OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 06:32:35 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: how easy is it to join the Catholic Church?  (Read 3739 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #45 on: May 22, 2011, 09:14:42 PM »

Wyatt:  I call you schismatics because you, Roman Catholics, are schismatics.  In 1054, your pope ex-communicated himself from the Holy Orthodox Church and became a heretic.  I would think that, with all of your activity on this forum, you'd have picked up on that one.  Sorry, but if this offends you so much, perhaps this is the wrong forum for you.  police

This is the last I'll say on the matter.
I'm well aware of what the Eastern Orthodox view of us is. I, as a RC, would consider the Eastern Orthodox Church to be in schism, yet I try not to throw "schismatic" around all the time. It's a matter of courtesy and respect.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #46 on: May 22, 2011, 09:18:14 PM »

that's unfortunate.  I'll stop posting in this thread.  joking was NOT my intention.

Do you realize you said this less than 30 minutes after the thread started?

So you're saying he should have been honest with us (which he was), but let us sweat it out while he waited to respond?  Huh

No, the point I'm trying to make is that he should be a little bit patient, and not give up on a thread such a short time after starting it. I for example, didn't notice that this thread existed until it was a couple hours old; I'm sure a bunch of other posters will notice it for the first time tomorrow or the next day.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #47 on: May 22, 2011, 09:23:10 PM »

A friend of mine, cradle Orthodox, became Roman Catholic, yet he had to go through confirmation, as I understand.

Did he tell you his reasons for converting?

As far as the confirmation, as stanley said that shouldn't have happened, if he had already been validly confirmed (chrismated).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #48 on: May 22, 2011, 09:30:22 PM »

that's unfortunate.  I'll stop posting in this thread.  joking was NOT my intention.

Do you realize you said this less than 30 minutes after the thread started?

So you're saying he should have been honest with us (which he was), but let us sweat it out while he waited to respond?  Huh

Well given the fact that he was talking about his own old parish where people still recognize him, I think it was wise of him to back out of that one.  It was something of a put on...or more likely just an attention getter.



I'll just clarify something to you, elijahmaria.  I went to this parish when I was 11 years old.  I sat at the back with my father who started and stopped attending when I did.  the people didn't know me.  neither did the priest.  the priest even gave me (a Presbyterian child at the time) communion with everyone else, but didn't know me well enough to know who I was and to tell me not to receive communion.  no one recognized me at all at that Church.  This priest that I refer to in my original post is a different priest from the one serving in that church when I attended 6 years ago.

Wyatt:  I call you schismatics because you, Roman Catholics, are schismatics.  In 1054, your pope ex-communicated himself from the Holy Orthodox Church and became a heretic.  I would think that, with all of your activity on this forum, you'd have picked up on that one.  Sorry, but if this offends you so much, perhaps this is the wrong forum for you.  police

This is the last I'll say on the matter.
Don't you have to decide if RC are heretics or schismatics? Generally, being a schismatic would not imply heresy, is that correct?  But if you are a heretic, aren't you already a schismatic, and even worse than that, as heresy is worse than schism?
Also, I don't see how you can seriously claim that the Pope excommunicated himself from the Orthodox Church in 1054, since there was no living Pope on July 16, 1054 when Cardinal Humbert of Mourmoutiers gave out his bull of excommunication. The 153rd Pope of the Catholic Church, Pope St. Leo IX, died on April 19, 1054, and the 154th Pope of the Catholic Church, Pope Victor II was elected Pope on April 13, 1055. Can you please explain how a dead Pope can excommunicate himself in 1054 from the Orthodox Church?
Logged
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #49 on: May 22, 2011, 09:50:55 PM »

that's unfortunate.  I'll stop posting in this thread.  joking was NOT my intention.

Do you realize you said this less than 30 minutes after the thread started?

So you're saying he should have been honest with us (which he was), but let us sweat it out while he waited to respond?  Huh

Well given the fact that he was talking about his own old parish where people still recognize him, I think it was wise of him to back out of that one.  It was something of a put on...or more likely just an attention getter.



I'll just clarify something to you, elijahmaria.  I went to this parish when I was 11 years old.  I sat at the back with my father who started and stopped attending when I did.  the people didn't know me.  neither did the priest.  the priest even gave me (a Presbyterian child at the time) communion with everyone else, but didn't know me well enough to know who I was and to tell me not to receive communion.  no one recognized me at all at that Church.  This priest that I refer to in my original post is a different priest from the one serving in that church when I attended 6 years ago.

