Topic: The Old CAF Crowd Will Love This!

[mike]

Like how to emphasise your post to make a point

You mean "trigger an attack of epilepsy".

[Cyrillic]

Like how to emphasise your post to make a point

You mean "trigger an attack of epilepsy".

I was just doing like mardukm 

[Cyrillic]

Like Cronos it devours its own. Marybeloved and fames have been banned.  Cyrillic, Green_umbrella, Ignatius_Maron and some other guy were banned too. All in one night!

[Tommelomsky]

Well..Glory To God in all things. That forum is the past. This here is now and the future.

[Peter J]

The thing about "discussion" is that sometimes it isn't.

[Cyrillic]

The thing about "discussion" is that sometimes it isn't.

Huh?

[Αριστοκλής]

Like Cronos it devours its own. Marybeloved and fames have been banned.  Cyrillic, Green_umbrella, Ignatius_Maron and some other guy were banned too. All in one night!

Sounds like a Second CAF Crusade over there. I among many others here was banned in the First CAF Crusade. Nothing new over there, it seems.

[Cyrillic]

Like Cronos it devours its own. Marybeloved and fames have been banned.  Cyrillic, Green_umbrella, Ignatius_Maron and some other guy were banned too. All in one night!

Sounds like a Second CAF Crusade over there. I among many others here was banned in the First CAF Crusade. Nothing new over there, it seems.

Looks more like Stalinist purges than crusades. I like this forum better anyway.

[Peter J]

The thing about "discussion" is that sometimes it isn't.

Huh?

Well, for example, many posters simply decide by fiat that the terms "Roman Catholic" and "Latin Catholic" are interchangeable. Would you consider that "discussion"?

P.S. Oddly enough, a little while ago, while I was thinking about this, I noticed the thread Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO) on OCnet, in which "Roman Catholic" is being used to mean everyone in communion with Rome. This is, arguably, just as bad since there's still no real discussion of what "Roman Catholic" means.

[dzheremi]

You are essentially who you are in communion with. That doesn't mean you aren't your own "sui juris" churches, technically, but that, as you are in union with Rome, their heterodoxy is adopted by you. If you don't like it, stop being in union with Rome.

I have no problem being called OO and not specifically "Coptic", because we are, after all, the same Church, even if our customs vary quite a bit. "Coptic" only makes sense to specify if talking about distinctive traits of the Egyptian church, which are all in the realm of praxis, not dogma, since the faith is the same. If the faith is not the same between the Eastern Catholics and the Latin Catholics, then what does that tell you about the health of that communion?

[Peter J]

You are essentially who you are in communion with. That doesn't mean you aren't your own "sui juris" churches, technically, but that, as you are in union with Rome, their heterodoxy is adopted by you. If you don't like it, stop being in union with Rome.

Certainly, if Rome is heterodox. But since Eastern Catholics don't believe that Rome is heterodox that's really not the issue here.

I have no problem being called OO and not specifically "Coptic", because we are, after all, the same Church, even if our customs vary quite a bit. "Coptic" only makes sense to specify if talking about distinctive traits of the Egyptian church, which are all in the realm of praxis, not dogma, since the faith is the same. If the faith is not the same between the Eastern Catholics and the Latin Catholics, then what does that tell you about the health of that communion?

Here, I think, we get to the main issue. If "Roman Catholic" and "Latin Catholic" are synonymous, which is what many posters claim both here and on CAF, then saying that Eastern Catholics are Roman Catholics is like saying that Coptic Orthodox are Armenian.

[choy]

You are essentially who you are in communion with. That doesn't mean you aren't your own "sui juris" churches, technically, but that, as you are in union with Rome, their heterodoxy is adopted by you. If you don't like it, stop being in union with Rome.

