  This is our iconoclasm, 1300 years later.  I must trust that the Church will learn that the academy and social sciences are works of human hands that will never supplant the glory of orthodox sacramentality.  I just don't know why we westerners are being tested at this time of history.     
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,865



« Reply #132 on: March 15, 2011, 06:34:20 PM »

First off, I am new here.  Thank you for this beautiful forum!

So what's the problem with the Catholic doctrine, then?

We don't like the wording of the dogma which leaves open doors for further developments such as the belief that the Theotokos never really died, etc.

I have studied Munificentissimus Deus (Pius XII's 1950 bull that dogmatically defined the Immaculate Conception) in great detail.  Michal, you are quite right that the ambiguity of document _could_ lead one to believe that Our Lady did not die.  However, it is perfectly "acceptable" for a Catholic to believe in the Orthodox understanding of the Holy Dormition/Assumption.  Personally, I believe as the Orthodox do, that she indeed died as she is mortal.  Most educated orthodox Catholics I know agree.  Our Lady's mortality, however, does not detract from all the veneration due to her as Theotokos/Genetrix Dei/Deipara etc.

I am still a cradle Catholic, but I find myself contemplating conversion to Orthodoxy all the time.  Roman Catholicism is in a dire sort nowadays, as most all here probably know.  The Novus Ordo was an inexplicable move with disastrous consequences (why did Paul VI have to go there?).  It's liturgy by academics, not liturgy by revelation.  I only worship at the Extraordinary Form or at an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy.  At the moment I attend the DL since I cannot get to a Latin Mass.  I love the Divine Liturgy because it is, of course, the unbloody sacrifice and a historic orthodox liturgy, but my spirituality is still very western.  I respect the Eastern spirituality deeply (especially the profound Eastern veneration and love of Our Lady), but I still feel as if I'm in exile.

The real reason why I have not converted is because I love the classical Roman liturgy, the Roman Canon, and the Latin language.  Still, I am so distraught at what has happened to the Roman Church that I just want to flee.  Something tells me, though, that the Roman Rite will indeed survive this tribulation and emerge again in its ancient form.  We will not only survive, but emerge with a vigorous liturgical orthodoxy.  This is our iconoclasm, 1300 years later.  I must trust that the Church will learn that the academy and social sciences are works of human hands that will never supplant the glory of orthodox sacramentality.  I just don't know why we westerners are being tested at this time of history.     
Is there a Western Rite Orthodox Church near you?
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
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #133 on: March 15, 2011, 06:57:41 PM »

First off, I am new here.  Thank you for this beautiful forum!

Is there a Western Rite Orthodox Church near you?

Not that I know of.  Most Eastern Christians where I am are Ukrainians.  Also, I have the impression that many "Western Rite Orthodox" churches are non-canonical or sketchy-canonical.  I'm probably wrong.  "non-canonical Roman Catholicism" (aka the SSPX) is very angry, anti-semitic, and just plain ugly.  Hope that's not the case in the East.  From what I understand, some Western Rite churches are under ROCOR.  ROCOR is a bit too hardcore for me -- they've got some anger/bigotry issues also.

I believe that the Roman Rite rightfully resides under the authority of the Pope of Rome.  The Roman liturgy is not indigenous to Orthodox jurisdictions.  There's something strange about removing the Roman liturgy from its jurisdictional "home".  An Orthodox priest who says the Roman liturgy is celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, without a doubt.  Theoretically, an apostolic priest has the ability to say any apostolic liturgy.  Still, should he say the Mass?  Is it his charism to do so as a cleric of an Orthodox jurisdiction?

I have no problem with the removal of the filioque or the addition of a Byzantine epiclesis to the Roman Canon.  Those are non-issues.     
« Last Edit: March 15, 2011, 06:58:53 PM by jordanz » Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,801



« Reply #134 on: March 15, 2011, 07:51:36 PM »

I love the Divine Liturgy because it is, of course, the unbloody sacrifice and a historic orthodox liturgy, but my spirituality is still very western.

What do you mean by spirituality?

Quote
I respect the Eastern spirituality deeply (especially the profound Eastern veneration and love of Our Lady), but I still feel as if I'm in exile.

Join the club. Smiley Don't worry. It'll pass eventually. Even though the West might remain as your home but it is indeed possible to grow to feel content with Byzantine rite even though it might feel alien at first. That's what happened to me.

The Roman liturgy is not indigenous to Orthodox jurisdictions.  There's something strange about removing the Roman liturgy from its jurisdictional "home".  An Orthodox priest who says the Roman liturgy is celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, without a doubt.  Theoretically, an apostolic priest has the ability to say any apostolic liturgy.  Still, should he say the Mass?  Is it his charism to do so as a cleric of an Orthodox jurisdiction?

There's no such thing as local church's indigenous liturgy or charism of some specific rite. There are just churches and priests. All rites are part of the Tradition of the whole Church so any local church can implement any rite she deems necessary.

Quote
I have no problem with ... the addition of a Byzantine epiclesis to the Roman Canon.  Those are non-issues.      

Mixing of completely different rites is a non-issue. Huh

Oh, and welcome to the forum!
« Last Edit: March 15, 2011, 07:52:22 PM by Alpo » Logged

jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #135 on: March 16, 2011, 02:19:10 AM »

I love the Divine Liturgy because it is, of course, the unbloody sacrifice and a historic orthodox liturgy, but my spirituality is still very western.

What do you mean by spirituality?

All of my prayer is western style.  For example, I read Latin and Greek well, but have spent most of my life praying in Latin. I pray the Tridentine Roman Breviary, say the Rosary, adore the Blessed Sacrament even outside of Mass by singing St. Thomas Aquinas' Benediction hymns, and venerate Our Lady with the O Antiphons (the Salve Regina my favorite).  I know of and have tried Eastern devotions and titles, but they seem strange for me.  I prefer the western styles of adoration and veneration.  I do not say Rosary in the Eastern Catholic church, but I do pray it on the way to the DL as preparation for the Eucharist.   

I also confess the Western doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass.  I find it particularly meaningful.  The Orthodox understanding of the Eucharistic mystery is also beautiful, but I have a particular attachment to the Western explanation.  This is deeply tied with my love of the Roman Canon. The Roman Canon describes everything that the Western Church teaches about the Eucharist in very clear detail.  The Canon is also one of the most beautiful (and historically important) late Latin prose compositions ever written. 

The Roman liturgy is not indigenous to Orthodox jurisdictions.  There's something strange about removing the Roman liturgy from its jurisdictional "home".  An Orthodox priest who says the Roman liturgy is celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, without a doubt.  Theoretically, an apostolic priest has the ability to say any apostolic liturgy.  Still, should he say the Mass?  Is it his charism to do so as a cleric of an Orthodox jurisdiction?

There's no such thing as local church's indigenous liturgy or charism of some specific rite. There are just churches and priests. All rites are part of the Tradition of the whole Church so any local church can implement any rite she deems necessary.

Yes, I agree in theory.  The Mass, however, is the epitome of the Western understanding of the Eucharist.  It is not Eastern in its theological understanding.  This is more than an comparison of the Latin, koine Greek, Slavonic, and Aramaic sacred languages.  I don't see the profit in transplanting the Roman liturgy outside of the place where (well, until 1968) it flourished culturally. 

I have no problem with ... the addition of a Byzantine epiclesis to the Roman Canon.  Those are non-issues.     

Mixing of completely different rites is a non-issue. Huh

I do not have theological difficulties with omission of the filioque, as it is a later addition that even the Vatican has made optional for the Byzantine liturgy.  I do believe that the Roman Canon by itself, without a Byzantine epiclesis, is sufficiently pneumatic even though the notion of epiclesis is not as important in Roman Western theology.  Some Orthodox accept that the quam oblationem or supplices te rogamus is acceptable as an epiclesis.  I am aesthetically troubled by the introduction of the foreign epiclesis, but I understand that this is done for unity with the Eastern liturgies.  Neither changes are dealbreakers.

I am troubled that many Western Orthodox say the Tridentine Mass in English or another vernacular.  I do not like the vernacular translations.  It is much better, in my view, to recite the entire Mass in Latin save the readings.  At the very least, say the Preface and Canon in Latin.

Oh, and welcome to the forum!

Thanks!
« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 02:21:16 AM by jordanz » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,865



« Reply #136 on: March 16, 2011, 02:53:36 AM »

First off, I am new here.  Thank you for this beautiful forum!

Is there a Western Rite Orthodox Church near you?

Not that I know of.  Most Eastern Christians where I am are Ukrainians.  Also, I have the impression that many "Western Rite Orthodox" churches are non-canonical or sketchy-canonical.  I'm probably wrong.  "non-canonical Roman Catholicism" (aka the SSPX) is very angry, anti-semitic, and just plain ugly.  Hope that's not the case in the East.  From what I understand, some Western Rite churches are under ROCOR.  ROCOR is a bit too hardcore for me -- they've got some anger/bigotry issues also.

most WRO are under Antioch. Both those under Antioch and those under ROCOR are fully canonical.

I believe that the Roman Rite rightfully resides under the authority of the Pope of Rome.
 

Not if he is a heretic.

The Roman liturgy is not indigenous to Orthodox jurisdictions.

