OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 11:08:52 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why do Protestants convert to Orthodoxy rather than Roman Catholicism?  (Read 24081 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,892


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #135 on: March 30, 2011, 02:01:10 AM »

Exactly, this is what my Orthodox Priest told me when I was inquiring. He advised me to stay Catholic until I could no longer in good conscience receive Holy Communion there.

I think what that priest said makes a lot of sense.

But it also reminds me of something I've sometimes wondered about: whether there are a lot of Catholics who, let's say, feel that they can in good conscience receive Holy Communion in a Melkite Catholic Church but not in a Latin (Roman-Rite) Catholic Church?

I am curious about what you mean by "in good conscience"?



Ask your priest.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #136 on: March 30, 2011, 09:47:18 AM »

Exactly, this is what my Orthodox Priest told me when I was inquiring. He advised me to stay Catholic until I could no longer in good conscience receive Holy Communion there.

I think what that priest said makes a lot of sense.

But it also reminds me of something I've sometimes wondered about: whether there are a lot of Catholics who, let's say, feel that they can in good conscience receive Holy Communion in a Melkite Catholic Church but not in a Latin (Roman-Rite) Catholic Church?

I am curious about what you mean by "in good conscience"?



Ask your priest.

Thank you, Maria dear.  I do know what the Church means by a good or well formed conscience, and what the Church means when she asks for an ascent of faith with regard to teachings.  

I also know that we are human and much of what we believe, in terms of Church teaching,  we truly do not understand and many who might say that they do are gnostic, prelest, an outright liar or some other negative state of being with respect to theology and the spiritual life.

No.   If I wanted to understand what my Church teaches I would not have asked here.

I really am trying to understand what Peter is meaning in his note.


« Last Edit: March 30, 2011, 09:48:50 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,031



« Reply #137 on: March 30, 2011, 11:10:27 AM »

elijahmaria, I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're asking either. As you indicated in your last post, "in good conscience" is a fairly well established and commonly used phrase. So ...
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #138 on: March 30, 2011, 11:17:41 AM »

But it also reminds me of something I've sometimes wondered about: whether there are a lot of Catholics who, let's say, feel that they can in good conscience receive Holy Communion in a Melkite Catholic Church but not in a Latin (Roman-Rite) Catholic Church?

Since you say that you use the Church's understanding of a well formed Catholic conscience here, I don't understand how you can even suggest that someone with a well-formed conscience would have difficulty receiving communion in either instance.

But since you do suggest the possibility, then I have to wonder what you mean by "in good conscience"....
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,031



« Reply #139 on: March 30, 2011, 11:59:23 AM »

But it also reminds me of something I've sometimes wondered about: whether there are a lot of Catholics who, let's say, feel that they can in good conscience receive Holy Communion in a Melkite Catholic Church but not in a Latin (Roman-Rite) Catholic Church?

Since you say that you use the Church's understanding of a well formed Catholic conscience here, I don't understand how you can even suggest that someone with a well-formed conscience would have difficulty receiving communion in either instance.

But since you do suggest the possibility, then I have to wonder what you mean by "in good conscience"....

Ah. So essentially you wanted to slam anyone who feels that they cannot, in good conscience, receive communion in the Catholic Church, or a subset of it.

Not to sound like a broken record, but do remember that it's lent.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #140 on: March 30, 2011, 12:11:02 PM »

But it also reminds me of something I've sometimes wondered about: whether there are a lot of Catholics who, let's say, feel that they can in good conscience receive Holy Communion in a Melkite Catholic Church but not in a Latin (Roman-Rite) Catholic Church?

Since you say that you use the Church's understanding of a well formed Catholic conscience here, I don't understand how you can even suggest that someone with a well-formed conscience would have difficulty receiving communion in either instance.

But since you do suggest the possibility, then I have to wonder what you mean by "in good conscience"....

Ah. So essentially you wanted to slam anyone who feels that they cannot, in good conscience, receive communion in the Catholic Church, or a subset of it.

Not to sound like a broken record, but do remember that it's lent.

Please don't use these bully tactics. This has been a very good discussion topic.  I have not "slammed" anyone.  I am asking you a question which either cannot answer or choose not to answer.

The point remains that a fully formed Catholic conscience, as defined by the Church [which is where you directed me for my understanding of your point] would not have difficulty receiving communion at either parish because they would understand that Donatism is a heresy, and that both liturgies are approved by the Church as valid forms of liturgical and eucharistic action.

So again:  what do YOU mean when you use the phrase "in good conscience"?
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,031



« Reply #141 on: March 30, 2011, 12:51:21 PM »

You are being ridiculous.

1. I didn't use "bully tactics". You did.


2.
The point remains that a fully formed Catholic conscience, as defined by the Church [which is where you directed me for my understanding of your point] ...

When?

So again:  what do YOU mean when you use the phrase "in good conscience"?

3. Sorry, I'm not taking the bait.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #142 on: March 30, 2011, 12:55:17 PM »

You are being ridiculous.