I have no problem being called OO and not specifically "Coptic", because we are, after all, the same Church, even if our customs vary quite a bit. "Coptic" only makes sense to specify if talking about distinctive traits of the Egyptian church, which are all in the realm of praxis, not dogma, since the faith is the same. If the faith is not the same between the Eastern Catholics and the Latin Catholics, then what does that tell you about the health of that communion?

Why do the ECs have to be infected by Rome's heterodoxy?  Why can't Rome be infected with the ECs Orthodoxy?  I thought darkness cannot defeat light.

[dzheremi]

Why do the ECs have to be infected by Rome's heterodoxy?  Why can't Rome be infected with the ECs Orthodoxy?

Because that's not reality? That's not actually what's happening/happened. It's your communion with Rome that makes you "Catholic", not Rome's communion with you. Because of that, so long as Rome embraces heterodoxy (and they don't show any signs of returning to Orthodoxy), and you are not allowed to teach against it, you are likewise heterodox. Your existence as U-word removed ensures that you will be kept beholden to Rome's heresies.

I thought darkness cannot defeat light.

And indeed darkness has not defeated the Orthodox Church.

 For having used the U-word you are being warned for 40 days.

Michał Kalina

[Peter J]

^^ Thought we weren't supposed to use the U-word.

[Peter J]

You are essentially who you are in communion with. That doesn't mean you aren't your own "sui juris" churches, technically, but that, as you are in union with Rome, their heterodoxy is adopted by you. If you don't like it, stop being in union with Rome.

I have no problem being called OO and not specifically "Coptic", because we are, after all, the same Church, even if our customs vary quite a bit. "Coptic" only makes sense to specify if talking about distinctive traits of the Egyptian church, which are all in the realm of praxis, not dogma, since the faith is the same. If the faith is not the same between the Eastern Catholics and the Latin Catholics, then what does that tell you about the health of that communion?

Why do the ECs have to be infected by Rome's heterodoxy?  Why can't Rome be infected with the ECs Orthodoxy?  I thought darkness cannot defeat light.

Actually, if one group (say the Latin Church) is heterodox, and another group that it is in full communion with (say the ECs) is orthodox, it is almost certain that some degree of infection (infection?) would happen in each direction. Possibly a lot, possibly a little, but surely some.

[JoeS2]

Why do the ECs have to be infected by Rome's heterodoxy?  Why can't Rome be infected with the ECs Orthodoxy?  I thought darkness cannot defeat light.

Well for one reason, Rome's size by itself is power and that power can be used to persuade the Eastern churches to comply with their dogmas.  

What I find most perplexing is, if the Eastern Catholic churches are allowed to keep their Orthodox beliefs how can that square with the newer Roman Catholic dogmas and yet be in communion?  Its like living in a parallel universe, a parallel theology, a parallel way of thinking.  As an Orthodox Chrisitian I find this quite confusing.  Receiting the Creed in it's original form on Sundays and knowing only a short way away it is being receited with the Filioque can be haunting.  I cant imagine living in this parallel universe and not having doubts about my beliefs.

[choy]

Why do the ECs have to be infected by Rome's heterodoxy?  Why can't Rome be infected with the ECs Orthodoxy?

Because that's not reality? That's not actually what's happening/happened. It's your communion with Rome that makes you "Catholic", not Rome's communion with you. Because of that, so long as Rome embraces heterodoxy (and they don't show any signs of returning to Orthodoxy), and you are not allowed to teach against it, you are likewise heterodox. Your existence as uniates ensures that you will be kept beholden to Rome's heresies.

I thought darkness cannot defeat light.

And indeed darkness has not defeated the Orthodox Church.

It doesn't matter what the past is.  It doesn't mean the future cannot be different.  We just need ECs to become Orthodox in faith.  This is how union will be achieved.

[choy]

Why do the ECs have to be infected by Rome's heterodoxy?  Why can't Rome be infected with the ECs Orthodoxy?  I thought darkness cannot defeat light.

Well for one reason, Rome's size by itself is power and that power can be used to persuade the Eastern churches to comply with their dogmas.  