Wyatt:  I call you schismatics because you, Roman Catholics, are schismatics.  In 1054, your pope ex-communicated himself from the Holy Orthodox Church and became a heretic.  I would think that, with all of your activity on this forum, you'd have picked up on that one.  Sorry, but if this offends you so much, perhaps this is the wrong forum for you.  police

This is the last I'll say on the matter.
Don't you have to decide if RC are heretics or schismatics? Generally, being a schismatic would not imply heresy, is that correct?  But if you are a heretic, aren't you already a schismatic, and even worse than that, as heresy is worse than schism?
Also, I don't see how you can seriously claim that the Pope excommunicated himself from the Orthodox Church in 1054, since there was no living Pope on July 16, 1054 when Cardinal Humbert of Mourmoutiers gave out his bull of excommunication. The 153rd Pope of the Catholic Church, Pope St. Leo IX, died on April 19, 1054, and the 154th Pope of the Catholic Church, Pope Victor II was elected Pope on April 13, 1055. Can you please explain how a dead Pope can excommunicate himself in 1054 from the Orthodox Church?
Did Humbert not have authorization? Were Humberts actions condemned by Victor when he took the throne?

I once suggested that Humbert's actions should be condemned by the modern Catholic Church as a show of goodwill toward the East. This was shouted down by Catholics, indicating he wasn't seen as being "wrong". It seems, therefore, that he is quite representative of the Latin Church, both then and now.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #50 on: May 22, 2011, 10:03:04 PM »

that's unfortunate.  I'll stop posting in this thread.  joking was NOT my intention.

Do you realize you said this less than 30 minutes after the thread started?

So you're saying he should have been honest with us (which he was), but let us sweat it out while he waited to respond?  Huh

Well given the fact that he was talking about his own old parish where people still recognize him, I think it was wise of him to back out of that one.  It was something of a put on...or more likely just an attention getter.



I'll just clarify something to you, elijahmaria.  I went to this parish when I was 11 years old.  I sat at the back with my father who started and stopped attending when I did.  the people didn't know me.  neither did the priest.  the priest even gave me (a Presbyterian child at the time) communion with everyone else, but didn't know me well enough to know who I was and to tell me not to receive communion.  no one recognized me at all at that Church.  This priest that I refer to in my original post is a different priest from the one serving in that church when I attended 6 years ago.

Wyatt:  I call you schismatics because you, Roman Catholics, are schismatics.  In 1054, your pope ex-communicated himself from the Holy Orthodox Church and became a heretic.  I would think that, with all of your activity on this forum, you'd have picked up on that one.  Sorry, but if this offends you so much, perhaps this is the wrong forum for you.  police

This is the last I'll say on the matter.
Don't you have to decide if RC are heretics or schismatics? Generally, being a schismatic would not imply heresy, is that correct?  But if you are a heretic, aren't you already a schismatic, and even worse than that, as heresy is worse than schism?
Also, I don't see how you can seriously claim that the Pope excommunicated himself from the Orthodox Church in 1054, since there was no living Pope on July 16, 1054 when Cardinal Humbert of Mourmoutiers gave out his bull of excommunication. The 153rd Pope of the Catholic Church, Pope St. Leo IX, died on April 19, 1054, and the 154th Pope of the Catholic Church, Pope Victor II was elected Pope on April 13, 1055. Can you please explain how a dead Pope can excommunicate himself in 1054 from the Orthodox Church?
Did Humbert not have authorization? Were Humberts actions condemned by Victor when he took the throne?

I once suggested that Humbert's actions should be condemned by the modern Catholic Church as a show of goodwill toward the East. This was shouted down by Catholics, indicating he wasn't seen as being "wrong". It seems, therefore, that he is quite representative of the Latin Church, both then and now.
Yes. That is open to discussion and a lot of what you say is right. But also, is there historical agreement on what was contained in the letter of excommunication? I have seen different versions, saying different things.
In any case, I don't see how it would have  been possible for a dead pope to excommunicate himself in 1054? According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, can a dead man excommunicate himself, after death? That seems problematical to me.
Logged
TristanCross
Chief Of Sinners
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Posts: 348


Romans 10:9-10


« Reply #51 on: May 22, 2011, 10:06:11 PM »

Like many have said, the formal process is through RCIA (baptism, communion, and confirmation are the main goals of RCIA). However, for Orthodox Christians, we can actually take communion in their Church (though, our own Church does not permit this) any can participate in any of their sacraments. Though, if an Orthodox Christian wanted to fully join the Catholic Church, they would have to go to RCIA for confirmation only.
Logged

"Let the mouth also fast from disgraceful speeches and railings. For what does it profit if we abstain from fish and fowl and yet bite and devour our brothers and sisters? The evil speaker eats the flesh of his brother and bites the body of his neighbor. "
— St. John Chrysostom
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #52 on: May 22, 2011, 10:14:49 PM »

that's unfortunate.  I'll stop posting in this thread.  joking was NOT my intention.

