Topic: Converts from Orthodox Church to Catholic or Protestant Churches, Please Share

[Peter J]

I also am not quite sure why you think I argued that “not being Protestant” was a reason for joining the Orthodox Church.

Few people, if any, would ever actually say that. But one of the most prevalent undercurrents of Orthodox posts is pointing out similarities between protestantism and Catholicism (in a "suggestive" way).

[katherineofdixie]

But one of the most prevalent undercurrents of Orthodox posts is pointing out similarities between protestantism and Catholicism (in a "suggestive" way).

It doesn't even have to be "suggestive." It's a fairly common belief amongst the Orthodox that protestantism and Catholicism are "two sides of the same coin." I've read this more than once - and not in Orthodox posts, but in standard works on Orthodoxy.

[TheTrisagion]

I also am not quite sure why you think I argued that “not being Protestant” was a reason for joining the Orthodox Church.

Few people, if any, would ever actually say that. But one of the most prevalent undercurrents of Orthodox posts is pointing out similarities between protestantism and Catholicism (in a "suggestive" way).

Just comparing faiths does not mean that one is joining a faith to avoid being another faith. I don't think most people who convert to Orthodoxy do it as a reaction against Protestantism, they do it because they see something in Orthodoxy that is unique. I'm guessing that converts to Catholic/Orthodox/SDA/Mormon/Luthern/etc have similar reasons for converting.  There is something in that faith community that "clicks" with them. If I wanted to just "not be Protestant", I could be atheist, which is a heck of alot easier than the struggle towards theosis. How did Catholicism get in this convo btw? I don't recall anyone even mentioning that. 

[Romaios]

It's a fairly common belief amongst the Orthodox that protestantism and Catholicism are "two sides of the same coin." I've read this more than once - and not in Orthodox posts, but in standard works on Orthodoxy.

It's equally true that Protestants would view Orthodoxy and Roman-Catholicism as the two sides of the same coin ("rituals, hierarchy, idol worship, Mary worship," etc.), while Catholics would see both the Orthodox and the Protestants as dissidents from Rome (albeit for different reasons).

[biro]

But one of the most prevalent undercurrents of Orthodox posts is pointing out similarities between protestantism and Catholicism (in a "suggestive" way).

It doesn't even have to be "suggestive." It's a fairly common belief amongst the Orthodox that protestantism and Catholicism are "two sides of the same coin." I've read this more than once - and not in Orthodox posts, but in standard works on Orthodoxy.

That's always seemed hilarious to me, given that many Protestant and Catholic countries actually had wars because they hated each other so much.

[Peter J]

There's a good adage for describing the similarities between protestants and Catholics: "Fools seldom differ."

Of course, if we were talking about similarities between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, then the appropriate adage would be: "Great minds think alike."

[dzheremi]

Hahaha. Well sure, Peter, but wouldn't Catholics say the same (the second saying, not the first one) about what they perceive as similarities between Catholicism and Orthodoxy? In my time in the RCC, it was very common to hear people present the two as two sides of the same coin, similar to how Catholicism and Protestantism are often presented in EO apologetics.

[Peter J]

Hahaha. Well sure, Peter, but wouldn't Catholics say the same (the second saying, not the first one) about what they perceive as similarities between Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

Well ... yes. And the Orthodox routinely roll their eyes in reply.

[dzheremi]

So you can see where we're coming from (and vice versa, I suppose).

[Peter J]

So you can see where we're coming from (and vice versa, I suppose).

You could say that.

I guess for us it would be more like, the similarities between Orthodox and Catholics illustrate "Great minds think alike" whereas the similarities between Anglicans and Lutherans illustrate "Fools seldom differ."

[ialmisry]

Some preservation exists, and new bizarre practices that do not even come close to the early church exists (of course with full ""apologetics"").