What I find most perplexing is, if the Eastern Catholic churches are allowed to keep their Orthodox beliefs how can that square with the newer Roman Catholic dogmas and yet be in communion?  Its like living in a parallel universe, a parallel theology, a parallel way of thinking.  As an Orthodox Chrisitian I find this quite confusing.  Receiting the Creed in it's original form on Sundays and knowing only a short way away it is being receited with the Filioque can be haunting.  I cant imagine living in this parallel universe and not having doubts about my beliefs.

Pagan Rome was larger than the early Christian movement.  We all know how that turned out.

[Iconodule]

Why do the ECs have to be infected by Rome's heterodoxy?  Why can't Rome be infected with the ECs Orthodoxy?  I thought darkness cannot defeat light.

Well for one reason, Rome's size by itself is power and that power can be used to persuade the Eastern churches to comply with their dogmas.  

What I find most perplexing is, if the Eastern Catholic churches are allowed to keep their Orthodox beliefs how can that square with the newer Roman Catholic dogmas and yet be in communion?  Its like living in a parallel universe, a parallel theology, a parallel way of thinking.  As an Orthodox Chrisitian I find this quite confusing.  Receiting the Creed in it's original form on Sundays and knowing only a short way away it is being receited with the Filioque can be haunting.  I cant imagine living in this parallel universe and not having doubts about my beliefs.

Pagan Rome was larger than the early Christian movement.  We all know how that turned out.

You have it backwards.
The Church converted the pagans, then communed them.

[dzheremi]

Why do the ECs have to be infected by Rome's heterodoxy?  Why can't Rome be infected with the ECs Orthodoxy?

Because that's not reality? That's not actually what's happening/happened. It's your communion with Rome that makes you "Catholic", not Rome's communion with you. Because of that, so long as Rome embraces heterodoxy (and they don't show any signs of returning to Orthodoxy), and you are not allowed to teach against it, you are likewise heterodox. Your existence as uniates ensures that you will be kept beholden to Rome's heresies.

I thought darkness cannot defeat light.

And indeed darkness has not defeated the Orthodox Church.

It doesn't matter what the past is.  It doesn't mean the future cannot be different.  We just need ECs to become Orthodox in faith.  This is how union will be achieved.

This isn't a matter of past or future. It is in the nature of your communion. You are in communion with people who openly embrace heterodox beliefs, and they dictate to you what you can and cannot teach. If you're fine with that, good for you, but I find it hard to believe that you really don't understand why it can't be that Rome is more Orthodox or becoming more Orthodox due to the presence of the ECCs, when the ECCs are not Orthodox because of the nature of the Roman communion does not allow them to be. And without the Roman communion, you don't exist...

[Peter J]

What I find most perplexing is, if the Eastern Catholic churches are allowed to keep their Orthodox beliefs how can that square with the newer Roman Catholic dogmas and yet be in communion?

For me, what's confusing is this whole notion that Latin Catholics are heterodox from an Eastern Catholic p.o.v. Unless I'm just misunderstanding what choy and dzheremi are talking about here.

[Iconodule]

What I find most perplexing is, if the Eastern Catholic churches are allowed to keep their Orthodox beliefs how can that square with the newer Roman Catholic dogmas and yet be in communion?

For me, what's confusing is this whole notion that Latin Catholics are heterodox from an Eastern Catholic p.o.v. Unless I'm just misunderstanding what choy and dzheremi are talking about here.

It doesn't make sense but it does seem to be a natural conclusion if one takes, say, the Zoghby declaration seriously.

[dzheremi]

I can't speak for Choy, but I'm saying that Eastern Catholics and Latin Catholics are both heterodox. The Latins are not becoming "more Orthodox" because of their communion with the ECCs, because neither are Orthodox in the first place. To the extent that ECCs can be said to be closer to Orthodoxy in their praxis or theology due to their roots in actual Orthodox churches, I suppose it makes sense to say that the Latins are heterodox from an ECC perspective (cf. the Zoghby initiative, mentioned by Iconodule), but that wasn't my point.