Rome was once an Orthodox Patriarchate.  Italy is an Orthodox jurisdiction
http://www.ortodossia.it/CONFERENZA%20EPISCOPALE.htm

There's something strange about removing the Roman liturgy from its jurisdictional "home".


If that were true, the Divine Liturgy would have never left Jerusalem.

An Orthodox priest who says the Roman liturgy is celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, without a doubt.  Theoretically, an apostolic priest has the ability to say any apostolic liturgy.  Still, should he say the Mass?  Is it his charism to do so as a cleric of an Orthodox jurisdiction?
No, a priest only can only celebrate a liturgy approved by his bishop, who must be in the Orthodox diptychs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I have no problem with the removal of the filioque or the addition of a Byzantine epiclesis to the Roman Canon.  Those are non-issues.     
But the Orthodox bishop (+Siluan) in Rome is?
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
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #137 on: March 16, 2011, 02:54:09 AM »

Catholic Traditionalists view the "paschal mystery" as kind of ambiguous Trojan horse for an abandonment of sorts of the sacrificial theology of the Mass. Which is to say, the Mass is all about Good Friday, and these same traditionalists - quoting from Trent and Papal encyclicals and old dogmatic manuals - have resisted the intrusion of Easter Sunday into the traditional Catholic theology of the Mass.

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/thomas-crean/paschal-mystery.htm

Quote
Question 70 of this catechism asks, “what does the Eucharistic memorial make present?” The answer given is “The Eucharistic memorial makes present the complete paschal mystery, the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus, so that we may now become part of this mystery.” Then as if fearing not to have been sufficiently clear, five questions later the author asks, “Does the Mass make present Christ’s resurrection?” The answer is “The Eucharist makes present not only the sacrifice of Christ, but the resurrection which crowned his sacrifice. It is the risen Christ, who, in the Eucharist, is the living Bread.” The implication is that in whatever sense the Mass is Christ's sacrifice, it is in the same sense his resurrection. But this is not true. The Mass is literally Christ's sacrifice; it is not literally his resurrection.

It seems the "paschal mystery" theology crept in under the influence of Eastern-leaning theologians.

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2010/print2010/klemna_bouyer_nov2010.html

Quote
Fr. Bouyer is known most of all as a scholar of liturgy and spirituality, and it is in these areas that his work has exercised its most overt impact on the course of Catholic theology as a whole. In the area of liturgy, Bouyer, himself drawing on the work of Dom Odo Casel, is the figure who is most responsible for the emphasis that has been placed in recent decades on the theme of the "Paschal Mystery" as central for understanding the mystery of the faith, and he, as much or more than anyone, oriented sacramental theologians to a focus on the liturgical event as the basis for theological reflection on the nature and meaning of the sacraments.

Quote
In terms of books that have had a direct influence on Catholic theology, his book published in 1943 on the Paschal Mystery, Le Mysetere Pascal, has been greatly influential. In this book, Bouyer argues that the liturgical unfolding of what he would call (on the suggestion of a colleague) the "Paschal Mystery" in Holy Week is the central key for understanding the faith. All of the events of the last days of Holy Week must be seen together, Bouyer argues, in order to grasp the Mystery of Christ as a unity.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 03:01:35 AM by John Larocque » Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #138 on: March 16, 2011, 03:37:22 AM »

I believe that the Roman Rite rightfully resides under the authority of the Pope of Rome.


Not if he is a heretic.

I really shouldn't go here, as this is a flamethrower that the board refs would like to avoid.  Look, I understand the sticking points such as papal infallibility and magisterium cannot be reconciled with the synodic governance of the Orthodox.  Nevertheless, the Immaculate Conception is merely the Augustinian formulation of the same Orthodox belief, i.e. that the Theotokos/Our Lady was filled with grace as the pure vessel of Christ.  The Western understanding merely takes into account its understanding of baptism.  Also, the Roman teachings on Purgatory and the Dormition/Assumption are reconcilable with Eastern doctrines.  The main issue between Rome, Byzantium, and Moscow has always been political and national, especially after the crusades and the minutiae that surrounded Ottoman occupation.  The existence of a Western name and an Eastern name for the same doctrine is not heresy.     

There's something strange about removing the Roman liturgy from its jurisdictional "home".


If that were true, the Divine Liturgy would have never left Jerusalem.

Very good point, ialmistry.  Didn't think of the issue that way.

An Orthodox priest who says the Roman liturgy is celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, without a doubt.  Theoretically, an apostolic priest has the ability to say any apostolic liturgy.  Still, should he say the Mass?  Is it his charism to do so as a cleric of an Orthodox jurisdiction?

No, a priest only can only celebrate a liturgy approved by his bishop, who must be in the Orthodox diptychs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I sense that your factionalism is quite strong.  Why are you so convinced that the Pope of Rome is a heretic, and that his Church is illegitimate?  For example, even after the schism certain Western theological developments such as Thomistic scholasticism influenced Russian theology.  The boundaries between Rome, Byzantium, and Moscow were still quite permeable even after the break.  Your vision of history is quite monochromatic.

« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 03:55:51 AM by jordanz » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #139 on: March 16, 2011, 03:44:21 AM »

I sense that your factionalism is quite strong.  Why are you so convinced that the Pope of Rome is a heretic, and that his Church is illegitimate?  For example, even after the schism certain Western theological developments such as Thomistic scholasticism influenced Russian theology.  The boundaries between Rome, Byzantium, and Moscow were still quite permeable even after the break.  Your vision of history is quite monochromatic.

Thank you. This brought tears of laughter to my eyes.

Jordanz you might want to catch up on his 16k posts before sending water balloons like that over the stern.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #140 on: March 16, 2011, 03:51:55 AM »

Catholic Traditionalists view the "paschal mystery" as kind of ambiguous Trojan horse for an abandonment of sorts of the sacrificial theology of the Mass. Which is to say, the Mass is all about Good Friday, and these same traditionalists - quoting from Trent and Papal encyclicals and old dogmatic manuals - have resisted the intrusion of Easter Sunday into the traditional Catholic theology of the Mass.

I have reservations about the addition of Paschal Mystery doctrine to the Tridentine formulation of the Holy Sacrifice.  I have read progressive Catholic distortions of the orthodox definition of Mass that have completely excluded propitiation.  Personally, I have always held to the Tridentine definition of Mass.  As a faithful Catholic I must consent to the recent Catechism, even if the introduction of the Paschal Mystery doctrine has been a loophole for memorialist or "gender inclusive" understandings of the Eucharist that deliberately lower the ontology of ordination to the level of a "presider" over a service in which the laity "consecrate" with the same authority as the clergy.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 03:52:26 AM by jordanz » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #141 on: March 16, 2011, 03:53:27 AM »

I sense that your factionalism is quite strong.  Why are you so convinced that the Pope of Rome is a heretic, and that his Church is illegitimate?

Quote from: Matthew 18, 18
Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Quote
Your vision of history is quite monochromatic.

Quote from: Revelation 3, 15-16
I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #142 on: March 16, 2011, 04:26:40 AM »

Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

We Latins are also fond of non praevalebunt, as we call the doctrine.  The mosaic work in St. Peter's is quite stunning. Only thing is that Il Papa likes to save on the electric bill, so he doesn't turn the lights on most of the time.  Someone with a good set of eyes (not me!) can still follow the ticker message around St. Pete's. Smiley       
 
I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

One of the things that has always baffled me about humanity is bigotry and racism.  We are all 99.9+% genetically related regardless of shape, size, and color.  So many horrors and evils of the world could be avoided if only we kept in mind that melanin content, place of origin, or the even ability to digest lactase are infinitesimally irrelevant matters in the grand beautiful sweep of human diversity. 

Similarly, Rome, Byzantium, and Moscow are closely intertwined thought history.  Our theological DNA is quite close.  Yes, we've had our disagreements and trials along the way.  Right now Rome is in a liturgical trial; who knows what will befall Orthodoxy in the future.  Yet, why magnify the little specks into the greatest rivalries?

Sorry moderators for going way off track with this one.  Not trying to stir the pot.  Let's get back to regularly scheduled programming.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 04:29:35 AM by jordanz » Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,801



« Reply #143 on: March 16, 2011, 04:36:59 AM »

I also confess the Western doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass.  I find it particularly meaningful.  The Orthodox understanding of the Eucharistic mystery is also beautthe iful, but I have a particular attachment to the Western explanation.  This is deeply tied with my love of Roman Canon. The Roman Canon describes everything that the Western Church teaches about the Eucharist in very clear detail.  The Canon is also one of the most beautiful (and historically important) late Latin prose compositions ever written.

What do you mean by Western doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass? I don't think there's anything specifically wrong with RC understanding of the Eucharist. We haven't dogmatized the distinction between substance and accidents and our theology tends to be not-so-developed but that's pretty much all differences that I've found.

For the record, since we believe that the Church of Rome used to be Orthodox and since it is said that the Roman Canon predates the Schism I think it could be considered as a legitimately Orthodox prayer. Smiley
 

I am troubled that many Western Orthodox say the Tridentine Mass in English or another vernacular.  I do not like the vernacular translations.  It is much better, in my view, to recite the entire Mass in Latin save the readings.  At the very least, say the Preface and Canon in Latin.