Do you realize you said this less than 30 minutes after the thread started?

So you're saying he should have been honest with us (which he was), but let us sweat it out while he waited to respond?  Huh

Well given the fact that he was talking about his own old parish where people still recognize him, I think it was wise of him to back out of that one.  It was something of a put on...or more likely just an attention getter.



I'll just clarify something to you, elijahmaria.  I went to this parish when I was 11 years old.  I sat at the back with my father who started and stopped attending when I did.  the people didn't know me.  neither did the priest.  the priest even gave me (a Presbyterian child at the time) communion with everyone else, but didn't know me well enough to know who I was and to tell me not to receive communion.  no one recognized me at all at that Church.  This priest that I refer to in my original post is a different priest from the one serving in that church when I attended 6 years ago.

Wyatt:  I call you schismatics because you, Roman Catholics, are schismatics.  In 1054, your pope ex-communicated himself from the Holy Orthodox Church and became a heretic.  I would think that, with all of your activity on this forum, you'd have picked up on that one.  Sorry, but if this offends you so much, perhaps this is the wrong forum for you.  police

This is the last I'll say on the matter.
Don't you have to decide if RC are heretics or schismatics? Generally, being a schismatic would not imply heresy, is that correct?  But if you are a heretic, aren't you already a schismatic, and even worse than that, as heresy is worse than schism?
Also, I don't see how you can seriously claim that the Pope excommunicated himself from the Orthodox Church in 1054, since there was no living Pope on July 16, 1054 when Cardinal Humbert of Mourmoutiers gave out his bull of excommunication. The 153rd Pope of the Catholic Church, Pope St. Leo IX, died on April 19, 1054, and the 154th Pope of the Catholic Church, Pope Victor II was elected Pope on April 13, 1055. Can you please explain how a dead Pope can excommunicate himself in 1054 from the Orthodox Church?
Did Humbert not have authorization? Were Humberts actions condemned by Victor when he took the throne?

I once suggested that Humbert's actions should be condemned by the modern Catholic Church as a show of goodwill toward the East. This was shouted down by Catholics, indicating he wasn't seen as being "wrong". It seems, therefore, that he is quite representative of the Latin Church, both then and now.
Yes. That is open to discussion and a lot of what you say is right. But also, is there historical agreement on what was contained in the letter of excommunication? I have seen different versions, saying different things.
In any case, I don't see how it would have  been possible for a dead pope to excommunicate himself in 1054? According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, can a dead man excommunicate himself, after death? That seems problematical to me.

Which is why the historic excommunication was lifted. Both were illegitimate.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,112


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #53 on: May 22, 2011, 10:17:25 PM »

Quote from: Kasatkin fan
Which is why the historic excommunication was lifted. Both were illegitimate.


Yay!  Grin This made me smile.
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/
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #54 on: May 22, 2011, 10:20:48 PM »

that's unfortunate.  I'll stop posting in this thread.  joking was NOT my intention.

Do you realize you said this less than 30 minutes after the thread started?

So you're saying he should have been honest with us (which he was), but let us sweat it out while he waited to respond?  Huh

Well given the fact that he was talking about his own old parish where people still recognize him, I think it was wise of him to back out of that one.  It was something of a put on...or more likely just an attention getter.



I'll just clarify something to you, elijahmaria.  I went to this parish when I was 11 years old.  I sat at the back with my father who started and stopped attending when I did.  the people didn't know me.  neither did the priest.  the priest even gave me (a Presbyterian child at the time) communion with everyone else, but didn't know me well enough to know who I was and to tell me not to receive communion.  no one recognized me at all at that Church.  This priest that I refer to in my original post is a different priest from the one serving in that church when I attended 6 years ago.

Wyatt:  I call you schismatics because you, Roman Catholics, are schismatics.  In 1054, your pope ex-communicated himself from the Holy Orthodox Church and became a heretic.  I would think that, with all of your activity on this forum, you'd have picked up on that one.  Sorry, but if this offends you so much, perhaps this is the wrong forum for you.  police

This is the last I'll say on the matter.
Don't you have to decide if RC are heretics or schismatics? Generally, being a schismatic would not imply heresy, is that correct?  But if you are a heretic, aren't you already a schismatic, and even worse than that, as heresy is worse than schism?
Also, I don't see how you can seriously claim that the Pope excommunicated himself from the Orthodox Church in 1054, since there was no living Pope on July 16, 1054 when Cardinal Humbert of Mourmoutiers gave out his bull of excommunication. The 153rd Pope of the Catholic Church, Pope St. Leo IX, died on April 19, 1054, and the 154th Pope of the Catholic Church, Pope Victor II was elected Pope on April 13, 1055. Can you please explain how a dead Pope can excommunicate himself in 1054 from the Orthodox Church?
Did Humbert not have authorization? Were Humberts actions condemned by Victor when he took the throne?