[Marc1152]

Oooohhhh, Catherine Grant is laying down the law in the Eastern Catholic Forum.

What is the current over/under that I will get banned?

You do know that they read this forum..

[JoeS2]

Spies everywhere.  Hi Catherine!!!!!  Remember me? 

[choy]

Oooohhhh, Catherine Grant is laying down the law in the Eastern Catholic Forum.

What is the current over/under that I will get banned?

You do know that they read this forum..

I do know there is that possibility.  Did I say anything bad against any CAF mod?

[Green_Umbrella]

Like Cronos it devours its own. Marybeloved and fames have been banned.  Cyrillic, Green_umbrella, Ignatius_Maron and some other guy were banned too. All in one night!

What did your ban say?

My ban says...

Your account has been locked for the following reason:
circumvention of ban

This change will be lifted: Never

I do not know how this could be because I have never been a member so obviously never banned before. I had no ban to circumvent. The only thing I can think is talking about my ban on that forum on this forum? I suppose. You could have at least offered to sell me an Indulgence on the way out but that is fine CAF. And I have no doubt you will read this.

[Peter J]

I do not know how this could be because I have never been a member so obviously never banned before. I had no ban to circumvent.

Then perhaps it was just a case of mistaken identity.

[Cavaradossi]

I honestly can't complain about Catherine Grant, as she has always been lenient with me, even when I let myself get dragged into heated exchanges (and she also writes with a rather cordial tone in her PMs). I have never received more than two formal warnings from her (both of which I think were certainly warranted and deserved on my end), and I hope to keep it that way.     Of course, adjusting from the more polemical style of posting allowed here at OC.net, to a more eirenic style can be hard, and may prove to be my downfall at CAF, if I am not careful.

[choy]

You have it backwards.
The Church converted the pagans, then communed them.

The difference today of course is that the Romans aren't pagans, they are just misguided.  The Church is there, it just needs fixing.  And you fix it from the inside.

[choy]

I honestly can't complain about Catherine Grant, as she has always been lenient with me, even when I let myself get dragged into heated exchanges (and she also writes with a rather cordial tone in her PMs). I have never received more than two warnings from her (both of which I think were certainly warranted), and I hope to keep it that way. 

Catherine is certainly great.  Other mods are ban happy.

[dzheremi]

I agree about the moderation of the Eastern Catholic area, but there has been a palpable change in other sub-forums since I joined several years ago. I don't want to drag anyone's name through the mud, but let's just say if I do go back there after my suspension ends (not sure if I want to or not), I will probably stay out of any non-Eastern parts of CAF. The standards of moderation seem to vary quite a lot across the various sub-forums.

[choy]

This isn't a matter of past or future. It is in the nature of your communion. You are in communion with people who openly embrace heterodox beliefs, and they dictate to you what you can and cannot teach. If you're fine with that, good for you, but I find it hard to believe that you really don't understand why it can't be that Rome is more Orthodox or becoming more Orthodox due to the presence of the ECCs, when the ECCs are not Orthodox because of the nature of the Roman communion does not allow them to be. And without the Roman communion, you don't exist...

Well, you wake up one day and you find your own Church to be heterodox.  What do you do?  Jump ship and go to the orthodox one?  Or do you try to fix the Church where you are in?  Whatever circumstances led to where we are today, for us ECs we are where we are right now.  It is good that we recognize the need to rediscover our Orthodox roots and identity.  We need to start doing that and hopefully one day Orthodoxy will gain a strong foothold in the Catholic Church.  Obviously the method of trying to convince the CC from the outside to change hasn't worked for about a millennium already.  We ECs are already in the position where we are, so we need to make a change.  Splitting with the RC wouldn't change anything as the last 1000 years have shown.