What's wrong with vernacular liturgies? Huh
Logged

dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,325


« Reply #144 on: March 16, 2011, 06:08:20 AM »

As a not-yet-Orthodox Christian, I'm not sure it's right that I reply to this. But this seems as good a place as any to make my inaugural post (1+ year after registering for this forum and immediately forgetting about it, apparently; oops), as this is definitely a topic lived out in my recent personal history.

I can say without hesitation that the biggest impact in my journey to becoming Orthodox has been the discovery of the Desert Fathers. Reading of their lives and their sayings is so incredible to me because even though I am about as far from the Egyptian desert as one can be, I can very nearly see Abba Isaiah or St. Moses the Strong standing with me as I pray. I never had this experience when reading the RC spiritual works, which were processed intellectually and so were hard to connect to (and in some cases were downright disturbing to me, but perhaps that is my fault).

More recently the Agpeya (the Coptic book of the hours) has established for me a way of prayer. I remember occasionally praying the hours as a Roman Catholic, but I don't know...there's something so much more fulfilling about the Agpeya. I don't know what it is.

So I would say that what has changed/is changing is my experience of the Christian faith. Away from rationalism and circumstance-driven emotionalism (e.g., very high after a visit to a Benedictine monastery, very low having to struggle to focus on God as a jazz trio replaces the choir at the local Novus Ordo mass) and sentimentality (e.g., the Roman Catholic devotions and adorations). This is more...I don't know how to describe it without sounding cheesy..."interior" focused? On the best days I will pray the Agpeya, the Jesus Prayer, and personal prayers and never once have the feeling of following a routine. Every prayer is made new because there is a depth to it that was never there before. I'm not struggling with unhelpful distinctions and needless dogmas, so it feels like there's more room to be with God. Transubstantiation, the IC, Papal Infallibility, Indulgences...all that stuff just cluttered up my inner room!
Logged

jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #145 on: March 16, 2011, 07:46:58 AM »

What's wrong with vernacular liturgies? Huh

Nothing, in theory.  The Roman Canon might translate well into many languages.  However, it does not translate well into English.  The syntax contains many alliterative and assonantal qualities that are completely lost in any English translation.  Also, there are certain words that convey special theological meaning.  These words cannot be easily translated and are usually poorly paraphrased in translation.  Finally, many translations of the Roman Canon are translated into faux-Elizabethan English.  Latin has no distinction between a formal and informal 2nd person (i.e. tu/vous, du/Sie, etc.)  "Thou, thine and thee", the old informal 2nd person in English, is a false translation of the Latin.

It's better to avoid all of these issues and say the Canon, and preferably the entire Mass save the scripture readings, in Latin.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,865



« Reply #146 on: March 16, 2011, 11:47:18 PM »

What's wrong with vernacular liturgies? Huh

Nothing, in theory.  The Roman Canon might translate well into many languages.  However, it does not translate well into English.  The syntax contains many alliterative and assonantal qualities that are completely lost in any English translation.  Also, there are certain words that convey special theological meaning.  These words cannot be easily translated and are usually poorly paraphrased in translation.  Finally, many translations of the Roman Canon are translated into faux-Elizabethan English.  Latin has no distinction between a formal and informal 2nd person (i.e. tu/vous, du/Sie, etc.)  "Thou, thine and thee", the old informal 2nd person in English, is a false translation of the Latin.

It's better to avoid all of these issues and say the Canon, and preferably the entire Mass save the scripture readings, in Latin.
So that basically instead of losing something in a poor paraphrase the congregation can loose everything in an unintelligble faux Ciceronian Latin.

Btw, it is "thou" because it is singular, not because it is informal.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 11:47:45 PM by ialmisry » 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,865



« Reply #147 on: March 16, 2011, 11:59:00 PM »

Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

We Latins are also fond of non praevalebunt, as we call the doctrine.  The mosaic work in St. Peter's is quite stunning. Only thing is that Il Papa likes to save on the electric bill, so he doesn't turn the lights on most of the time.  Someone with a good set of eyes (not me!) can still follow the ticker message around St. Pete's. Smiley 
 
Our priest made two astute observations 1) Why doesn't it have Matthew 16:16. 2) Why doesn't it continue to 16:23?  
 
I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

One of the things that has always baffled me about humanity is bigotry and racism.  We are all 99.9+% genetically related regardless of shape, size, and color.  So many horrors and evils of the world could be avoided if only we kept in mind that melanin content, place of origin, or the even ability to digest lactase are infinitesimally irrelevant matters in the grand beautiful sweep of human diversity. 

Similarly, Rome, Byzantium, and Moscow are closely intertwined thought history.  Our theological DNA is quite close.  Yes, we've had our disagreements and trials along the way.  Right now Rome is in a liturgical trial; who knows what will befall Orthodoxy in the future. 
Not the gates of Hell.
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
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,603


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #148 on: March 17, 2011, 12:09:40 AM »

I have had several Catholic friends who have become atheists, and I think I was heading in that direction until I discovered Orthodoxy.
For that reason, I am very grateful to God.

I found these links to be very interesting.

Dostoyevsky - Origins of Modern Atheism

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/f-dostoyevsky-origins-of-modern-atheism.html

Catholicism and the Rise of Atheism


http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/catholicism-and-rise-of-atheism.html

Atheism - boast of our time

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/11/atheism-boast-of-our-time.html



--
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #149 on: March 17, 2011, 01:46:47 AM »

As a not-yet-Orthodox Christian, I'm not sure it's right that I reply to this. But this seems as good a place as any to make my inaugural post (1+ year after registering for this forum and immediately forgetting about it, apparently; oops), as this is definitely a topic lived out in my recent personal history.

I can say without hesitation that the biggest impact in my journey to becoming Orthodox has been the discovery of the Desert Fathers. Reading of their lives and their sayings is so incredible to me because even though I am about as far from the Egyptian desert as one can be, I can very nearly see Abba Isaiah or St. Moses the Strong standing with me as I pray. I never had this experience when reading the RC spiritual works, which were processed intellectually and so were hard to connect to (and in some cases were downright disturbing to me, but perhaps that is my fault).

More recently the Agpeya (the Coptic book of the hours) has established for me a way of prayer. I remember occasionally praying the hours as a Roman Catholic, but I don't know...there's something so much more fulfilling about the Agpeya. I don't know what it is.

So I would say that what has changed/is changing is my experience of the Christian faith. Away from rationalism and circumstance-driven emotionalism (e.g., very high after a visit to a Benedictine monastery, very low having to struggle to focus on God as a jazz trio replaces the choir at the local Novus Ordo mass) and sentimentality (e.g., the Roman Catholic devotions and adorations). This is more...I don't know how to describe it without sounding cheesy..."interior" focused? On the best days I will pray the Agpeya, the Jesus Prayer, and personal prayers and never once have the feeling of following a routine. Every prayer is made new because there is a depth to it that was never there before. I'm not struggling with unhelpful distinctions and needless dogmas, so it feels like there's more room to be with God. Transubstantiation, the IC, Papal Infallibility, Indulgences...all that stuff just cluttered up my inner room!

Thank you for this! Welcome to the forums and have a blessed Lent! Smiley
Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #150 on: March 17, 2011, 02:06:21 AM »

What's wrong with vernacular liturgies? Huh

Nothing, in theory.  The Roman Canon might translate well into many languages.  [...]

So that basically instead of losing something in a poor paraphrase the congregation can loose everything in an unintelligble faux Ciceronian Latin.

I have graduate training in both Latin and Greek.  I could insult the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in its current Greek recension by pointing out its characteristic koine semantic and syntactic deviations from the erroneously "pure" classical Attic or Ionic, or even Second Sophistic atticization.  I could make similar criticisms of the Roman Canon versus the "Golden Age" of Latin and even the philology of Cicero, even though he writes in a completely different literary genre than Christian liturgical prayer.  However, both the Canon and the anaphora of Chrysostom are brilliant and beautiful for their unique and period literary qualities.  The separate, and not "impoverished", cultural and linguistic difference in koine and late Latin highlight the genius of Christian prayer across east and west.  

Don't mock something as unintelligible just because you do not read the language and wish to make a polemical point.

If you would like, and the moderators would approve, I would be glad to discuss liturgical Latin and Greek with you and everyone else on this board, in an academically rigorous, friendly, and non-insulting manner.  

Btw, it is "thou" because it is singular, not because it is informal.

From the Oxford English Dictionary sv. "Thou", (full version by subscription, my emphasis):

"Thou and its cases thee, thine, thy, were in Old English used in ordinary speech; in Middle English they were gradually superseded by the plural ye, you, your, yours, in addressing a superior and (later) an equal, but were long retained in addressing an inferior."

"thou, pron." Oxford English Dictionary. Second edition, 1989; online version November 2010. http://www.oed.com:80/Entry/201051; accessed 17 March 2011. Earlier version first published in New English Dictionary, 1912.

"Ye" is the obsolete nominative singular plural, i.e. adeste fideles, "Come all ye faithful" &c. "You" has no declension in modern English.

« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 02:07:38 AM by jordanz » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,865



« Reply #151 on: March 17, 2011, 03:10:21 AM »

What's wrong with vernacular liturgies? Huh

Nothing, in theory.  The Roman Canon might translate well into many languages.  [...]