I once suggested that Humbert's actions should be condemned by the modern Catholic Church as a show of goodwill toward the East. This was shouted down by Catholics, indicating he wasn't seen as being "wrong". It seems, therefore, that he is quite representative of the Latin Church, both then and now.

Not condemning his actions isn't the same as saying that he is "representative of the Latin Church".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #55 on: May 22, 2011, 10:27:07 PM »

that's unfortunate.  I'll stop posting in this thread.  joking was NOT my intention.

Do you realize you said this less than 30 minutes after the thread started?

So you're saying he should have been honest with us (which he was), but let us sweat it out while he waited to respond?  Huh

Well given the fact that he was talking about his own old parish where people still recognize him, I think it was wise of him to back out of that one.  It was something of a put on...or more likely just an attention getter.



I'll just clarify something to you, elijahmaria.  I went to this parish when I was 11 years old.  I sat at the back with my father who started and stopped attending when I did.  the people didn't know me.  neither did the priest.  the priest even gave me (a Presbyterian child at the time) communion with everyone else, but didn't know me well enough to know who I was and to tell me not to receive communion.  no one recognized me at all at that Church.  This priest that I refer to in my original post is a different priest from the one serving in that church when I attended 6 years ago.

Wyatt:  I call you schismatics because you, Roman Catholics, are schismatics.  In 1054, your pope ex-communicated himself from the Holy Orthodox Church and became a heretic.  I would think that, with all of your activity on this forum, you'd have picked up on that one.  Sorry, but if this offends you so much, perhaps this is the wrong forum for you.  police

This is the last I'll say on the matter.
Don't you have to decide if RC are heretics or schismatics? Generally, being a schismatic would not imply heresy, is that correct?  But if you are a heretic, aren't you already a schismatic, and even worse than that, as heresy is worse than schism?
Also, I don't see how you can seriously claim that the Pope excommunicated himself from the Orthodox Church in 1054, since there was no living Pope on July 16, 1054 when Cardinal Humbert of Mourmoutiers gave out his bull of excommunication. The 153rd Pope of the Catholic Church, Pope St. Leo IX, died on April 19, 1054, and the 154th Pope of the Catholic Church, Pope Victor II was elected Pope on April 13, 1055. Can you please explain how a dead Pope can excommunicate himself in 1054 from the Orthodox Church?
Did Humbert not have authorization? Were Humberts actions condemned by Victor when he took the throne?

I once suggested that Humbert's actions should be condemned by the modern Catholic Church as a show of goodwill toward the East. This was shouted down by Catholics, indicating he wasn't seen as being "wrong". It seems, therefore, that he is quite representative of the Latin Church, both then and now.

Not condemning his actions isn't the same as saying that he is "representative of the Latin Church".
It indicates his actions are not contrary to the Latin Church.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #56 on: May 22, 2011, 11:10:29 PM »

that's unfortunate.  I'll stop posting in this thread.  joking was NOT my intention.

Do you realize you said this less than 30 minutes after the thread started?

So you're saying he should have been honest with us (which he was), but let us sweat it out while he waited to respond?  Huh

Well given the fact that he was talking about his own old parish where people still recognize him, I think it was wise of him to back out of that one.  It was something of a put on...or more likely just an attention getter.



I'll just clarify something to you, elijahmaria.  I went to this parish when I was 11 years old.  I sat at the back with my father who started and stopped attending when I did.  the people didn't know me.  neither did the priest.  the priest even gave me (a Presbyterian child at the time) communion with everyone else, but didn't know me well enough to know who I was and to tell me not to receive communion.  no one recognized me at all at that Church.  This priest that I refer to in my original post is a different priest from the one serving in that church when I attended 6 years ago.

Wyatt:  I call you schismatics because you, Roman Catholics, are schismatics.  In 1054, your pope ex-communicated himself from the Holy Orthodox Church and became a heretic.  I would think that, with all of your activity on this forum, you'd have picked up on that one.  Sorry, but if this offends you so much, perhaps this is the wrong forum for you.  police

This is the last I'll say on the matter.
Don't you have to decide if RC are heretics or schismatics? Generally, being a schismatic would not imply heresy, is that correct?  But if you are a heretic, aren't you already a schismatic, and even worse than that, as heresy is worse than schism?
Also, I don't see how you can seriously claim that the Pope excommunicated himself from the Orthodox Church in 1054, since there was no living Pope on July 16, 1054 when Cardinal Humbert of Mourmoutiers gave out his bull of excommunication. The 153rd Pope of the Catholic Church, Pope St. Leo IX, died on April 19, 1054, and the 154th Pope of the Catholic Church, Pope Victor II was elected Pope on April 13, 1055. Can you please explain how a dead Pope can excommunicate himself in 1054 from the Orthodox Church?
Did Humbert not have authorization? Were Humberts actions condemned by Victor when he took the throne?