1. I didn't use "bully tactics". You did.

I don't think I am bullying you.  I think you are avoiding me.  That's ok.  We both know the answer in any event.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #143 on: March 30, 2011, 01:03:23 PM »

For those who might be confused: 

Using the Church's definition of a well formed Catholic conscience, if I attend a liturgy in the Roman rite that is said according to the rubrics and is reverential, then I cannot justify not receiving communion simply because I do not believe the Novus Ordo is a legitimate liturgy.    That is not proper exercise of "in good conscience."  There is always an element of obedience in the exercise of a well formed Catholic conscience.

However if I attend a liturgy that is clearly not being celebrated according to the rubrics and is not reverential then it is objectively obvious that I am at a liturgy that is neither licit nor is it valid.  I have every obligation, exercising a well formed Catholic conscience, to walk out of that liturgy and make the report to the bishop, unless it is the bishop celebrating and then my letter goes to the appropriate curial offices and to the office of the Holy Father.

So it is important to know what is meant when someone says "in good conscience".

Logged

jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #144 on: March 30, 2011, 01:28:43 PM »

Okay, sticking my hand into the piranha tank on this one.

While I sincerely believe that most Protestants convert to Orthodoxy out of personal conviction, I am convinced that a small number of Protestants (especially those from non-mainline, evangelical Protestantism) convert to Orthodoxy mainly because they wish to belong to an apostolic church that's simply "not Rome".  

There have been many evangelical Protestants that have happily converted to Roman Catholicism.  Also, there is now an ordinariate for Anglican converts.  There are not a few ex-Anglican priests and ex-Lutheran pastors now serving as Roman priests under dispensation.  

Nevertheless, I cannot shake the suspicion that some evangelicals will not even consider Rome when considering a move to apostolic Christianity.  What particularly galls me are the Protestants who convert to "Western Orthodoxy" and hear the Tridentine Mass in English.  Why not become Roman Catholic and hear Mass within the Church that is built around this liturgy?  It's all rather insulting.  I also think it's rather petty that someone would become Orthodox simply because they do not want to be perceived as Roman Catholic.

Yes, this post is inflammatory.  Nevertheless, I do have some strong biases about this issue.  I suspect that a number of evangelical converts to Orthodoxy often take a hard apologetic tack against Roman Catholicism out of historical prejudices and not a reasoned stance against Rome.



 It's not hard to find the East being right when one looks at the 1054 A.D. issue.

But as for myself, back when I first started reading the Fathers way back in 1997/1998 I naturally saw a connection a fluid continuity with Eastern Orthodoxy. And so I tried to become Orthodox way back then. It never happened, and so I was side tracked to something else:
http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/index.html (I was into them from 1997/1998 to about 2003)

and

http://stbrendanship.homestead.com/files/convergence2.htm (convergence movement) (I was into them from 1997/1998 to about September of 2006)


And I was officially Anglo-Catholic from 2003 to about when I was Chrismated as Orthodox.....which was in April of 2007


But in 1997/1998 the group I was into strongly advocated the Septuagint Scriptures. They also strongly advocated the pre-Nicene view of the Trinity. These two influences alone helped me to eventually look East again. You see, I knew that it would be extremely difficult to become Roman Catholic if I believed in the view of the Trinity that was more in line with Orthodox Christianity. Why become Roman Catholic if it would be easier to hold to an Orthodox view of the Trinity. That transition was a whole lot easier. Also, why be Roman Catholic when the Orthodox strongly advocate the Septuagint?

Also, why become Roman Catholic when the Orthodox are alot closer to the ethos, thought and practice of the early church? My mind was already closer to the East. I knew that I would have to constantly argue if I was Roman Catholic. I would have to argue in defense of Orthodox beliefs! No! I was tired of arguing, I was tired of fighting. I wanted to rest. I wanted a place to lay my head. A place to sleep.........a place to defend Orthodoxy without me ever trying or wanting to do so.

I became Orthodox, because I knew I was already closer to them than to Rome, and I didn't feel like constantly defending Orthodox Christian beliefs in Rome.  That would give anyone ulcers. Why would I want the stress?

No, I found rest here. I am happy here.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2011, 01:48:14 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,031



« Reply #145 on: March 30, 2011, 02:05:21 PM »

I think you are avoiding me. 

There are some times when it is better to simply not engage.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #146 on: March 30, 2011, 02:23:18 PM »

I think you are avoiding me. 

There are some times when it is better to simply not engage.

Then you should have said that rather than falsely accusing me of trying to bully anyone.  But we live and learn.

I believe I have clarified my interest in your words here:

For those who might be confused:

Using the Church's definition of a well formed Catholic conscience, if I attend a liturgy in the Roman rite that is said according to the rubrics and is reverential, then I cannot justify not receiving communion simply because I do not believe the Novus Ordo is a legitimate liturgy.    That is not proper exercise of "in good conscience."  There is always an element of obedience in the exercise of a well formed Catholic conscience.