So that basically instead of losing something in a poor paraphrase the congregation can loose everything in an unintelligble faux Ciceronian Latin.

I have graduate training in both Latin and Greek.  I could insult the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in its current Greek recension by pointing out its characteristic koine semantic and syntactic deviations from the erroneously "pure" classical Attic or Ionic, or even Second Sophistic atticization.

LOL. No one here should be suprised that I wouldn't be the one insulted by such an analysis.

I could make similar criticisms of the Roman Canon versus the "Golden Age" of Latin and even the philology of Cicero, even though he writes in a completely different literary genre than Christian liturgical prayer.
No matter. Classical Latin was artiicial in his day, more so in Pope St. Damasus and St. Jerome's.

However, both the Canon and the anaphora of Chrysostom are brilliant and beautiful for their unique and period literary qualities.  The separate, and not "impoverished", cultural and linguistic difference in koine and late Latin highlight the genius of Christian prayer across east and west.  

Don't mock something as unintelligible just because you do not read the language and wish to make a polemical point.

Oh, but I do read the language, which is why I speak up for those to whom it is unintelligible.  They usually don't like to take on polemical points against the language they understand.

If you would like, and the moderators would approve, I would be glad to discuss liturgical Latin and Greek with you and everyone else on this board, in an academically rigorous, friendly, and non-insulting manner.

We're not at CAF.  The moderators aren't going to come down on you like the Spanish Inquisition.  You are free to practically say anything reasonable you like.

Btw, it is "thou" because it is singular, not because it is informal.

From the Oxford English Dictionary

LOL. We just had a discussion on my thoughts on the OED.  Whether that's on point here, I don't know: are you talking about Amercian translations or British?

sv. "Thou", (full version by subscription, my emphasis):

"Thou and its cases thee, thine, thy, were in Old English used in ordinary speech; in Middle English they were gradually superseded by the plural ye, you, your, yours, in addressing a superior and (later) an equal, but were long retained in addressing an inferior."

Yes, we are all familiar with that: French, German etc. have a like history except that the singular tu, du etc. were retained more widely and didn't become archaic in the more modern forms.

Quote
"thou, pron." Oxford English Dictionary. Second edition, 1989; online version November 2010. http://www.oed.com:80/Entry/201051; accessed 17 March 2011. Earlier version first published in New English Dictionary, 1912.

"Ye" is the obsolete nominative singular plural, i.e. adeste fideles, "Come all ye faithful" &c. "You" has no declension in modern English.
archaic/ironic is perhaps more correct, as it is still in use, just not in unmarked form.

The Elizabethans of the Book of Common Prayer and Shakespeare, and the Jacobeans of the Authorised Version retained a number of features becoming or already archaic in their own day: the use of a singular second person being on of them (others being the third person singular present ending -th, the use of "his" for "its" or using "thereof" (as in German da(r)- constructions), etc. )  In some ways, it was as artificial as Classical Latin was in its day, or shoud I say "his day," or "the day thereof"?
« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 03:19:36 AM by ialmisry » 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
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #152 on: March 17, 2011, 04:30:38 AM »

No matter. Classical Latin was artiicial in his day, more so in Pope St. Damasus and St. Jerome's.

Okay, now I see what you mean by faux-Ciceronian! You are quite right on this account. I am sort of snippy and pushy online and in public, so excuse my brusque manner.  You see, I consume amounts of caffeine that will cause arrhythmia in a normal person.  Time to kick the java.  This is the plight of graduate school -- sleep?  huh?  Wink

Certainly, the Mass, even from the 3rd and 4th centuries, had deliberate archeologizing tendencies.  quaesumus is the poster child for this phenomenon.  In fact, I would like to write my diss. just on quaesumus (as sort of a homage/expansion of Christine Mohrmann), but I don't think the thesis committee will go for it.  In any event, the new English translation for the Novus Ordo (effective 1st Advent 2012) renders quaesumus as "we pray".  That's akin to euphemizing the phrase "berserk psychotic rage" as "I'm a little under the weather today."  quaesumus is relatively strong servile language (at least in the original social derivation of quaeso, as you well know. Again, Morhrmann touches upon this at many points.

If you would like, and the moderators would approve, I would be glad to discuss liturgical Latin and Greek with you and everyone else on this board, in an academically rigorous, friendly, and non-insulting manner.


Maybe it would be a good idea to take a comparative liturgical Latin and Greek discussion to the Languages forum.  Leave this thread, well, for the thread.  In any event, I shouldn't've accused you of knowing or not knowing Latin, or being polemical.  Now that I understand that "faux Ciceronian" is not an insult but a very valid point, I see that I misjudged the situation.

The Elizabethans of the Book of Common Prayer and Shakespeare, and the Jacobeans of the Authorised Version retained a number of features becoming or already archaic in their own day: the use of a singular second person being on of them (others being the third person singular present ending -th, the use of "his" for "its" or using "thereof" (as in German da(r)- constructions), etc. )  In some ways, it was as artificial as Classical Latin was in its day, or shoud I say "his day," or "the day thereof"?

Again, sorry for pressing the red button on this issue.  The nuclear option wasn't necessary.

Don't get me started on the da- constructions in German.  The German reduction of the neuter article/pronoun das to a prefixed particle or even a pseudo-pronoun is one of the most confusing aspects of that language.  ugh.

Thanks moderators for the diversion.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 04:34:21 AM by jordanz » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #153 on: March 17, 2011, 12:42:43 PM »

In any event, I shouldn't've accused you of .... being polemical. 

LOL
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,865



« Reply #154 on: March 17, 2011, 01:07:30 PM »

Time to kick the java. 
Now don't get crazy.
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
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,603


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #155 on: March 17, 2011, 07:16:44 PM »

No matter. Classical Latin was artiicial in his day, more so in Pope St. Damasus and St. Jerome's.

Okay, now I see what you mean by faux-Ciceronian! You are quite right on this account. I am sort of snippy and pushy online and in public, so excuse my brusque manner.  You see, I consume amounts of caffeine that will cause arrhythmia in a normal person.  Time to kick the java.  This is the plight of graduate school -- sleep?  huh?  Wink

Certainly, the Mass, even from the 3rd and 4th centuries, had deliberate archeologizing tendencies.  quaesumus is the poster child for this phenomenon.  In fact, I would like to write my diss. just on quaesumus (as sort of a homage/expansion of Christine Mohrmann), but I don't think the thesis committee will go for it.  In any event, the new English translation for the Novus Ordo (effective 1st Advent 2012) renders quaesumus as "we pray".  That's akin to euphemizing the phrase "berserk psychotic rage" as "I'm a little under the weather today."  quaesumus is relatively strong servile language (at least in the original social derivation of quaeso, as you well know. Again, Morhrmann touches upon this at many points.

If you would like, and the moderators would approve, I would be glad to discuss liturgical Latin and Greek with you and everyone else on this board, in an academically rigorous, friendly, and non-insulting manner.


Maybe it would be a good idea to take a comparative liturgical Latin and Greek discussion to the Languages forum.  Leave this thread, well, for the thread.  In any event, I shouldn't've accused you of knowing or not knowing Latin, or being polemical.  Now that I understand that "faux Ciceronian" is not an insult but a very valid point, I see that I misjudged the situation.

The Elizabethans of the Book of Common Prayer and Shakespeare, and the Jacobeans of the Authorised Version retained a number of features becoming or already archaic in their own day: the use of a singular second person being on of them (others being the third person singular present ending -th, the use of "his" for "its" or using "thereof" (as in German da(r)- constructions), etc. )  In some ways, it was as artificial as Classical Latin was in its day, or shoud I say "his day," or "the day thereof"?

Again, sorry for pressing the red button on this issue.  The nuclear option wasn't necessary.

Don't get me started on the da- constructions in German.  The German reduction of the neuter article/pronoun das to a prefixed particle or even a pseudo-pronoun is one of the most confusing aspects of that language.  ugh.

Thanks moderators for the diversion.

Are you a linguist? I earned my graduate degree in Linguistics.
It would be interesting to discuss this in another thread.
However, many Catholics when they convert to Orthodoxy struggle greatly with language(s).
The various languages spoken in the Parish Hall and used in the Divine Liturgy can be very challenging.
For example, in the Antiochian Orthodox Churches, often the Divine Liturgy is tri-lingual: English, Arabic, and Greek.
In some cases, where the parish is Pan-Orthodox,  the priest(s) and deacon(s) may employ English, Arabic, Greek, Slavonic, and Spanish during the Divine Liturgy.

In any rate, all this exposure to various languages can really expand a person's schemata if they are open to the Holy Spirit.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 07:17:53 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #156 on: March 17, 2011, 07:24:33 PM »

In any event, I shouldn't've accused you of .... being polemical. 

LOL

Amen!
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
JimCBrooklyn
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate-Diocese of Saint Petersburg/ROCOR-Diocese of Eastern America and New York
Posts: 569


Если бога нет, то все позволено


« Reply #157 on: March 17, 2011, 07:26:00 PM »

I have had several Catholic friends who have become atheists, and I think I was heading in that direction until I discovered Orthodoxy.
For that reason, I am very grateful to God.