I once suggested that Humbert's actions should be condemned by the modern Catholic Church as a show of goodwill toward the East. This was shouted down by Catholics, indicating he wasn't seen as being "wrong". It seems, therefore, that he is quite representative of the Latin Church, both then and now.

Not condemning his actions isn't the same as saying that he is "representative of the Latin Church".
It indicates his actions are not contrary to the Latin Church.

That isn't the same as saying that he is "representative of the Latin Church".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #57 on: May 22, 2011, 11:12:54 PM »

BTW, what kind of authority was attached to that 'shouting down'?

I once suggested that Humbert's actions should be condemned by the modern Catholic Church as a show of goodwill toward the East. This was shouted down by Catholics, indicating he wasn't seen as being "wrong". It seems, therefore, that he is quite representative of the Latin Church, both then and now.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #58 on: May 22, 2011, 11:16:23 PM »

And what point is that, exactly? That we are not justified in being offended? I would ask you to look at the opening post where we are called schismatics.
etc.

Good luck. In my experience, EOs don't much like being told what to think.
Logged

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

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #59 on: May 22, 2011, 11:57:09 PM »

I think it is pretty easy for an Eastern Orthodox to join the Catholic Church, except that it is strongly recommended that he join an Eastern Catholic Church.

Does it really matter what church one would join if converting that direction, as long as they are in communion with Rome?
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Noesisaa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #60 on: May 23, 2011, 05:15:13 AM »

I am a cradle Orthodox (Romanian) and I will be formally joining the Catholic Church on Pentecost in a couple of weeks. Never was I pressured into anything, never has a catholic priest told me "you HAVE to become Catholic," never was I harrassed or "evangelized." Truth shines anyway, especially if the priest is faithful to the Magisterium of the Church, serves liturgy, both old and new, as he should be...

Anyhow, the process is relativelly simple. What I have to do is a public profession of faith during Mass. For this I have been meeting once in a while for the past couple of months with the priest, read a few books...I guess an abridged and personal RCIA.  There is no byzantine catholic church in the country I am in, so I will be joining/be registered in a Roman-Catholic parish, effectively becoming roman-catholic.
Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,228



« Reply #61 on: May 23, 2011, 08:43:29 AM »

And what point is that, exactly? That we are not justified in being offended? I would ask you to look at the opening post where we are called schismatics.
etc.

Good luck. In my experience, EOs don't much like being told what to think.

LOL and you RCs do??

Oh you know I love it! I'm just a sack of nerve endings waiting to be fed and commanded! Roll Eyes Cheesy

But seriously, you don't find it obnoxious when your coreligionists scream "Anti-Catholic!!" every time the wind blows the wrong way? You even have the Catholic League. Smiley You all have it great. I just think it's bizarre that everyone who is critical in the minutest way of Catholicism is automatically a bigot. I'm not defending Tikhon's use of the word schismatic, but let's not pretend that Wyatt or Papist hasn't leveled that against the Orthodox on many an occasion.

Maybe we should all take this as an opportunity for all of us to refrain from using the word and thinking a bit more (possibly prayerfully?) before we post? Smiley

In Christ,
Andrew
« Last Edit: May 23, 2011, 08:44:19 AM by Shlomlokh » 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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #62 on: May 23, 2011, 08:48:28 AM »


I'll just clarify something to you, elijahmaria.  I went to this parish when I was 11 years old.  I sat at the back with my father who started and stopped attending when I did.  the people didn't know me.  neither did the priest.  the priest even gave me (a Presbyterian child at the time) communion with everyone else, but didn't know me well enough to know who I was and to tell me not to receive communion.  no one recognized me at all at that Church.  This priest that I refer to in my original post is a different priest from the one serving in that church when I attended 6 years ago.


I was wrong about that particular parish then.  Please accept my apology for pressing that point.  But someone said something to that priest about you.  That is clear.
Logged

augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,632



« Reply #63 on: May 23, 2011, 09:44:50 AM »

A friend of mine, cradle Orthodox, became Roman Catholic, yet he had to go through confirmation, as I understand.
How old was he, out of curiosity?
It happened in Romania; he must have been around 18 at the time. I do not think the priest was unaware that the Orthodox are chrismated right after baptism. He was living among them, for God's sake. I suspect this way of receiving Orthodox converts was more common in the past than it is now.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #64 on: May 23, 2011, 10:06:59 AM »

Hi Noesisaa. What made you decide to convert?