However if I attend a liturgy that is clearly not being celebrated according to the rubrics and is not reverential then it is objectively obvious that I am at a liturgy that is neither licit nor is it valid.  I have every obligation, exercising a well formed Catholic conscience, to walk out of that liturgy and make the report to the bishop, unless it is the bishop celebrating and then my letter goes to the appropriate curial offices and to the office of the Holy Father.

So it is important to know what is meant when someone says "in good conscience".
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #147 on: March 30, 2011, 02:24:25 PM »


I became Orthodox, because I knew I was already closer to them than to Rome, and I didn't feel like constantly defending Orthodox Christian beliefs in Rome.  That would give anyone ulcers. Why would I want the stress?

No, I found rest here. I am happy here.

 Smiley One man's chore is another man's blessing!!  Smiley

But truly I am happy you have found peace!!
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,031



« Reply #148 on: March 30, 2011, 03:04:27 PM »

Then you should have said that rather than falsely accusing me of trying to bully anyone.

As I said on an earlier occasion, I'm not taking the bait.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,196



« Reply #149 on: March 30, 2011, 03:50:24 PM »

Because they don't agree with Roman Doctrine. It's not just about a Latin-Rite mass, it's about doctrine. Protestants who convert to Orthodoxy don't agree with Catholic doctrine.

...Ever think that it has nothing to do with not wanting to be Catholic and everything to do with not wanting to join a group whose doctrine you don't agree with?

...Many Protestant converts to Orthodoxy do explore the Roman Catholic Church before being chrismated; but once they read up on the history and beliefs of the Orthodox Church, and realize that we have remained unchanged in belief and doctrine since Pentecost (something Rome can't claim), they usually are happy to become Orthodox.

I wasn't evangelical but I was Protestant, and that last is exactly what happened. I started to read Christian history, and was astonished by what I found out about, for example, papal infallibility and the change in the filioque.
It would have actually made more "practical sense" to become Roman Catholic, since my husband was one, but, as handmaiden says, how could I join a group whose beliefs I did not share?
Most Orthodox, in my purely personal observation and experience (YMMV, of course) are not anti-Catholic or mad at the RCC. We just don't believe the same things, and it's silly to pretend otherwise.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,892


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #150 on: March 30, 2011, 07:34:43 PM »


I wasn't evangelical but I was Protestant, and that last is exactly what happened. I started to read Christian history, and was astonished by what I found out about, for example, papal infallibility and the change in the filioque.
It would have actually made more "practical sense" to become Roman Catholic, since my husband was one, but, as handmaiden says, how could I join a group whose beliefs I did not share?
Most Orthodox, in my purely personal observation and experience (YMMV, of course) are not anti-Catholic or mad at the RCC. We just don't believe the same things, and it's silly to pretend otherwise.

Very well stated.

Those of us who converted from Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy are also at home in Orthodoxy once we have moved beyond Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility. Once the issue of Papal powers is resolved, then the rest falls in place.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #151 on: March 30, 2011, 10:20:11 PM »

For those who might be confused: 

Using the Church's definition of a well formed Catholic conscience, if I attend a liturgy in the Roman rite that is said according to the rubrics and is reverential, then I cannot justify not receiving communion simply because I do not believe the Novus Ordo is a legitimate liturgy.    That is not proper exercise of "in good conscience."  There is always an element of obedience in the exercise of a well formed Catholic conscience.

However if I attend a liturgy that is clearly not being celebrated according to the rubrics and is not reverential then it is objectively obvious that I am at a liturgy that is neither licit nor is it valid.  I have every obligation, exercising a well formed Catholic conscience, to walk out of that liturgy and make the report to the bishop, unless it is the bishop celebrating and then my letter goes to the appropriate curial offices and to the office of the Holy Father.

So it is important to know what is meant when someone says "in good conscience".



I remember my stay with the Jesuits that they said if the Priest was a Muslim cleric in disguise and didn't celebrate anything properly but the "laity" truly thought they were communing, then in fact they would be or at least not taking part in something to their condemnation.

Am I wrong?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #152 on: March 30, 2011, 10:24:02 PM »

Not to sound like a broken record, but do remember that it's lent.

I dunno about bullying, but sin of piety much?

I thinks she knows it's Lent and you are not a mod to be shepherding the tone nor the content of the discussion one way or the other.

And if you don't want to sound like a broken record, then don't repeat yourself.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #153 on: March 30, 2011, 10:36:44 PM »

For those who might be confused: 

Using the Church's definition of a well formed Catholic conscience, if I attend a liturgy in the Roman rite that is said according to the rubrics and is reverential, then I cannot justify not receiving communion simply because I do not believe the Novus Ordo is a legitimate liturgy.    That is not proper exercise of "in good conscience."  There is always an element of obedience in the exercise of a well formed Catholic conscience.

However if I attend a liturgy that is clearly not being celebrated according to the rubrics and is not reverential then it is objectively obvious that I am at a liturgy that is neither licit nor is it valid.  I have every obligation, exercising a well formed Catholic conscience, to walk out of that liturgy and make the report to the bishop, unless it is the bishop celebrating and then my letter goes to the appropriate curial offices and to the office of the Holy Father.