[dzheremi]

Well, you wake up one day and you find your own Church to be heterodox.  What do you do?  Jump ship and go to the orthodox one?  Or do you try to fix the Church where you are in?

I don't know, and that doesn't apply to the EC situation. Unless you are over a millennium old, the Roman Catholic Church was heterodox when you joined it. You didn't just wake up one day and find it had changed without you. Granted, we are all born into a world of schism, so there is some sense in which people who are born RC or EC aren't any more culpable for the schism than anyone else, but most other churches don't have this idea of entertaining parallel and sometimes contradicting theologies and eccelesiologies in one communion. So again, the problem is with the nature of the communion itself, not with the individual (though you as the individual have a responsibility to actually BE Orthodox if you are going to go around saying you're "Orthodox" of any kind, as I know some ECs, not necessarily you, say).

Whatever circumstances led to where we are today, for us ECs we are where we are right now.  It is good that we recognize the need to rediscover our Orthodox roots and identity.  We need to start doing that and hopefully one day Orthodoxy will gain a strong foothold in the Catholic Church.

I guess I just don't understand this thinking. Your orthodoxy cannot stand in for the heterodoxy of another, particularly when that other is much bigger and more powerful than you, and actually has the power to dictate to you what is orthodox and what is not, according to the ecclesiology of your communion.

[choy]

Well, you wake up one day and you find your own Church to be heterodox.  What do you do?  Jump ship and go to the orthodox one?  Or do you try to fix the Church where you are in?

I don't know, and that doesn't apply to the EC situation. Unless you are over a millennium old, the Roman Catholic Church was heterodox when you joined it. You didn't just wake up one day and find it had changed without you. Granted, we are all born into a world of schism, so there is some sense in which people who are born RC or EC aren't any more culpable for the schism than anyone else, but most other churches don't have this idea of entertaining parallel and sometimes contradicting theologies and eccelesiologies in one communion. So again, the problem is with the nature of the communion itself, not with the individual (though you as the individual have a responsibility to actually BE Orthodox if you are going to go around saying you're "Orthodox" of any kind, as I know some ECs, not necessarily you, say).

Whatever circumstances led to where we are today, for us ECs we are where we are right now.  It is good that we recognize the need to rediscover our Orthodox roots and identity.  We need to start doing that and hopefully one day Orthodoxy will gain a strong foothold in the Catholic Church.

I guess I just don't understand this thinking. Your orthodoxy cannot stand in for the heterodoxy of another, particularly when that other is much bigger and more powerful than you, and actually has the power to dictate to you what is orthodox and what is not, according to the ecclesiology of your communion.

Sorry, that is what I meant.  You wake up and you REALIZED (in honor of someone ) that your Church is heterodox.

I'm not saying our Orthodoxy will make the heterodoxy of others be alright.  But look at it this way, who will convince RCs to be more Orthodox?  People who they see they are in schism with?  Or people they are in communion with?  If Jesus wasn't a Jew, would the Israelites listen to him?  Why did Jesus choose as his Apostle among the Gentiles a Jewish man who as born in the diaspora?  And why was he Jewish to begin with?  Why didn't he just convert a Gentile?  As in our situation, St. Paul was sort of "Best of Both Worlds".  He is Jewish, but he grew in pagan lands, and he is a citizen of Rome.  He was the perfect transition of being a Jew to being a complete Gentile, while not being completely Gentile which means he would have been accepted by the Jewish Christians before they would have ever thought of accepting Gentiles.  ECs are like that.

[dzheremi]

Wow...that's really...well, I don't agree with that. But best of luck in ministering to the Latins.

[choy]

Wow...that's really...well, I don't agree with that. But best of luck in ministering to the Latins.

I know, it is ambitious.  Someone has to at least try.  Who knows, maybe next year I'm in the OCA.  Or maybe 500 years from now something we started today made a difference.