I hope that question isn't too personal. Possibly I shouldn't even ask, but it isn't very often I have the chance to hear someone's reasons for converting from Orthodoxy to Catholicism.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #65 on: May 23, 2011, 10:10:25 AM »

And what point is that, exactly? That we are not justified in being offended? I would ask you to look at the opening post where we are called schismatics.
etc.

Good luck. In my experience, EOs don't much like being told what to think.

LOL and you RCs do??

Fair enough. I'm sure that, from your point of view, we Catholics don't like to be told what to think.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #66 on: May 23, 2011, 10:11:26 AM »

A friend of mine, cradle Orthodox, became Roman Catholic, yet he had to go through confirmation, as I understand.
How old was he, out of curiosity?
It happened in Romania; he must have been around 18 at the time. I do not think the priest was unaware that the Orthodox are chrismated right after baptism. He was living among them, for God's sake. I suspect this way of receiving Orthodox converts was more common in the past than it is now.

Eastern Catholics need to be careful even today of Roman rite zealots who are more than willing to "confirm" them after they have already been chrismated at the time of their Baptism.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #67 on: May 23, 2011, 10:58:32 AM »

Maybe we should all take this as an opportunity for all of us to refrain from using the word and thinking a bit more (possibly prayerfully?) before we post? Smiley
This part sounds good.
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,861



« Reply #68 on: May 23, 2011, 11:33:58 AM »

Eastern Catholics need to be careful even today of Roman rite zealots who are more than willing to "confirm" them after they have already been chrismated at the time of their Baptism.

I know a young woman who was baptized as an infant in the Romanian Orthodox Church in America, and at seven her mother converted to Roman Catholicism and brought her daughters with her. She was confirmed ("re-chrismated") as a teenager.
Logged
Noesisaa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #69 on: May 23, 2011, 12:00:07 PM »

Hi Noesisaa. What made you decide to convert?


God's inspiration that came through contact with real, alive and traditionally rooted catholicism, if I could say it so. By that I mean reverent and God-centered liturgy, both pre- AND post- Vatican II, reading the catechism, reading spiritual classics, as for example, St. Francis de Sales, the realization that, for example, the office of St. Peter is quintessential to the Church, etc. And, of course, prayer for guidance. Until I realized that I have NO real reason not to allow the Catholic Church to be part of my life. And I to be part of it.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #70 on: May 23, 2011, 12:32:42 PM »


Wyatt:  I call you schismatics because you, Roman Catholics, are schismatics.  In 1054, your pope ex-communicated himself from the Holy Orthodox Church and became a heretic.  I would think that, with all of your activity on this forum, you'd have picked up on that one.  Sorry, but if this offends you so much, perhaps this is the wrong forum for you.  police

This is the last I'll say on the matter.
Oh, I see now. You are just confused and have it backwards. Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Noesisaa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #71 on: May 23, 2011, 12:33:20 PM »

Oh, and as far as this topic goes: it's sad, Trevor, that you so much despise your previous Church. The priest was not giving out "host" to people...willynilly, I have yet to see one of the official autocephalos orthodox churches coming out with a document saying Catholic mysteries are just that, bread and wine. Because they are not. Sure, individual priests can say what they want, but the Church does not say so. So even if there's 1% chance that you are in the presence of Our Lord, you should not despise Him. Nor say a prayer, be it the Jesus prayer, in the attempt to take your mind off what is happening on the Altar, or what the other people are praying.

As for the priest: he probably thought you're some sort of protestant. Or atheist. Or whatnot. Looking for answers. Or thinking about joining. Young people are valuable assets of the Church. If you had explained in simple words that you were Orthodox, most probably he'd have left it at that, or told you that if you have any questions, feel free to come and ask him. He wasn't trying to force you into catholicism.

And also: you probably know that Catholics do not re-baptize Orthodox. And that receiving H. Communion is not obligatory for anyone but the priest. You don't offend the whole community by not receiving Holy Communion, one may not receive for not being Catholic, being in a state of mortal sin, having eaten less than an hour before, being troubled spiritually, etc...receiving Holy Communion is about you and God, your relationship with Him, less so about you and other people around.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2011, 12:47:18 PM by Noesisaa » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #72 on: May 23, 2011, 02:02:56 PM »

Eastern Catholics need to be careful even today of Roman rite zealots who are more than willing to "confirm" them after they have already been chrismated at the time of their Baptism.

I know a young woman who was baptized as an infant in the Romanian Orthodox Church in America, and at seven her mother converted to Roman Catholicism and brought her daughters with her. She was confirmed ("re-chrismated") as a teenager.

Yes.  And I don't know that that kind of behavior can always be passed off as ignorance.  Perhaps I am too much the cynic, but I am often tempted to see it as an act of dominance.