So it is important to know what is meant when someone says "in good conscience".



I remember my stay with the Jesuits that they said if the Priest was a Muslim cleric in disguise and didn't celebrate anything properly but the "laity" truly thought they were communing, then in fact they would be or at least not taking part in something to their condemnation.

Am I wrong?

These particular Jesuits were out to lunch.  Yes.  I've heard the same thing.  Doesn't matter the source it is wrong.
Logged

orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #154 on: March 30, 2011, 10:40:20 PM »

For those who might be confused: 

Using the Church's definition of a well formed Catholic conscience, if I attend a liturgy in the Roman rite that is said according to the rubrics and is reverential, then I cannot justify not receiving communion simply because I do not believe the Novus Ordo is a legitimate liturgy.    That is not proper exercise of "in good conscience."  There is always an element of obedience in the exercise of a well formed Catholic conscience.

However if I attend a liturgy that is clearly not being celebrated according to the rubrics and is not reverential then it is objectively obvious that I am at a liturgy that is neither licit nor is it valid.  I have every obligation, exercising a well formed Catholic conscience, to walk out of that liturgy and make the report to the bishop, unless it is the bishop celebrating and then my letter goes to the appropriate curial offices and to the office of the Holy Father.

So it is important to know what is meant when someone says "in good conscience".



I remember my stay with the Jesuits that they said if the Priest was a Muslim cleric in disguise and didn't celebrate anything properly but the "laity" truly thought they were communing, then in fact they would be or at least not taking part in something to their condemnation.

Am I wrong?

These particular Jesuits were out to lunch.  Yes.  I've heard the same thing.  Doesn't matter the source it is wrong.

So what is the deal, if I pretend to be a RC Priest (I can look the part at times) and pull off a Mass successfully? What happened during the Communion and to the Communicates?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #155 on: March 30, 2011, 10:41:15 PM »

For those who might be confused: 

Using the Church's definition of a well formed Catholic conscience, if I attend a liturgy in the Roman rite that is said according to the rubrics and is reverential, then I cannot justify not receiving communion simply because I do not believe the Novus Ordo is a legitimate liturgy.    That is not proper exercise of "in good conscience."  There is always an element of obedience in the exercise of a well formed Catholic conscience.

However if I attend a liturgy that is clearly not being celebrated according to the rubrics and is not reverential then it is objectively obvious that I am at a liturgy that is neither licit nor is it valid.  I have every obligation, exercising a well formed Catholic conscience, to walk out of that liturgy and make the report to the bishop, unless it is the bishop celebrating and then my letter goes to the appropriate curial offices and to the office of the Holy Father.

So it is important to know what is meant when someone says "in good conscience".



I remember my stay with the Jesuits that they said if the Priest was a Muslim cleric in disguise and didn't celebrate anything properly but the "laity" truly thought they were communing, then in fact they would be or at least not taking part in something to their condemnation.

Am I wrong?

These particular Jesuits were out to lunch.  Yes.  I've heard the same thing.  Doesn't matter the source it is wrong.

So what is the deal, if I pretend to be a RC Priest (I can look the part at times) and pull off a Mass successfully? What happened during the Communion and to the Communicates?

You can see I am potential RC convert, given my inclination to absurd hypotheticals Wink
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,196



« Reply #156 on: March 31, 2011, 09:28:42 AM »

Those of us who converted from Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy are also at home in Orthodoxy once we have moved beyond Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility. Once the issue of Papal powers is resolved, then the rest falls in place.

My husband says that he feels like he found the "real Catholic Church" in Orthodoxy.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #157 on: March 31, 2011, 10:35:42 AM »

So what is the deal, if I pretend to be a RC Priest (I can look the part at times) and pull off a Mass successfully? What happened during the Communion and to the Communicates?

In Romanthink, layperson simulation of the sacraments is not only latae sententiae (automatic excommunication) but also a sin that might only be absolved with the permission of the Holy See.  That is, the excommunication cannot be lifted until the ordinary receives explicit instruction from Rome to absolve a layperson who has simulated a sacrament. 

Since you are Orthodox you would not be excommunicated of course, but perhaps your spiritual advisor might find your faux-Mass troubling.

From Rome's standpoint, a canonical Orthodox priest who says the Roman Mass celebrates a valid Mass.  As for Catholics hearing this Mass and receiving Communion: the Mass is "illicit", and probably wouldn't fulfill the Sunday obligation.  Still, I suspect that it would not be a sin to for a Catholic to receive Communion at this Mass if he or she is properly disposed to do so.  After all, it is the Holy Sacrifice, which is pure grace for souls.  Could Orthodox receive at this Mass?  Dunno, especially if the Roman Canon is said without a Byzantine epiclesis.

Get your ordination on and you can trinate votives, for all Rome cares.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 10:38:32 AM by jordanz » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #158 on: March 31, 2011, 10:41:24 AM »

For those who might be confused: 

Using the Church's definition of a well formed Catholic conscience, if I attend a liturgy in the Roman rite that is said according to the rubrics and is reverential, then I cannot justify not receiving communion simply because I do not believe the Novus Ordo is a legitimate liturgy.    That is not proper exercise of "in good conscience."  There is always an element of obedience in the exercise of a well formed Catholic conscience.