1) Icons
2) An iconostasis

I once heard somebody explain why those who reject icons don't really understand what Christianity is all about like this: God who's had his back turned on us in the Old Testament (see the revelation to Moses on Sinai), turns around 180^o and shows us his face in Christ. All the exuberant Orthodox iconography is the natural and logical consequence of this shift from invisible to visible (the Incarnation of God's Word).

The living Church changes organically and adapts (to a certain extent) to accomodate different cultures and eras. Your fascination is with amber fossil communities who idealize some particular past: Ebionites, Amish, Old Believers, Mennonites. That would rather be the sectarian than the catholic approach.

So you are blaming the sectarian for being sectarian?

Jesusisiam thinks we should all look exactly like our baby picture, diapers and all.

[ialmisry]

So you can see where we're coming from (and vice versa, I suppose).

You could say that.

I guess for us it would be more like, the similarities between Orthodox and Catholics illustrate "Great minds think alike" whereas the similarities between Anglicans and Lutherans illustrate "Fools seldom differ."

LOL.  The Anglicans differ a lot, amongst themselves.

[Peter J]

But one of the most prevalent undercurrents of Orthodox posts is pointing out similarities between protestantism and Catholicism (in a "suggestive" way).

It doesn't even have to be "suggestive." It's a fairly common belief amongst the Orthodox that protestantism and Catholicism are "two sides of the same coin." I've read this more than once - and not in Orthodox posts, but in standard works on Orthodoxy.

That's always seemed hilarious to me, given that many Protestant and Catholic countries actually had wars because they hated each other so much.

Ergo it would be stupid of the Orthodox to pass up an opportunity to play off our fears of Protestantism, by calling the post-VII mass "protestantized" etc.

:scratches chin thoughtfully:

[TheTrisagion]

But one of the most prevalent undercurrents of Orthodox posts is pointing out similarities between protestantism and Catholicism (in a "suggestive" way).

It doesn't even have to be "suggestive." It's a fairly common belief amongst the Orthodox that protestantism and Catholicism are "two sides of the same coin." I've read this more than once - and not in Orthodox posts, but in standard works on Orthodoxy.

That's always seemed hilarious to me, given that many Protestant and Catholic countries actually had wars because they hated each other so much.

Ergo it would be stupid of the Orthodox to pass up an opportunity to play off our fears of Protestantism, by calling the post-VII mass "protestantized" etc.

:scratches chin thoughtfully:

I've never attended a post VII mass so I can't comment personally, but my RC friends have complained to me that it is "protestantized".  My general experience w/ protestant services have been lots of handwaving and swaying during feel-good music that is played by second rate guitar and drum players and then followed by a long sermon on whatever the pastor felt was important on that particular day. I hope post-VII mass has not gone down that road.

[Christopher McAvoy]

Ergo it would be stupid of the Orthodox to pass up an opportunity to play off our fears of Protestantism, by calling the post-VII mass "protestantized" etc.

No need for us to do that:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/03/dear-cardinals-think-ecumenically.html
This and a long list of other traditional Roman Catholic blogs and periodicals will do that for us!

Sometimes the best criticism comes from inside from those who know and love it most.

"Metropolitan Hilarion, head of the Department of External Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate. ... "I hope that the new Pope is a traditionalist," he concluded. [Italian news agency ANSA]"

When Met. Hilarion says that, the faithful roman catholics cheer him on!

My general experience w/ protestant services have been lots of handwaving and swaying during feel-good music that is played by second rate guitar and drum players and then followed by a long sermon on whatever the pastor felt was important on that particular day. I hope post-VII mass has not gone down that road.

<-Yes, most catholic university "campus ministry" masses have gone down this route (as have "lifeteen masses" at parishes), the one near me even had their second hand guitarist guy (in this case he was nominated for some important music award) eventually become a seminarian. I occasionally wonder if he'll consider his guitar strumming part of the tradition of the mass for the future when he is a priest (if he makes it that far). Sometimes these types of priests even write their own hymns and play them on their guitar at mass or EWTN tv shows. People who go with the trends of the times are only too happy to be accepted by the RC diocesan vocations offices. The people uncomfortable with the trends who prefer the 12th century timelessness have to search far and wide for the seminary who will accept them. Though thankfully, the searching is easier every year. Back in the 1980's it was much harder.