This is the kind of thing that MUST be reined in before we should resume communion.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2011, 02:03:40 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #73 on: May 23, 2011, 02:23:18 PM »

You even have the Catholic League. Smiley You all have it great. I just think it's bizarre that everyone who is critical in the minutest way of Catholicism is automatically a bigot.
Please be advised that there are Catholics who don't agree with Bill Donohue and his Catholic league. I would like to see a Catholic league headed by someone more intelligent and sophisticated than the snarling bully boy, Bill Donohue.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #74 on: May 23, 2011, 02:25:13 PM »

You even have the Catholic League. Smiley You all have it great. I just think it's bizarre that everyone who is critical in the minutest way of Catholicism is automatically a bigot.
Please be advised that there are Catholics who don't agree with Bill Donohue and his Catholic league. I would like to see a Catholic league headed by someone more intelligent and sophisticated than the snarling bully boy, Bill Donohue.
We need a bulldog to fight off the bulldogs.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #75 on: May 23, 2011, 02:30:57 PM »

A friend of mine, cradle Orthodox, became Roman Catholic, yet he had to go through confirmation, as I understand.
How old was he, out of curiosity?
It happened in Romania; he must have been around 18 at the time. I do not think the priest was unaware that the Orthodox are chrismated right after baptism. He was living among them, for God's sake. I suspect this way of receiving Orthodox converts was more common in the past than it is now.
I think it goes against the rules. Possibly because of ignorance on the RC part?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #76 on: May 23, 2011, 02:34:29 PM »

You even have the Catholic League. Smiley You all have it great. I just think it's bizarre that everyone who is critical in the minutest way of Catholicism is automatically a bigot.
Please be advised that there are Catholics who don't agree with Bill Donohue and his Catholic league. I would like to see a Catholic league headed by someone more intelligent and sophisticated than the snarling bully boy, Bill Donohue.
We need a bulldog to fight off the bulldogs.
No. My guess is that it would be better to have someone with a bit more cultivation and gentility.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #77 on: May 23, 2011, 02:35:29 PM »

You even have the Catholic League. Smiley You all have it great. I just think it's bizarre that everyone who is critical in the minutest way of Catholicism is automatically a bigot.
Please be advised that there are Catholics who don't agree with Bill Donohue and his Catholic league. I would like to see a Catholic league headed by someone more intelligent and sophisticated than the snarling bully boy, Bill Donohue.
We need a bulldog to fight off the bulldogs.
No. My guess is that it would be better to have someone with a bit more cultivation and gentility.
Nah, those who attack us have none. They don't understand cultivation and gentility.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #78 on: May 23, 2011, 02:56:19 PM »

The RCs do have a point in general, even if this thread is not the best place to make it.

IME, becoming an RC can be more lengthy or shorter than becoming an EO. Now the Greek Orthodox Church in America seems the easiest way to go, if you marrying one of the younger women in the Church, if you want to be on one side of the schism or the other. IME, RCs, even the ones where the men are just going through the motions, had to do a lot more than the men I knew who were marrying a Greek Orthodox woman and just going through the motions as well.

The US seems more uniform in its approach to becoming an RC than elsewhere in the world IME and from those Priest I know who have been abroad.

We only have to look at this board to see folks becoming EO within months.

So like most things, there is no simple answer.

 
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #79 on: May 23, 2011, 03:11:53 PM »

A friend of mine, cradle Orthodox, became Roman Catholic, yet he had to go through confirmation, as I understand.
How old was he, out of curiosity?
It happened in Romania; he must have been around 18 at the time. I do not think the priest was unaware that the Orthodox are chrismated right after baptism. He was living among them, for God's sake. I suspect this way of receiving Orthodox converts was more common in the past than it is now.

Eastern Catholics need to be careful even today of Roman rite zealots who are more than willing to "confirm" them after they have already been chrismated at the time of their Baptism.

I know a young woman who was baptized as an infant in the Romanian Orthodox Church in America, and at seven her mother converted to Roman Catholicism and brought her daughters with her. She was confirmed ("re-chrismated") as a teenager.

Not knowing any more about these two incidents than what's been said here, it seems to me that the latter is a lot more excusable than the former.

For one thing, Catholic priests in America typically don't encounter a lot of Orthodox and therefore might reasonably be ignorant about them. But more importantly, in the latter case, the young woman was confirmed as a teenager after having converted from Orthodoxy at age 7. So it's entirely plausible that no one even told Father "BTW, one of the girls in your confirmation class used to be Eastern Orthodox."
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #80 on: May 23, 2011, 03:14:32 PM »

A friend of mine, cradle Orthodox, became Roman Catholic, yet he had to go through confirmation, as I understand.
How old was he, out of curiosity?
It happened in Romania; he must have been around 18 at the time. I do not think the priest was unaware that the Orthodox are chrismated right after baptism. He was living among them, for God's sake. I suspect this way of receiving Orthodox converts was more common in the past than it is now.