[Cyrillic]

Receiting the Creed in it's original form on Sundays and knowing only a short way away it is being receited with the Filioque can be haunting.

Indeed, very haunting. I try to be as far away from protestant and Roman churches on sundays or I might catch Filioquitis.

Like Cronos it devours its own. Marybeloved and fames have been banned.  Cyrillic, Green_umbrella, Ignatius_Maron and some other guy were banned too. All in one night!

What did your ban say?

My ban says...

Your account has been locked for the following reason:
circumvention of ban

This change will be lifted: Never

I do not know how this could be because I have never been a member so obviously never banned before. I had no ban to circumvent. The only thing I can think is talking about my ban on that forum on this forum? I suppose. You could have at least offered to sell me an Indulgence on the way out but that is fine CAF. And I have no doubt you will read this.

Perhaps they thought you were me as well.

[Peter J]

Well, you wake up one day and you find your own Church to be heterodox.  What do you do?  Jump ship and go to the orthodox one?  Or do you try to fix the Church where you are in?

Although it isn't the primary point of discussion, I'd like to comment on converting-vs-not-converting. I can tell you that I made up my mind some years ago that if it turns out (somehow?) that I'm really Orthodox instead of Catholic, then I wouldn't leave Orthodoxy for Catholicism. But does that mean that, if I really am Catholic (which I'm almost completely sure that I am), I'm going to leave Catholicism for Orthodoxy? No, not necessarily.

On the other hand I have noticed, repeatedly in my years on this forum, Orthodox posters speaking as though my not-converting-to-Orthodoxy is just as bad as if I had started out Orthodox and then left it for Catholicism. Frankly, that doesn't make sense to me.

[Peter J]

Catherine is certainly great.  Other mods are ban happy.

I always heard lots of positive comments about Tom Monahan of the old Eastern Christianity section. (Years later I found out that Tom Monahan was actually the same person as Irish Melkite.)

[Peter J]

Of course, adjusting from the more polemical style of posting allowed here at OC.net, to a more eirenic style can be hard, and may prove to be my downfall at CAF, if I am not careful.

You should try addressing everyone as "Brother" (or "Sister").

[dzheremi]

Well, you wake up one day and you find your own Church to be heterodox.  What do you do?  Jump ship and go to the orthodox one?  Or do you try to fix the Church where you are in?

Although it isn't the primary point of discussion, I'd like to comment on converting-vs-not-converting. I can tell you that I made up my mind some years ago that if it turns out (somehow?) that I'm really Orthodox instead of Catholic, then I wouldn't leave Orthodoxy for Catholicism. But does that mean that, if I really am Catholic (which I'm almost completely sure that I am), I'm going to leave Catholicism for Orthodoxy? No, not necessarily.

This does not make sense. There is no opposition between Catholicity and Orthodox that would necessitate such a decision of one to the exclusion of the other. To be Orthodox is to be truly Catholic, in the original sense of being whole and complete. To put it another way, when I entered Orthodoxy I gave up many parts of my Roman Catholic life, but none of what is Catholic; only extraneous things that are of Rome but not of the Catholic (whole) Church. Perhaps you being a Melkite can understand the difference, in that there are those things unique to Rome that are (at least hypothetically, what with the call being made that you somehow return to your Orthodox roots) not shared by the Church as a whole.

On the other hand I have noticed, repeatedly in my years on this forum, Orthodox posters speaking as though my not-converting-to-Orthodoxy is just as bad as if I had started out Orthodox and then left it for Catholicism. Frankly, that doesn't make sense to me.