I found these links to be very interesting.

Dostoyevsky - Origins of Modern Atheism

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/f-dostoyevsky-origins-of-modern-atheism.html

Catholicism and the Rise of Atheism


http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/catholicism-and-rise-of-atheism.html

Atheism - boast of our time

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/11/atheism-boast-of-our-time.html



--
FWIW, that guy mentioned above whose picture is on my left probably had more with initially drawing me to Orthodoxy than anyone, even my Orthodox wife!
Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #158 on: March 17, 2011, 07:27:40 PM »

In any rate, all this exposure to various languages can really expand a person's schemata if they are open to the Holy Spirit.

You did spend too much time academia.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #159 on: March 17, 2011, 09:15:32 PM »

Are you a linguist? I earned my graduate degree in Linguistics.

No.  I study Roman religion and early Western Christianity, so I guess you could say I'm a Latinist (but not a Classicist).  I also read koine Greek, but it's not my specialization.  I learned my Latin from Roman priests, even though I have a Classics BA.  So my Latin accent is funny  Wink

It would be interesting to discuss this in another thread.

Yes!  I'd also like to hear more from those who read Coptic, Slavonic, or Syriac.

However, many Catholics when they convert to Orthodoxy struggle greatly with language(s).
The various languages spoken in the Parish Hall and used in the Divine Liturgy can be very challenging.
For example, in the Antiochian Orthodox Churches, often the Divine Liturgy is tri-lingual: English, Arabic, and Greek.
In some cases, where the parish is Pan-Orthodox,  the priest(s) and deacon(s) may employ English, Arabic, Greek, Slavonic, and Spanish during the Divine Liturgy.

I sometimes read from a prayerbook (shouldn't call it a 'missal', though I end up doing so anyway) during Divine Liturgy.  Most of the time, either at Mass or the Divine Liturgy, I prefer just to let Our Lady lead me to her Son.  I just meditate on a prayer or recite the rosary silently.  I am more interested in preparing spiritually for the Eucharist rather than following everything the priest does or says.   

One of the things that I love about the Roman Mass is Low Mass.  Yes, Low Mass is medieval post-schism abuse that was eventually tolerated. The Roman liturgy is always meant to be sung, just like the Orthodox liturgies.  Divine Liturgy is too "busy" for me, and sort of spiritually exhausting, but that is how apostolic liturgy is supposed to be.  Mass isn't supposed to be a priest and a server mumbling to one another for half an hour, even if I like silent meditation.   

« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 09:16:56 PM by jordanz » Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,603


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #160 on: March 17, 2011, 09:35:16 PM »

Are you a linguist? I earned my graduate degree in Linguistics.

No.  I study Roman religion and early Western Christianity, so I guess you could say I'm a Latinist (but not a Classicist).  I also read koine Greek, but it's not my specialization.  I learned my Latin from Roman priests, even though I have a Classics BA.  So my Latin accent is funny  Wink

It would be interesting to discuss this in another thread.

Yes!  I'd also like to hear more from those who read Coptic, Slavonic, or Syriac.

However, many Catholics when they convert to Orthodoxy struggle greatly with language(s).
The various languages spoken in the Parish Hall and used in the Divine Liturgy can be very challenging.
For example, in the Antiochian Orthodox Churches, often the Divine Liturgy is tri-lingual: English, Arabic, and Greek.
In some cases, where the parish is Pan-Orthodox,  the priest(s) and deacon(s) may employ English, Arabic, Greek, Slavonic, and Spanish during the Divine Liturgy.

I sometimes read from a prayerbook (shouldn't call it a 'missal', though I end up doing so anyway) during Divine Liturgy.  Most of the time, either at Mass or the Divine Liturgy, I prefer just to let Our Lady lead me to her Son.  I just meditate on a prayer or recite the rosary silently.  I am more interested in preparing spiritually for the Eucharist rather than following everything the priest does or says.   

One of the things that I love about the Roman Mass is Low Mass.  Yes, Low Mass is medieval post-schism abuse that was eventually tolerated. The Roman liturgy is always meant to be sung, just like the Orthodox liturgies.  Divine Liturgy is too "busy" for me, and sort of spiritually exhausting, but that is how apostolic liturgy is supposed to be.  Mass isn't supposed to be a priest and a server mumbling to one another for half an hour, even if I like silent meditation.   



One thing that I discovered when converting to Orthodoxy was the amount of energy that I expended when participating in the Divine Liturgy.
The constant give and take, call and response, in the Divine Liturgy requires full attention. "Let us attend" or "Let us be attentive" is repeated at several times during the Divine Liturgy where we are called to put aside all earthly cares and enter into heavenly worship.

After attending Divine Liturgy, my husband and I often return home to take a nap. Even when I do heavy gardening as I have been doing lately, that kind of outside work is not nearly as exhausting as the work (liturgia) needed to fully participate in the Divine Liturgy (mind, heart, body and soul).
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #161 on: March 17, 2011, 10:58:39 PM »


Great blog. Several TradCath blogs cheered when they saw his English translation of the Vassula excommunication from the EP. An ecumenical moment.

Quote
The Orthodox however still emphasize what was always taught in Scripture and the Church Fathers, that one cannot know if God exists with absolute certainty unless there is direct knowledge and experience of God.

The Augustinian theory of knowledge and divine illumination, influenced by neo-Platonism, seems closer what is described above.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 10:59:15 PM by John Larocque » Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #162 on: April 11, 2011, 03:48:28 PM »

I'm technically neither Catholic nor Orthodox, but I am an inquirer into both. I'm 15 years old, and I have an account on both these forums and the Catholic forums. I have felt for a while now like something is missing from my life, and that I need to be a Christian. My mother was raised Catholic and I've attended a few Masses, but I was disappointed at how short they were, even though I enjoyed the time there. There is a Ukrainian Orthodox Church in my town but I'm too nervous to go, even though I really want to, because I'm not Ukrainian. I know that they accept people into ethnic parishes, but I'm just afraid the culture barrier will be too great.

You might see if there's an OCA parish near you. Those tend to be more mixed Orthodox background. My parish has cradle Orthodox of every description--Greeks, Russians, Georgians, Albanians, Romanians--and lots of converts. It's pretty typical OCA, at least for my area (Metro-NY).

I lived in a town where the nearest church (I could have walked) was Greek, and while I loved the church and the people, my not being Greek always felt like a little bit of a handicap. So I sought out my current parish, even though it was further away, and I've never regretted it. So I can relate to what you're saying about the ethnic thing. But it doesn't have to be a barrier or a negative. If I'd stuck with the Greek church I might have learned enough Greek to read the Scriptures and the fathers in the language some of them were written in. Ukrainian is close to Slavonic, which would open up a whole world of Orthodox sprituality. Plus, the ethnic festivals are really fun!
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #163 on: April 11, 2011, 03:55:48 PM »

I love the Divine Liturgy because it is, of course, the unbloody sacrifice and a historic orthodox liturgy, but my spirituality is still very western.

What do you mean by spirituality?

All of my prayer is western style.  For example, I read Latin and Greek well, but have spent most of my life praying in Latin. I pray the Tridentine Roman Breviary, say the Rosary, adore the Blessed Sacrament even outside of Mass by singing St. Thomas Aquinas' Benediction hymns, and venerate Our Lady with the O Antiphons (the Salve Regina my favorite).  I know of and have tried Eastern devotions and titles, but they seem strange for me.  I prefer the western styles of adoration and veneration.  I do not say Rosary in the Eastern Catholic church, but I do pray it on the way to the DL as preparation for the Eucharist.   

I also confess the Western doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass.  I find it particularly meaningful.  The Orthodox understanding of the Eucharistic mystery is also beautiful, but I have a particular attachment to the Western explanation.  This is deeply tied with my love of the Roman Canon. The Roman Canon describes everything that the Western Church teaches about the Eucharist in very clear detail.  The Canon is also one of the most beautiful (and historically important) late Latin prose compositions ever written. 

The Roman liturgy is not indigenous to Orthodox jurisdictions.  There's something strange about removing the Roman liturgy from its jurisdictional "home".  An Orthodox priest who says the Roman liturgy is celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, without a doubt.  Theoretically, an apostolic priest has the ability to say any apostolic liturgy.  Still, should he say the Mass?  Is it his charism to do so as a cleric of an Orthodox jurisdiction?

There's no such thing as local church's indigenous liturgy or charism of some specific rite. There are just churches and priests. All rites are part of the Tradition of the whole Church so any local church can implement any rite she deems necessary.

Yes, I agree in theory.  The Mass, however, is the epitome of the Western understanding of the Eucharist.  It is not Eastern in its theological understanding.  This is more than an comparison of the Latin, koine Greek, Slavonic, and Aramaic sacred languages.  I don't see the profit in transplanting the Roman liturgy outside of the place where (well, until 1968) it flourished culturally. 

I have no problem with ... the addition of a Byzantine epiclesis to the Roman Canon.  Those are non-issues.     