However if I attend a liturgy that is clearly not being celebrated according to the rubrics and is not reverential then it is objectively obvious that I am at a liturgy that is neither licit nor is it valid.  I have every obligation, exercising a well formed Catholic conscience, to walk out of that liturgy and make the report to the bishop, unless it is the bishop celebrating and then my letter goes to the appropriate curial offices and to the office of the Holy Father.

So it is important to know what is meant when someone says "in good conscience".



I remember my stay with the Jesuits that they said if the Priest was a Muslim cleric in disguise and didn't celebrate anything properly but the "laity" truly thought they were communing, then in fact they would be or at least not taking part in something to their condemnation.

Am I wrong?

These particular Jesuits were out to lunch.  Yes.  I've heard the same thing.  Doesn't matter the source it is wrong.

So what is the deal, if I pretend to be a RC Priest (I can look the part at times) and pull off a Mass successfully? What happened during the Communion and to the Communicates?

Now that I've read Jordan's exposition on Romanthink, I expect that anything that I would have to say, short of being more lurid, would be a dead bore  Smiley

Sometimes it is better just to watch.
Logged

Contarini
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian, belonging to the Anglican Communion, adhering to the teachings of the Seven Councils
Jurisdiction: The Episcopal Church
Posts: 14


« Reply #159 on: April 01, 2011, 02:25:26 PM »

for me it was the history, and the doctrine.
i once asked a catholic priest if i could become catholic if i believed only 95% of the doctrine.
he was horrified. i tried explaining that only 1 or 2 of his parishioners we more catholic than i was, but he didn't buy it!
i found that in the orthodox church i could accept 100% of the doctrine.


This is an issue for me as well. Though I wonder if he would have reacted differently if you said, "Can I become Catholic while accepting only those dogmas accepted by the Orthodox?" The way you put it sounds as if you're just picking and choosing.

I have thought of going to a Catholic priest and asking the above question, myself.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,031



« Reply #160 on: April 01, 2011, 05:56:08 PM »

for me it was the history, and the doctrine.
i once asked a catholic priest if i could become catholic if i believed only 95% of the doctrine.
he was horrified. i tried explaining that only 1 or 2 of his parishioners we more catholic than i was, but he didn't buy it!
i found that in the orthodox church i could accept 100% of the doctrine.


This is an issue for me as well. Though I wonder if he would have reacted differently if you said, "Can I become Catholic while accepting only those dogmas accepted by the Orthodox?"

Very possibly he would have.

But doesn't that strike as a very strange question to ask in any case? (As, conversely "Can I become Orthodox while accepting those dogmas accepted by Catholics?" would be a strange thing to ask.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,892


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #161 on: April 01, 2011, 09:38:17 PM »

for me it was the history, and the doctrine.
i once asked a catholic priest if i could become catholic if i believed only 95% of the doctrine.
he was horrified. i tried explaining that only 1 or 2 of his parishioners we more catholic than i was, but he didn't buy it!
i found that in the orthodox church i could accept 100% of the doctrine.


This is an issue for me as well. Though I wonder if he would have reacted differently if you said, "Can I become Catholic while accepting only those dogmas accepted by the Orthodox?"

Very possibly he would have.

But doesn't that strike as a very strange question to ask in any case? (As, conversely "Can I become Orthodox while accepting those dogmas accepted by Catholics?" would be a strange thing to ask.)

That has happened. I know several Catholics who did not want to renounce their beliefs in Catholic dogmas, yet they wanted to become Orthodox because they did not like all the changes in the Mass. Because of questions like this, the Orthodox Priest replied that inquirers from certain Protestant denominations are more docile and open to Orthodoxy. Therefore, these protestant converts usually had a much shorter catechumenate whereas Catholic converts could spend as long as three years studying Orthodoxy, acquiring her ethos, and trying to live the faith.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2011, 09:43:28 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,031



« Reply #162 on: April 02, 2011, 10:19:50 AM »

So what is the deal, if I pretend to be a RC Priest (I can look the part at times) and pull off a Mass successfully? What happened during the Communion and to the Communicates?

In Romanthink, layperson simulation of the sacraments is not only latae sententiae (automatic excommunication) but also a sin that might only be absolved with the permission of the Holy See.  That is, the excommunication cannot be lifted until the ordinary receives explicit instruction from Rome to absolve a layperson who has simulated a sacrament. 

Since you are Orthodox you would not be excommunicated of course, but perhaps your spiritual advisor might find your faux-Mass troubling.

jordanz, there are a couple things that I take issue with in your post. I've been debating with myself whether it's worth getting into them, but here goes ...

For one thing, that last sentence quoted above strikes me as awfully presumptuous. I'm willing to take your word for it that an Orthodox person would not be excommunicated for said crime; but by saying "of course" you make it sound like the Orthodox Church never excommunicates anyone (or even like they can't do so). Or perhaps you just meant to say "of course you would not be excommunicated by the Catholic Church".