[Jovan]

  Do women bear the image of God?   Can they stand in place of Christ, be icons of Christ?  Why just pick on the sex/gender bit  of women as breaking the "icon" of Christ?  Maybe only Jews should be priests, or perhaps only men with beards?    I mean this with the deepest respect to the Orthodox faith but the idea that women should not be priests because they cannot be icons of Christ reduces Christ's essential characteristics to his biological sex, hardly what I think Christians want to say about the Incarnation.  The Bible says "God is love" not "God is male".

With all due respect my dear brother, the interpretation of scripture to the phenomena of women in the priesthood is a bit illogical. Because scripture never explicit takes stand to the question, rather we need a outside source except our own feelings to determine its answer.  The biggest ambassador of Christ is our venerable Lady the Theotokos, our beloved one who gave her entire life to support the ministry of Gods son. Would you in any way interpret Gods grace through Mary as a harassment to men not being able to give birth to a Christ? This question is nothing that would even pop up in the church in the year 200-500. When i say that the tradition has always been that men have been priest, does that mean anything to you? Because if you reject the orthodox stand point on this question, you´re rejecting a very very very old position in favor for a idea that didn´t exist prior to the 20th century. And we can´t give ourselves authority in Gods name to utter anything. The apostles were given authority to preach and spread the church. They didn´t have a feeling and then went on from there. The same standard must be used today, only the church from Christs time can utter authority on these questions. If we break this one single authoritative source, we open the market place for everyone to come with ideas more sophisticated than just women being priests.

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

This verse does not in any meaning imply that God breaks his image with women. Every single part of Gods creation got different ways of playing their role here on earth. As people would like women to become priest, how would it sound if men started to cry out to God that they wanted to breastfeed babies, our else God is breaking his "equal" image to his creation. The image of God on men and women are very very very equal indeed, in any aspect, but takes expression through different roles.

Please forgive me if i wronged you in any way dear brother, please.

But as a Christian we always need to praise God for the way he works in his true church. Without any kind of authority on earth, people would justify masturbation because the word does not pop up in scripture once :S But the church always said no to women being priests, for several good reasons. Aswell as no to masturbation because it is interpreted as a sin through the church only. Exclude the true authoritative church and we may end with many problems that we both would agree being sinful. Just with our own beings interpreting the bible how we want it.

[Jovan]

My only honest response to any one would be, don´t do your own race on the bible or the faith. Because we had 1 Christ and 12 apostles doing it for us, and held the faith once delievered to this day:D


Jude 1:3
Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.

The faith was delivered to us, not that we today 2000 years later needs to figure something out. Our faith is delivered for us to recieve, the question is whether we want the faith delivered through the apostles or the one we make up ourselves?

[Jovan]

The true original church 33 A.D - 133 A.D) (A full 100 YEARS) did not have:
1) Icons (prove it if you think so, show me! - I want to SEE IT)
2) An iconostasis
3) A discos
4) A spear for the prosfora
5) Table of Oblation
6) A chalice
7) Byzantine king garb
Fanatical repetition of prayer (Jesus prayer) - held with prostrations
9) Confession only to priests
10) Processions

With a loving heart for you brother, I struggled with these things in my early orthodox life as well. The solution i found out was though much more necessary.

Remember that the orthodox church does not in any way keep the idea that, just because something is old, it´s true. Authority was given, and was used to further develop the church, and is today used to spread Gods grace through it.