Mixing of completely different rites is a non-issue. Huh

I do not have theological difficulties with omission of the filioque, as it is a later addition that even the Vatican has made optional for the Byzantine liturgy.  I do believe that the Roman Canon by itself, without a Byzantine epiclesis, is sufficiently pneumatic even though the notion of epiclesis is not as important in Roman Western theology.  Some Orthodox accept that the quam oblationem or supplices te rogamus is acceptable as an epiclesis.  I am aesthetically troubled by the introduction of the foreign epiclesis, but I understand that this is done for unity with the Eastern liturgies.  Neither changes are dealbreakers.

I am troubled that many Western Orthodox say the Tridentine Mass in English or another vernacular.  I do not like the vernacular translations.  It is much better, in my view, to recite the entire Mass in Latin save the readings.  At the very least, say the Preface and Canon in Latin.

Oh, and welcome to the forum!

Thanks!

Sounds like you're all set!

Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #164 on: April 26, 2011, 01:39:20 AM »

Quote
For one thing, there is the perspective of Traditionalists on the Latin side who say the the Easterners have legitimate Sacraments but that they are heaping damnation upon themselves by partaking of them.

yes traditionalists latin catholic friends of mine do say this.

So ultimately much of the Orthodox response to whether the Latin Papal Catholic communion has validity or grace in it's mysteries/sacraments is simply a slight variation of what most of Rome would have said a few decades ago and its traditional factions still proclaim with such vigour.

I see such profound resemblence to many traditional latin papal catholics and traditional patriachal orthodox...

if we handpicked the members of certain churches and hierarchy we could reinstigate 1054 and fourth crusade all over again without much effort...

This is the flipside of the whole "complaints about false ecumenism"..

Either attitude goes too far.
One can make up the illusion of the other side being overly wrong or overly right.

I stay somewhere in the middle.
Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #165 on: April 26, 2011, 01:49:21 AM »

Quote
Do WRO churches use Gregorian chant?  

This depends on the jurisdiction,

Antioch, a little bit,
ROCOR, more so.

I know I was thrown out of an Antiochian church for promoting gregorian chant propers, hymn melodies and antiphons when all they wanted was 1984 Twila Paris contemporary christian hits mixed with whatever "st ambrose hymnal" 19th century presybyterian hymn was their flavor of the week.

In general the antiochian western rite orthodox seem to be a mixture timidity/fear of too much chant or outright rejection of it. Only probably about 5 of the 30 antiochian churches use the "proper chant" melodies in their ancient form. This is largely due to the fact that the "genuine Anglo-Catholic" espiscopal parishes have not embraced the western rite with great vigour. The majority of the churches are from a "low church" evangelical run-of the mill agricultural heritage type background.

My understanding is that ROCOR sets a higher standard but frankly..most western rite parishes across all juridictions are too small, fragmented and uneducated to attempt singing much chant.

See, the reason eastern rite parishes are an advantage for converts is because they have a living tradition that they can witness and copy..they are forced to take it as it is or not be orthodox..

A convert can go over to any Eastern rite psalti/cantor and have them help them learn byzantine ecclesiastical music, whereas if they are from a western rite parish they have a mixture of "taking the easy way out" with protestant hymnody and possibly finding a byzantine cantor reluctant, unwilling or unable to teach them a "dead, foreign, latin" tradition of chant.

I remember once contacting the local greek cantor for help with gregorian chant at a western rite antiochian parish and finding that he was opposed to the western rites existence, therefore it would be against his personal beliefs to help assist in any way.

The only thing you have sung in gregorian/plainchant generally is the "Missa De Angelis" Ordinary chants and most basic psalm tones for vespers/matins and proper of the mass. Really the music is a big problem with them. 90% of the traditional medieval western liturgical music that should be there is missing.

The same problems in the novus ordo papal churches regarding music are pretty evident in the orthodox western rite. Just because their orthodox doesnt mean they can fixed overnight..what will change that I have no idea, right now it's pretty embarrassing.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 02:03:44 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,603


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #166 on: April 26, 2011, 05:26:26 PM »

Quote
Do WRO churches use Gregorian chant?  

This depends on the jurisdiction,

Antioch, a little bit,
ROCOR, more so.

I know I was thrown out of an Antiochian church for promoting gregorian chant propers, hymn melodies and antiphons when all they wanted was 1984 Twila Paris contemporary christian hits mixed with whatever "st ambrose hymnal" 19th century presybyterian hymn was their flavor of the week.

In general the antiochian western rite orthodox seem to be a mixture timidity/fear of too much chant or outright rejection of it. Only probably about 5 of the 30 antiochian churches use the "proper chant" melodies in their ancient form. This is largely due to the fact that the "genuine Anglo-Catholic" espiscopal parishes have not embraced the western rite with great vigour. The majority of the churches are from a "low church" evangelical run-of the mill agricultural heritage type background.

My understanding is that ROCOR sets a higher standard but frankly..most western rite parishes across all juridictions are too small, fragmented and uneducated to attempt singing much chant.

See, the reason eastern rite parishes are an advantage for converts is because they have a living tradition that they can witness and copy..they are forced to take it as it is or not be orthodox..

A convert can go over to any Eastern rite psalti/cantor and have them help them learn byzantine ecclesiastical music, whereas if they are from a western rite parish they have a mixture of "taking the easy way out" with protestant hymnody and possibly finding a byzantine cantor reluctant, unwilling or unable to teach them a "dead, foreign, latin" tradition of chant.

I remember once contacting the local greek cantor for help with gregorian chant at a western rite antiochian parish and finding that he was opposed to the western rites existence, therefore it would be against his personal beliefs to help assist in any way.

The only thing you have sung in gregorian/plainchant generally is the "Missa De Angelis" Ordinary chants and most basic psalm tones for vespers/matins and proper of the mass. Really the music is a big problem with them. 90% of the traditional medieval western liturgical music that should be there is missing.

The same problems in the novus ordo papal churches regarding music are pretty evident in the orthodox western rite. Just because their orthodox doesnt mean they can fixed overnight..what will change that I have no idea, right now it's pretty embarrassing.

Even though I was schooled in Gregorian Chant (Dominican style), I found that Byzantine Chant was more intriguing and exotic, especially the use of the 2nd, 4th, and 6th tones. For example, please look at the Troparion to St. Anne, the mother of the Theotokos. I fell in love with Eastern Orthodoxy and was not at all impressed with the WRO.

Another problem is that most folks do not like learning a "dead language" such as Latin. Then it is almost impossible to have a decent translation of the English words into Gregorian Chant (which is based on the highly inflective language of Latin).

I think that Orthodox Christians can learn a lot from the mistakes of the Latins. It is not good to rush into English translations that do not fit the ancient ecclesiastical chant from the Old Countries: Greek, Arabic, or Latin.

Recently some well intentioned native speaking Arabic chanters tried to fit English into Arabic Byzantine chant. It just did not work. The English came out garbled, and did not make sense.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 05:27:37 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #167 on: April 26, 2011, 06:05:27 PM »

I wonder which type of chant Maria is using and if it is in a dead language.

Both forms of chant have the pluses and minuses.

The medieval chant that was really used is noticeably richer than the official 19th century vatican II solesmes "Graduale Romanum/Liber Usualis" which only were officially adopted as the norm in 1903.

The tropes and sequences from the past, were great..

And you certainly can't say anything was missing in the gregorian Alleluias I think..

There are plenty of advantages to byzantine chant, but one cant very well abandon there tradition either.

Some of what you say is true, but I think its a bit overly biased against english language gregorian chant.

I will surely agree that translations cant be rushed, but one must remember with Gods help anything is possible, the western musical tradition does have profoundly good possibilities for its future. The anglicans have been a big help with that.
Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #168 on: May 03, 2011, 02:39:29 PM »

Wotta strange thread. I thought I was going to be reading how former Catholics' spiritual lives changed post-conversion. Instead, it seems to be mostly traditionalist Catholics telling each other how great traditional Catholicism is.
Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #169 on: May 04, 2011, 01:25:20 PM »

Quote
Instead, it seems to be mostly traditionalist Catholics telling each other how great traditional Catholicism is.

If you consider that Orthodoxy IS in fact a form of 1st millenium traditional catholicism in many ways, one could see it that way...

A lot of the discovery of Orthodoxy is in fact a discovery of traditional catholicism (albeit typically with eastern traditions). The overlap is great. It's tradition that leads us all here.
Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #170 on: May 31, 2011, 08:39:35 AM »

Quote
Instead, it seems to be mostly traditionalist Catholics telling each other how great traditional Catholicism is.

If you consider that Orthodoxy IS in fact a form of 1st millenium traditional catholicism in many ways, one could see it that way...

A lot of the discovery of Orthodoxy is in fact a discovery of traditional catholicism (albeit typically with eastern traditions). The overlap is great. It's tradition that leads us all here.

I guess that would explain why opinions of Vatican II are so low around here.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #171 on: May 31, 2011, 10:51:38 PM »

Quote
Instead, it seems to be mostly traditionalist Catholics telling each other how great traditional Catholicism is.

If you consider that Orthodoxy IS in fact a form of 1st millenium traditional catholicism in many ways, one could see it that way...

A lot of the discovery of Orthodoxy is in fact a discovery of traditional catholicism (albeit typically with eastern traditions). The overlap is great. It's tradition that leads us all here.