Then there's the matter of:

From Rome's standpoint, a canonical Orthodox priest who says the Roman Mass celebrates a valid Mass.  As for Catholics hearing this Mass and receiving Communion: the Mass is "illicit"

This claim has been made many times on various internet fora, that the Catholic Church considers Orthodox sacraments to be illicit, but I never yet gotten anyone of the posters to show me where the Catholic Church made that statement -- and not for lacking of asking. Can you? (Note: I'm not saying you're wrong -- I admit I don't have any evidence to show that the RCC has not made such a statement. But I think that if you're going around claiming that she has said that, you should be able to back it up.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #163 on: April 02, 2011, 12:41:48 PM »


This claim has been made many times on various internet fora, that the Catholic Church considers Orthodox sacraments to be illicit, but I never yet gotten anyone of the posters to show me where the Catholic Church made that statement -- and not for lacking of asking. Can you? (Note: I'm not saying you're wrong -- I admit I don't have any evidence to show that the RCC has not made such a statement. But I think that if you're going around claiming that she has said that, you should be able to back it up.)

I agree with you here Peter.  In fact I have said in other threads that it makes no sense for the Catholic Church to say anything about legal aspects of anything outside of their own traditional canonical jurisdiction, which is tied directly to the western code of canon law.  You won't even see anything come out of the Vatican concerning the eastern Catholic Churches that says one word about "licit" anything, since those Churches have their own code of canons.

So the assertion that the Orthodox liturgies and sacraments are valid but illicit, according to the Vatican,  is simply a canonical absurdity.

« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 01:06:37 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,500



« Reply #164 on: April 02, 2011, 02:08:49 PM »

This claim has been made many times on various internet fora, that the Catholic Church considers Orthodox sacraments to be illicit, but I never yet gotten anyone of the posters to show me where the Catholic Church made that statement -- and not for lacking of asking. Can you? (Note: I'm not saying you're wrong -- I admit I don't have any evidence to show that the RCC has not made such a statement. But I think that if you're going around claiming that she has said that, you should be able to back it up.)
I agree with you here Peter.  In fact I have said in other threads that it makes no sense for the Catholic Church to say anything about legal aspects of anything outside of their own traditional canonical jurisdiction, which is tied directly to the western code of canon law.  You won't even see anything come out of the Vatican concerning the eastern Catholic Churches that says one word about "licit" anything, since those Churches have their own code of canons.So the assertion that the Orthodox liturgies and sacraments are valid but illicit, according to the Vatican,  is simply a canonical absurdity.
I agree although I have seen the claim, have found nothing in terms of evidence for the claim
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #165 on: April 02, 2011, 02:30:03 PM »

This claim has been made many times on various internet fora, that the Catholic Church considers Orthodox sacraments to be illicit, but I never yet gotten anyone of the posters to show me where the Catholic Church made that statement -- and not for lacking of asking. Can you? (Note: I'm not saying you're wrong -- I admit I don't have any evidence to show that the RCC has not made such a statement. But I think that if you're going around claiming that she has said that, you should be able to back it up.)
I agree with you here Peter.  In fact I have said in other threads that it makes no sense for the Catholic Church to say anything about legal aspects of anything outside of their own traditional canonical jurisdiction, which is tied directly to the western code of canon law.  You won't even see anything come out of the Vatican concerning the eastern Catholic Churches that says one word about "licit" anything, since those Churches have their own code of canons.So the assertion that the Orthodox liturgies and sacraments are valid but illicit, according to the Vatican,  is simply a canonical absurdity.
I agree although I have seen the claim, have found nothing in terms of evidence for the claim

Not to put too fine or final a point on any conclusion of this line of reasoning but it seems to me that this is where our respective hierarchs begin when laying out the jurisdictional lines should there be a resumption of communion...which is why it is so important for Orthodoxy to get their own internal lines in order first.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 02:30:32 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

mabsoota
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 2,417


Kyrie eleison


« Reply #166 on: April 03, 2011, 02:23:12 PM »

hi, contarini,
what orthodox doctrines do you agree with/ disagree with and why?
would you like to discuss it?
i had very patient orthodox friends and priests who explained everything to me, using the Bible as the principle source.
when i saw how much their loved the Bible, i became serious about becoming orthodox.

so far, 100% of the doctrine makes sense! so i became orthodox, not catholic.
eg. ezekiel 44:2 (the closed gate) is a picture of saint mary's womb. so she had to be always a virgin, and it is correct to venerate her (think highly of her and love her) as the ever-virgin mother of God as God Himself took flesh in her womb.

catholics think this too, but they took it further to say she had to be conceived in some special way. we believe she was a normal human, just a really devout, kind, pure, lovely one.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #167 on: April 03, 2011, 02:31:30 PM »

catholics think this too, but they took it further to say she had to be conceived in some special way. we believe she was a normal human, just a really devout, kind, pure, lovely one.