While I don't know on what basis you would have picked up this idea from people here, on a practical level, if the result is the same (i.e., you are outside of the Orthodox Church, which is the only Church), then I could see how they might think that. I would think that your not-converting-to-Orthodoxy might be looked at as bad because the alternative you are living in strives to be Orthodox without actually being Orthodox, which is self-evidently not ideal because it is quite impossible. After all, many outside of the Church (whether Roman Catholic or Eastern Catholic, or completely non-Christian for that matter) will profess a great deal of love and respect for it, and that's good...well, it is better than hate and disrespect...but love and respect is not union with the Church. Only baptism into the life of Christ through reception into His Church (the Orthodox Church) and reception of her sacraments is union with the Church. So in that way, again, yes, anything that is not conversion to Orthodoxy can be seen as equally bad on some level, because you cannot be 'half way in' by virtue of being "Eastern" (whatever that means), or having lots and lots of respect for Orthodoxy, or whatever else. You're in when/if you actually literally convert and join, and out when/if you don't.

[choy]

Well, you wake up one day and you find your own Church to be heterodox.  What do you do?  Jump ship and go to the orthodox one?  Or do you try to fix the Church where you are in?

Although it isn't the primary point of discussion, I'd like to comment on converting-vs-not-converting. I can tell you that I made up my mind some years ago that if it turns out (somehow?) that I'm really Orthodox instead of Catholic, then I wouldn't leave Orthodoxy for Catholicism. But does that mean that, if I really am Catholic (which I'm almost completely sure that I am), I'm going to leave Catholicism for Orthodoxy? No, not necessarily.

This does not make sense. There is no opposition between Catholicity and Orthodox that would necessitate such a decision of one to the exclusion of the other. To be Orthodox is to be truly Catholic, in the original sense of being whole and complete. To put it another way, when I entered Orthodoxy I gave up many parts of my Roman Catholic life, but none of what is Catholic; only extraneous things that are of Rome but not of the Catholic (whole) Church. Perhaps you being a Melkite can understand the difference, in that there are those things unique to Rome that are (at least hypothetically, what with the call being made that you somehow return to your Orthodox roots) not shared by the Church as a whole.

On the other hand I have noticed, repeatedly in my years on this forum, Orthodox posters speaking as though my not-converting-to-Orthodoxy is just as bad as if I had started out Orthodox and then left it for Catholicism. Frankly, that doesn't make sense to me.

While I don't know on what basis you would have picked up this idea from people here, on a practical level, if the result is the same (i.e., you are outside of the Orthodox Church, which is the only Church), then I could see how they might think that. I would think that your not-converting-to-Orthodoxy might be looked at as bad because the alternative you are living in strives to be Orthodox without actually being Orthodox, which is self-evidently not ideal because it is quite impossible. After all, many outside of the Church (whether Roman Catholic or Eastern Catholic, or completely non-Christian for that matter) will profess a great deal of love and respect for it, and that's good...well, it is better than hate and disrespect...but love and respect is not union with the Church. Only baptism into the life of Christ through reception into His Church (the Orthodox Church) and reception of her sacraments is union with the Church. So in that way, again, yes, anything that is not conversion to Orthodoxy can be seen as equally bad on some level, because you cannot be 'half way in' by virtue of being "Eastern" (whatever that means), or having lots and lots of respect for Orthodoxy, or whatever else. You're in when/if you actually literally convert and join, and out when/if you don't.

Curious about your comment tough, but the Orthodox Church that Peter J and I are considering are not even in communion with your Orthodox Church.  So how does your comment even apply to us?  Or to yourself for that matter?

[dzheremi]

How would it not apply? The OO and EO believe the same things about the Orthodox Church (so far as I can tell, anyway), they just believe that their particular communion is the Church, and not the other communion (but even then, there are many on both sides who believe that the EO and OO are both Orthodox).

[Cavaradossi]

Of course, adjusting from the more polemical style of posting allowed here at OC.net, to a more eirenic style can be hard, and may prove to be my downfall at CAF, if I am not careful.

You should try addressing everyone as "Brother" (or "Sister").

Brother or sister (but I suspect brother) Peter, what a great suggestion. I shall awkwardly implement it when I post at CAF (ok, probably not).