Eastern Catholics need to be careful even today of Roman rite zealots who are more than willing to "confirm" them after they have already been chrismated at the time of their Baptism.

I know a young woman who was baptized as an infant in the Romanian Orthodox Church in America, and at seven her mother converted to Roman Catholicism and brought her daughters with her. She was confirmed ("re-chrismated") as a teenager.

Not knowing any more about these two incidents than what's been said here, it seems to me that the latter is a lot more excusable than the former.

For one thing, Catholic priests in America typically don't encounter a lot of Orthodox and therefore might reasonably be ignorant about them. But more importantly, in the latter case, the young woman was confirmed as a teenager after having converted from Orthodoxy at age 7. So it's entirely plausible that no one even told Father "BTW, one of the girls in your confirmation class used to be Eastern Orthodox."

Forgive me:  The chance of the latter happening is very slim to nil.   It is plausible, yes, but exceptionally unlikely.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2011, 03:14:56 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #81 on: May 24, 2011, 01:37:14 AM »

If your Orthodox then it's pretty easy to become a Catholic.  You really should join a rite which corresponds to the Orthodox Church (Russian, Ukrainian, Romanian) That you already belong to.  If you have no access to a particular rite then try to enter through a Roman rite parish, but maybe if you entered through confession then you'd automatically belong to the corresponding EC rite?

I can't say for sure.  You'd probably be best to contact Catholic priest about this stuff since he'd probably know more. 
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #82 on: May 25, 2011, 10:31:26 PM »

Trevor, I agree that the pastor was a little pushy, but I wonder if you're not being overly harsh to cover up shame at not having the strength to be upfront about your dedication to Orthodoxy?
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
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: 37,483



« Reply #83 on: June 24, 2011, 05:14:39 PM »

A friend of mine, cradle Orthodox, became Roman Catholic, yet he had to go through confirmation, as I understand.
How old was he, out of curiosity?
It happened in Romania; he must have been around 18 at the time. I do not think the priest was unaware that the Orthodox are chrismated right after baptism. He was living among them, for God's sake. I suspect this way of receiving Orthodox converts was more common in the past than it is now.

Eastern Catholics need to be careful even today of Roman rite zealots who are more than willing to "confirm" them after they have already been chrismated at the time of their Baptism.

I know a young woman who was baptized as an infant in the Romanian Orthodox Church in America, and at seven her mother converted to Roman Catholicism and brought her daughters with her. She was confirmed ("re-chrismated") as a teenager.

Not knowing any more about these two incidents than what's been said here, it seems to me that the latter is a lot more excusable than the former.

For one thing, Catholic priests in America typically don't encounter a lot of Orthodox and therefore might reasonably be ignorant about them. But more importantly, in the latter case, the young woman was confirmed as a teenager after having converted from Orthodoxy at age 7. So it's entirely plausible that no one even told Father "BTW, one of the girls in your confirmation class used to be Eastern Orthodox."

Forgive me:  The chance of the latter happening is very slim to nil.   It is plausible, yes, but exceptionally unlikely.
I personally knew those to whom it happened, unlikely or not.
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #84 on: June 25, 2011, 09:48:09 AM »

A friend of mine, cradle Orthodox, became Roman Catholic, yet he had to go through confirmation, as I understand.
How old was he, out of curiosity?
It happened in Romania; he must have been around 18 at the time. I do not think the priest was unaware that the Orthodox are chrismated right after baptism. He was living among them, for God's sake. I suspect this way of receiving Orthodox converts was more common in the past than it is now.

Eastern Catholics need to be careful even today of Roman rite zealots who are more than willing to "confirm" them after they have already been chrismated at the time of their Baptism.

I know a young woman who was baptized as an infant in the Romanian Orthodox Church in America, and at seven her mother converted to Roman Catholicism and brought her daughters with her. She was confirmed ("re-chrismated") as a teenager.

Not knowing any more about these two incidents than what's been said here, it seems to me that the latter is a lot more excusable than the former.

For one thing, Catholic priests in America typically don't encounter a lot of Orthodox and therefore might reasonably be ignorant about them. But more importantly, in the latter case, the young woman was confirmed as a teenager after having converted from Orthodoxy at age 7. So it's entirely plausible that no one even told Father "BTW, one of the girls in your confirmation class used to be Eastern Orthodox."

Forgive me:  The chance of the latter happening is very slim to nil.   It is plausible, yes, but exceptionally unlikely.
I personally knew those to whom it happened, unlikely or not.

In that case, can you fill us in on whether the priest knew that she used to be EO?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.171 seconds with 67 queries.