I bet most Orthodox would agree she was conceived in a uncommon way. Her conception was "immaculate". It is the reasons for the belief the RCs give which are unOrthodox, not the "special" nature of her conception.

I nearly would say her conception unique; however, I've heard Orthodox hold John the Forerunner's conception to be as uncorrupted by sin (lust, carnal desire, etc. as the Virgin Mary's).
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,031



« Reply #168 on: April 03, 2011, 03:52:34 PM »

catholics think this too, but they took it further to say she had to be conceived in some special way. we believe she was a normal human, just a really devout, kind, pure, lovely one.

I bet most Orthodox would agree she was conceived in a uncommon way. Her conception was "immaculate". It is the reasons for the belief the RCs give which are unOrthodox, not the "special" nature of her conception.

I'm glad you said that, I was a little puzzled by mabsoota's statement.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
mabsoota
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 2,417


Kyrie eleison


« Reply #169 on: April 03, 2011, 04:40:05 PM »

as far as i know, only the catholics (and lots of protestants) believe in saint augustine's doctrine of original sin.
in the oriental orthodox churches we believe we inherited mortality, not sin, from adam.
i thought the EO churches believed the same, maybe i am wrong (i am primarily here to learn).

it's because of the doctrine of inherited sin, that those who believe that way must say that saint mary had some special conception where she got to avoid inheriting the original sin.

of course, her birth and life are special, she is the most special woman ever.
may her prayers be with us all.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,031



« Reply #170 on: April 03, 2011, 05:04:15 PM »

I always though that Purgatory was a hopeful doctrine (is it any more or less hopeful than the Final Theosis?  What's the difference, really?) but I'm not going to belabor the point.  

Out of curiosity, what is "Final Theosis"? I've not heard of that term before--leastwise, as far as I can remember.

See
http://www.east2west.org/doctrine.htm#Purgatory
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #171 on: April 03, 2011, 05:04:24 PM »

as far as i know, only the catholics (and lots of protestants) believe in saint augustine's doctrine of original sin.
in the oriental orthodox churches we believe we inherited mortality, not sin, from adam.
i thought the EO churches believed the same, maybe i am wrong (i am primarily here to learn).

it's because of the doctrine of inherited sin, that those who believe that way must say that saint mary had some special conception where she got to avoid inheriting the original sin.

of course, her birth and life are special, she is the most special woman ever.
may her prayers be with us all.

I made no mention of original sin. Again, that is the heresy the RCs created which they had to fix with their theology of IC.

The Orthodox view as I have read, heard, and understand it is what I stated above in a very simplistic form. Through the work of generations in submission to God to varying degrees of success a couple were produced who were capable of creating a child in a sexual embrace free of sin.

This however didn't make Mary free of sin as such, but like her generations she worked out her relationship with God in a day to day manner in such a way that she could assent to being the Bearer and Mother of God which invariably means she didn't sin in any grave manner.

Nothing magical or mysterious. As it has been said: the Theotokos ain't the Great Exception, she is the Great Example.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 05:08:43 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,031



« Reply #172 on: April 03, 2011, 05:07:47 PM »

as far as i know, only the catholics (and lots of protestants) believe in saint augustine's doctrine of original sin.
in the oriental orthodox churches we believe we inherited mortality, not sin, from adam.
i thought the EO churches believed the same, maybe i am wrong (i am primarily here to learn).

I don't want to speaks for them, but what you just said sounds like what I've heard from EOs.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,278


Mzack.


« Reply #173 on: April 03, 2011, 05:14:00 PM »

I always though that Purgatory was a hopeful doctrine (is it any more or less hopeful than the Final Theosis?  What's the difference, really?) but I'm not going to belabor the point.  

Out of curiosity, what is "Final Theosis"? I've not heard of that term before--leastwise, as far as I can remember.

See
http://www.east2west.org/doctrine.htm#Purgatory

Ahh, thank you Smiley
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #174 on: April 03, 2011, 05:20:08 PM »

as far as i know, only the catholics (and lots of protestants) believe in saint augustine's doctrine of original sin.
in the oriental orthodox churches we believe we inherited mortality, not sin, from adam.
i thought the EO churches believed the same, maybe i am wrong (i am primarily here to learn).

I don't want to speaks for them, but what you just said sounds like what I've heard from EOs.

Original sin and ancestral ain't the same. But to separate death from sin is utterly unBiblical.

Sin in not necessarily an act per se. The state of the natural order is a product of the fall. People are not to die in earthquakes and the like. Babies ain't to be born with cancer. We ain't to be born with certain proclivities (prolepses) toward lust, homosexuality, alcoholism, anger, etc. and we are.

How we respond to those inherited conditions as the result of the fall is another thing all together.

We carry the entire humanity of our genealogies with us. The dualism of infused spirits and the like is unChristian.

Remember Seth was made in the image and likeness of Adam. The story of Old Covenant to Mary is the working out in flesh and blood (and that is to say "spirit" as well) of a people to produce a woman capable of assenting and working with God to bear His Son.