I guess that would explain why opinions of Vatican II are so low around here.
Hell, when your last Ecumenical Council was in the first millenium, I'm sure even Trent looks scandalous to them. Tongue
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #172 on: June 01, 2011, 10:13:37 AM »

Quote
Instead, it seems to be mostly traditionalist Catholics telling each other how great traditional Catholicism is.

If you consider that Orthodoxy IS in fact a form of 1st millenium traditional catholicism in many ways, one could see it that way...

A lot of the discovery of Orthodoxy is in fact a discovery of traditional catholicism (albeit typically with eastern traditions). The overlap is great. It's tradition that leads us all here.

I am afraid that many of you would be surely upset if your time machine plopped you into the middle of a Christian Church service in the eastern lands during the 9th or 10th centuries. Putting language aside, much of what you would witness would appear foreign or even scandalous to your 21st century eyes. External things do change and evolve - even in the world of Orthodoxy.
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #173 on: June 01, 2011, 02:43:47 PM »

Quote
Instead, it seems to be mostly traditionalist Catholics telling each other how great traditional Catholicism is.

If you consider that Orthodoxy IS in fact a form of 1st millenium traditional catholicism in many ways, one could see it that way...

A lot of the discovery of Orthodoxy is in fact a discovery of traditional catholicism (albeit typically with eastern traditions). The overlap is great. It's tradition that leads us all here.

I am afraid that many of you would be surely upset if your time machine plopped you into the middle of a Christian Church service in the eastern lands during the 9th or 10th centuries. Putting language aside, much of what you would witness would appear foreign or even scandalous to your 21st century eyes. External things do change and evolve - even in the world of Orthodoxy.

To say nothing of the fourth or fifth centuries. Once Christianity became the state church, each faction persecuted what it perceived as heresy with unbelieveably ferocious vehemence.
Logged
Xenia1918
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Praying for Divine guidance
Posts: 569



« Reply #174 on: June 26, 2011, 11:44:55 PM »

I think that for many people, Orthodoxy is a termination point in their investigations. They have done much research into different religions and have 'painted themselves into a corner' so to speak, by eliminating, one by one, all the competing faiths which they determine to be invalid. So I think for many people, their mindframe is "Orthodoxy or bust". That's my take, anyways.

That's how I see it. Orthodoxy is the end of the road. A very long road that began when I was 17 and I'm now 51.
Logged

"O God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our brothers the animals to whom Thou gavest the earth as their home in common with us..." (from the Prayer of St Basil the Great)

REAL RC: http://www.traditionalmass.org
REAL OC: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com
pasadi97
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 572


« Reply #175 on: July 24, 2011, 07:41:05 PM »

Read "abc to eternal life" to see that Eastern orthodox Church is the true Church established in year 33 by Jesus.
Logged
pasadi97
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 572


« Reply #176 on: July 24, 2011, 07:41:30 PM »

Read " abc to eternal life" on google.
Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #177 on: July 24, 2011, 08:36:43 PM »

It's done a lot for me, I was baptised and raised Roman Catholic...and it always felt so incomplete to me, I even went through an agnostic stage (even though I was still attending mass), then I discovered Orthodoxy and read into Orthodox Theology and the History of The Church...from then on I knew that the Orthodox Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. There is no question in my mind, it isn't "Orthodoxy or bust" for me, it just IS Orthodoxy.
Logged

Forgive my sins.
Xenia1918
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Praying for Divine guidance
Posts: 569



« Reply #178 on: July 25, 2011, 12:34:53 AM »

I have had several Catholic friends who have become atheists, and I think I was heading in that direction until I discovered Orthodoxy.
For that reason, I am very grateful to God.

I found these links to be very interesting.

Dostoyevsky - Origins of Modern Atheism

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/f-dostoyevsky-origins-of-modern-atheism.html

Catholicism and the Rise of Atheism


http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/catholicism-and-rise-of-atheism.html

Atheism - boast of our time

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/11/atheism-boast-of-our-time.html



I think that it is very easy to go from being a devout RC to an atheist, and here's why. Let's say you lived through Vatican ii...you were always told the RCC is the one true church, every priest is an alter Christus (another Christ), and then you see the liturgical and other devastation wrought by Vatican II and you start to think that maybe NO religion is the truth, if the RCC wasn't after all.

The only thing that kept me believing in God was the fact that I saw God in nature, and knew it could not have all just blown into being. I had always believed, both as an Orthodox Jew and later as a Traditional RC, that God made everything ex nihilo (from nothing). I never doubted it, I just doubted which religion was His!
« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 12:35:20 AM by Xenia1918 » Logged

"O God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our brothers the animals to whom Thou gavest the earth as their home in common with us..." (from the Prayer of St Basil the Great)

REAL RC: http://www.traditionalmass.org
REAL OC: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #179 on: July 27, 2011, 12:42:04 PM »

I have had several Catholic friends who have become atheists, and I think I was heading in that direction until I discovered Orthodoxy.
For that reason, I am very grateful to God.

I found these links to be very interesting.

Dostoyevsky - Origins of Modern Atheism

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/f-dostoyevsky-origins-of-modern-atheism.html

Catholicism and the Rise of Atheism


http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/catholicism-and-rise-of-atheism.html

Atheism - boast of our time

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/11/atheism-boast-of-our-time.html



I think that it is very easy to go from being a devout RC to an atheist, and here's why. Let's say you lived through Vatican ii...you were always told the RCC is the one true church, every priest is an alter Christus (another Christ), and then you see the liturgical and other devastation wrought by Vatican II and you start to think that maybe NO religion is the truth, if the RCC wasn't after all.

The only thing that kept me believing in God was the fact that I saw God in nature, and knew it could not have all just blown into being. I had always believed, both as an Orthodox Jew and later as a Traditional RC, that God made everything ex nihilo (from nothing). I never doubted it, I just doubted which religion was His!

You'd need then to account for the many millions who did not leave the Church yet became stronger in right belief and are willing to remain with the Church as the years after the Council unfold. 

There has never been a General Council that ended where everything was lovely afterwards.  In fact it is axiomatic that any general council raises the wrath of the demonic and the Church is beset, in one form or another,  for generations until the dust settles.

I don't think your journey in faith is anywhere near complete...yet.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,865



« Reply #180 on: July 27, 2011, 01:37:43 PM »

I have had several Catholic friends who have become atheists, and I think I was heading in that direction until I discovered Orthodoxy.
For that reason, I am very grateful to God.

I found these links to be very interesting.

Dostoyevsky - Origins of Modern Atheism

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/f-dostoyevsky-origins-of-modern-atheism.html

Catholicism and the Rise of Atheism


http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/catholicism-and-rise-of-atheism.html

Atheism - boast of our time

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/11/atheism-boast-of-our-time.html



I think that it is very easy to go from being a devout RC to an atheist, and here's why. Let's say you lived through Vatican ii...you were always told the RCC is the one true church, every priest is an alter Christus (another Christ), and then you see the liturgical and other devastation wrought by Vatican II and you start to think that maybe NO religion is the truth, if the RCC wasn't after all.

The only thing that kept me believing in God was the fact that I saw God in nature, and knew it could not have all just blown into being. I had always believed, both as an Orthodox Jew and later as a Traditional RC, that God made everything ex nihilo (from nothing). I never doubted it, I just doubted which religion was His!

You'd need then to account for the many millions who did not leave the Church yet became stronger in right belief and are willing to remain with the Church as the years after the Council unfold.
"Cultural Catholicism."  I've seen its influence even among the fallen: they still can't conceive of a Church without the pope.

There has never been a General Council that ended where everything was lovely afterwards.  In fact it is axiomatic that any general council raises the wrath of the demonic and the Church is beset, in one form or another,  for generations until the dust settles.
Ecumenical Councils are called when the Church is beset, they don't go out looking for trouble.  In the case of V II, called a "teaching council," it changed much that needed changing while throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I don't think your journey in faith is anywhere near complete...yet.
LOL.  The Eldress EM and her searching of souls and reading of hearts, matched only by the analysis of Dr. EM the psychologist (or do you consider yourself more a psychiatrist?). Of course Xenia's not complete:that's what the word "catechumen" means in her Faith Profile.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #181 on: July 27, 2011, 02:11:09 PM »

  In the case of V II, called a "teaching council," it changed much that needed changing while throwing the baby out with the bath water.


Professor Who?... Smiley

Vatican II is hardly yet begun and you have already been able to conclude the final chapters.

The fact that people panic and jump ship is hardly news to Orthodoxy.
Logged

Xenia1918
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Praying for Divine guidance
Posts: 569



« Reply #182 on: July 27, 2011, 02:42:08 PM »

I have had several Catholic friends who have become atheists, and I think I was heading in that direction until I discovered Orthodoxy.
For that reason, I am very grateful to God.

I found these links to be very interesting.

Dostoyevsky - Origins of Modern Atheism

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/f-dostoyevsky-origins-of-modern-atheism.html

Catholicism and the Rise of Atheism


http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/catholicism-and-rise-of-atheism.html

Atheism - boast of our time

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/11/atheism-boast-of-our-time.html



I think that it is very easy to go from being a devout RC to an atheist, and here's why. Let's say you lived through Vatican ii...you were always told the RCC is the one true church, every priest is an alter Christus (another Christ), and then you see the liturgical and other devastation wrought by Vatican II and you start to think that maybe NO religion is the truth, if the RCC wasn't after all.