There was no need to God to clean up the sinfulness of sex ahead of time to prepare the way for Mary.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,892


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #175 on: April 03, 2011, 05:29:32 PM »

I think that the EO Church originally taught that Original Sin was passed down to us.

Check the church fathers.

Anyway, there was an interesting debate between an old retired Greek Orthodox Priest and a new graduate from Holy Cross Seminary. The older priest was taught that Original Sin is passed down, but the new priest was taught that only the Ancestral Curse affected us.

Perhaps this should be discussed in another thread. Any links?
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #176 on: April 03, 2011, 10:40:24 PM »

Sex is sinful? I'd argue against that.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Contarini
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian, belonging to the Anglican Communion, adhering to the teachings of the Seven Councils
Jurisdiction: The Episcopal Church
Posts: 14


« Reply #177 on: April 04, 2011, 12:46:20 PM »

hi, contarini,
what orthodox doctrines do you agree with/ disagree with and why?

Like many Anglo-Catholics, I accept the teachings of the "Undivided Church" (i.e., the Catholic/Orthodox Church of the first millennium). I further accept the Orthodox claim that no doctrinal developments in their Church since the Schism have compromised their adherents to those teachings, and I accept the East rather than the West as the best interpreter of those teachings.

The only major point on which I differ with Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy's understanding of the Church. I hold to a "baptismal ecclesiology" in which all who are baptized in water in the name of the Trinity belong to the Church in some sense. I am not sure that this is necessarily incompatible with Orthodoxy, but most Orthodox language about the non-Orthodox seems to presuppose the falsity of such a position. Furthermore, whether the position is compatible with Orthodoxy or not, my ecclesiology makes me very unwilling to abandon the congregation to which I belong (and further spurn the two RC churches in my town) and drive nearly 30 miles to an Orthodox church. Obviously I have personal reasons for this unwillingness as well, but it is a theological issue. I believe that the Body of Christ is present in my town and I am not going to abandon it. If I were to move to a place where there was an Orthodox parish in my immediate vicinity, I would at least consider joining it--but I'd have to be honest with the priest about my reasons for not becoming Orthodox sooner, and he might find this a reason to refuse me (or he might convince me to change my mind--you are welcome to try this also!).

I also have historical problems with the relation between Church and state in Orthodoxy--the most specific focus for these issues is the canonization of Constantine and other rulers of doubtful holiness, but I recognize that at least some Christians in communion with Rome also consider Constantine a saint! Primarily, these issues make it hard for me to abandon my ecclesiology for a more thorough-going, unequivocal acknowledgment of Orthodoxy as the "true Church." Orthodoxy is in my opinion the "sounder part of the Church," to use Richard Hooker's language--but I have trouble acknowledging it as the "one true Church."

I have some squeamishness about the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos, but since that is certainly a tradition of the Undivided Church I consider myself obliged to submit my 21st-century prejudices to the wisdom of the ancient Church on that point. I am tentatively also willing to do this with regard to women's ordination, though I'm not convinced that the theological arguments for women's ordination have been duly considered and rejected within either Catholicism or Orthodoxy, so I regard that as still to some extent an open question.
Logged
Contarini
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian, belonging to the Anglican Communion, adhering to the teachings of the Seven Councils
Jurisdiction: The Episcopal Church
Posts: 14


« Reply #178 on: April 04, 2011, 12:47:25 PM »

I think that the EO Church originally taught that Original Sin was passed down to us.

Check the church fathers.


I do not find in any Father before Augustine the teaching that the guilt of sin is inherited. I find language about an inherited "stain" and inherited "corruption."

If you find Augustine's teaching in earlier Fathers, where do you find it?

Edwin
Logged
mabsoota
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 2,417


Kyrie eleison


« Reply #179 on: April 04, 2011, 05:01:14 PM »

hi contarini,
thanks for answering my question, it's good to see your carefully thought-out arguments.
certainly the influence on the state on the church has been a terrible thing through the ages
(yes, i really do think it is that bad).

those churches that have suffered a lot seem to be doing better (like in north africa and west asia) than those that succumbed to a theology of comfort (which is all of us to one degree or another).
however, in my (almost) humble opinion, i think one of the churches that suffered most of all from state interference has been the anglican church (i live in uk). despite pockets of beauty and true faith, it seems to be sliding ever more into the sea of liberalism and new age theology. even many of the churches that have icons teach that sex outside marriage is ok, and basically as long as you don't actually kill anyone, other sins aren't so bad.
personally, i have had some beautiful experiences of the love of God in anglican churches, however, the general trends worry me.

at the time of a recent bird 'flu scare in the uk, i noticed that many churches (even catholic) had stopped giving the Blood of the Lord in the Holy Communion incase anyone caught germs from using the same cup. i told my orthodox friends about that; we could hardly hold back from laughing! as if the Blood of Christ could give someone bird 'flu...

so, my church is not perfect, but i like the fact that all the theology is clear, and also people have a relationship with God that makes it possible to obey Him.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.159 seconds with 71 queries.