The only thing that kept me believing in God was the fact that I saw God in nature, and knew it could not have all just blown into being. I had always believed, both as an Orthodox Jew and later as a Traditional RC, that God made everything ex nihilo (from nothing). I never doubted it, I just doubted which religion was His!

You'd need then to account for the many millions who did not leave the Church yet became stronger in right belief and are willing to remain with the Church as the years after the Council unfold.  

There has never been a General Council that ended where everything was lovely afterwards.  In fact it is axiomatic that any general council raises the wrath of the demonic and the Church is beset, in one form or another,  for generations until the dust settles.

I don't think your journey in faith is anywhere near complete...yet.

When I joined the RC Church I was a teenager, and very confused by what was going on in the Church. I didn't have the strength to remain, I recognize that.

If I were to be a practicing RC today, I would be a sedevacantist; I have never accepted the legitimacy of any of the alleged popes since V2. I don't believe the Traditional RCs left the Church; I believe the church left them.
But then I started thinking....if the RCC is so dependent on one man (the Pope) and if he becomes a heretic, then perhaps the real problem began not with V2 but with V1 and the declaration of papal infallibility? Granted, sedevacantists DO believe, most strongly, in the dogma of Papal infallibility and in the office of the Papacy; what they reject is the idea that any of the men since V2 were legitimate popes due to all the ecclesiastical horror they wrought and supported, and so they adopted the view that this is a period of (lengthy!) interregnum.

 I went beyond that and started thinking that perhaps the root problem was the whole dogma of papal infallibility.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 02:47:50 PM by Xenia1918 » Logged

"O God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our brothers the animals to whom Thou gavest the earth as their home in common with us..." (from the Prayer of St Basil the Great)

REAL RC: http://www.traditionalmass.org
REAL OC: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,865



« Reply #183 on: July 27, 2011, 03:01:05 PM »

 In the case of V II, called a "teaching council," it changed much that needed changing while throwing the baby out with the bath water.


Professor Who?... Smiley

Vatican II is hardly yet begun and you have already been able to conclude the final chapters.

The fact that people panic and jump ship is hardly news to Orthodoxy.
Was there a point in there somewhere?

Btw, University/seminary where?.... Smiley
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 03:12:02 PM by ialmisry » 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,865



« Reply #184 on: July 27, 2011, 03:06:23 PM »

I have had several Catholic friends who have become atheists, and I think I was heading in that direction until I discovered Orthodoxy.
For that reason, I am very grateful to God.

I found these links to be very interesting.

Dostoyevsky - Origins of Modern Atheism

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/f-dostoyevsky-origins-of-modern-atheism.html

Catholicism and the Rise of Atheism


http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/catholicism-and-rise-of-atheism.html

Atheism - boast of our time

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/11/atheism-boast-of-our-time.html



I think that it is very easy to go from being a devout RC to an atheist, and here's why. Let's say you lived through Vatican ii...you were always told the RCC is the one true church, every priest is an alter Christus (another Christ), and then you see the liturgical and other devastation wrought by Vatican II and you start to think that maybe NO religion is the truth, if the RCC wasn't after all.

The only thing that kept me believing in God was the fact that I saw God in nature, and knew it could not have all just blown into being. I had always believed, both as an Orthodox Jew and later as a Traditional RC, that God made everything ex nihilo (from nothing). I never doubted it, I just doubted which religion was His!

You'd need then to account for the many millions who did not leave the Church yet became stronger in right belief and are willing to remain with the Church as the years after the Council unfold.  

There has never been a General Council that ended where everything was lovely afterwards.  In fact it is axiomatic that any general council raises the wrath of the demonic and the Church is beset, in one form or another,  for generations until the dust settles.

I don't think your journey in faith is anywhere near complete...yet.

When I joined the RC Church I was a teenager, and very confused by what was going on in the Church. I didn't have the strength to remain, I recognize that.

If I were to be a practicing RC today, I would be a sedevacantist; I have never accepted the legitimacy of any of the alleged popes since V2. I don't believe the Traditional RCs left the Church; I believe the church left them.
But then I started thinking....if the RCC is so dependent on one man (the Pope) and if he becomes a heretic, then perhaps the real problem began not with V2 but with V1 and the declaration of papal infallibility? Granted, sedevacantists DO believe, most strongly, in the dogma of Papal infallibility and in the office of the Papacy; what they reject is the idea that any of the men since V2 were legitimate popes due to all the ecclesiastical horror they wrought and supported, and so they adopted the view that this is a period of (lengthy!) interregnum.

 I went beyond that and started thinking that perhaps the root problem was the whole dogma of papal infallibility.
Yes it's a real quandry for sedevanctists, one which they've never come up with a satisfactory solution (I remember a "bishop" of theirs telling me it was like when we don't know who the bishop of Chicago is (whether it was a reference to the 5 Orthodox bishops, or the OCA see being vacant, I couldn't get him pinned down on).  When I pointed out that the Orthodox Church doesn't define itself as the communion of the bishop of Chicago, nor was he commemorated at the DL over every Orthodox parish of the Catholic Church, and asked who they, as the "Catholic Church" commemorated as Pope, Suprem Pontiff and necessary successor of St. Peter (according to his own theology), he had no answer.
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
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #185 on: September 20, 2011, 09:56:02 PM »

I think that for many people, Orthodoxy is a termination point in their investigations. They have done much research into different religions and have 'painted themselves into a corner' so to speak, by eliminating, one by one, all the competing faiths which they determine to be invalid. So I think for many people, their mindframe is "Orthodoxy or bust". That's my take, anyways.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Thats is my take also but by metaphor was the apex of a pyramid of sorts.  Once you are at the top there is nowhere to go but DOWN! Wink
Logged
SeraphimMark
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Heaven
Posts: 16



« Reply #186 on: November 20, 2011, 12:32:07 AM »

Hello ,

I'm new to this forum , but I was interested in the topic mentioned. I was agnostic before I even considered becoming baptized in a Lutheran Church. I studied many different religions of the world prior to that.  But what sticks out in my mind while I was agnostic in studying all these different religions is  what makes the message of the Gospel unique.

 Not one single religion of the world teaches that God became man in the person of His Son, and  was willing to Sacrifice His Son for the sake of the world. So this stands out in my mind . For my part I had studied and researched different histories and religions and none teach this at all, period.  I thank God that I found the Orthodox Church because over time I see how the world changes always reinventing itself , and yet the Orthodox Church fullfills what the Holy Scriptures say about God being the same , yesterday and forever. Like her head the Orthodox Church remains steadfast in the Faith.

 At the same time I have to confess I also see the reality of sin even in those who are working their salvation in fear and trembling, but that even despite the tragedy of the Fall , God leaves us the means by which to be saved and come to Him no matter what are state is , He is always there waiting. Studying the Orthodoxy hasn't caused me to stop being Orthodox even when I was scandalized by reading how badly St Nectarios was treated by fellow clergy or the deprivations of Fr Aresny in the Russian Gulag. Or even reading Dr Zhivago, God was there.

I think the worst thing is perhaps becoming like an 'Intellectual" like Adolf Von Harnack. He read the Fathers and the writings of the early Church. He  even confirmed what they taught , but refused to convert out of indifferentism!  On the other hand a man like Dostoevsky found God again and came back to the Orthodox Faith. God works in mysterious ways when it comes to the hearts of men.  Men disbelieve God when they become god in their own minds .
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #187 on: December 04, 2011, 11:43:22 PM »

Well, I am no longer Catholic nor Orthodox, but I will give my experience.

I was born into a Protestant (Methodist, but my mother was born a Catholic).  To make a long story short, I was accepted into the Catholic church on the Easter Vigil of 2001 (I believe) at the age of 15, after completing RCIA and receivng my parents permission.
As a Catholic, I was the most devoted to God compared to any other time of my life, and would consider my spirituality strongly "Franicscan" with a pinch of "Carmel"; I focused more on writings on interior prayer (specifically the writings of John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila) in the place of formal theology (most of the Christological and Trinitarian debates I knew little about until I delved into Orthodoxy).  During the summer I would make it to Daily Mass and during the school year I would go to Eucharistic Adoration after school for about two hours daily.  I recited the Rosary around ten times a day (at least 15 decades before the tabernacle daily), as well as the Chaplet of Divine Mercy once per day and, or course, the Stations of the Cross on Friday.  Every Saturday I would make it to Confession.  If it sounds like I didn't have much of a social life, you guess correctly; but I didn't care too much for a social life at the time since I considered it a waste of time.  Due to my love of Francis of Assisi, and a call to the religious life, I was strongly considering the religious life after high school.  I was in contact with three Franicscan Orders (all reform Orders): the Franciscans Friars of the Immaculata, the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, and a reform order which broke away from the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, the Franciscan Friars of teh Primitive Observance (I was strongly considering this Order before converting to Orthodoxy since I felt they most fathly lived out the Rule of Franics as he originally wanted it to be followed).
When I finally was received into the Orthodox church on my 18th birthday, I had to leave a lot of my "Franciscan" practices behind (Eucharistic adoration, daily reception of the Eucharist, etc.) but I felt I made the right choice leaving the Catholic church for Orthodoxy.  To better understand my faith, I joined this website;