For example, just the bible would not get through your list. Believe me the bible as a collection of Gods true scriptures came in the year around 400, a lot after 33 A.D. The trinity, you probably need to profess it by your list in the things in 33 A.D won´t allow it. Without the church and its authority, who can explain the validity of scriptures? Don´t take for granted that all things were sorted out within the lives of the apostles. The ground was firmly established...

As i said before dear brother, the church was given authority to just do what it did. Define the trinity in terms, so that we in Gods grace through his church could develop it.

The question is never about something old, but rather of the authority given then, to be used over time. When you exclude the church and its authority as a working hand of the Holy spirit, then you exclude everything. You can´t even give yourself authority, as if you were a apostle in the year 33 A.D, to say that something has to be old to be true. You need to be given that authority, the orthodox church is that living organism until this day. That´s why every single ecumenical council ended with the words:

It´s seems right to us THROUGH AND WITH the Holy Spirit to etc.

Whatever the church you would chose to attend to, remember this. That TRUE church need some kind of authority, or else Gods people would, and will be hurting a lot in the free open market place of ideas nowadays.

The question you ask to anyone who utters a single interpretation or word of the bible is simply this:

Who gave you authority to even interpret this verse or idea this way rather than the other?

Believe me, the orthodox, apostolic and catholic church is the only one who firmly can answer with, Christ gave us that authority 2000 years ago. It has been passed through until this day.

The issue is not old versus young, rather that the church lived out its authority in many different ways. It always used icons and can with its authority chose to stop using them.

The question is rather what authority one have to say that icons, veneration, apostolic succession, Confession only to priests, Processions, Fanatical repetition of prayer(Jesus prayer) and the entire list is wrong.

[ialmisry]

Christ is risen!

The true original church 33 A.D - 133 A.D) (A full 100 YEARS) did not have:
1) Icons (prove it if you think so, show me! - I want to SEE IT)

1) The Bible (prove it if you think so, show me! - I want to SEE IT)

[ialmisry]

Christ is risen!

How can an ambiguous group of individuals who have a general agreement that Christ was a good guy, some believing he was God but denying Trinitarian doctrine, some believing he was a god, others believing in traditional Trinitarian doctrine, be considered the Pillar of Truth?  ...

  "Protestantism" is no a monolithic entity, rather it is an historical movement spanning centuries, often at odds with itself.  Some forms of Protestantisms have given thought to ecclessiology and matters of authority and accountability to other Christians outside ones congregation.    Do not equivocate "Protestant" with "Baptist".

  If you think Orthodoxy is potentially immune from criticism of its ecclessiology, I have only one word for you: "Caesaropapism".

LOL.

That's rich coming from an Episcopalian.


Btw, Caesaropapism is an invention of Max Weber, and describes his Protestantism quite well, the Vatican and its apologists joining him.

[ialmisry]

Christ is risen!

Theology and liturgy naturally develop and change in time. They always have.

I thought that this was more the Catholic view than the Orthodox view?

It's really the Orthodox view too, although Orthodox polemicists may speak as though it isn't.

Not quite.  Not our fault that your apologists can't distinguish between puberty and a sex change.

[ialmisry]

Christ is risen!

I also am not quite sure why you think I argued that “not being Protestant” was a reason for joining the Orthodox Church.

Few people, if any, would ever actually say that. But one of the most prevalent undercurrents of Orthodox posts is pointing out similarities between protestantism and Catholicism (in a "suggestive" way).

now, now.  Your sibling rivalry is showing.

Not to mention your log: I've seen more apologists of the Vatican try to equate Orthodoxy with Protestantism than I can shake a stick at.

[William]

There are good reasons to join the Orthodox church, "Not being Protestant" is not one of them.

Is wanting to not have a disease not a good reason to see a doctor?

[Kerdy]

I am curious why so few posts actually addressed the OP.  If you are a person who left Orthodoxy for say, Catholicism, or know someone who did and they explained why, or spent a lot of time researching Orthodoxy and decided to not join, please share.  I would be very curious to know the reasons.  For those who few who already did, thank you!

[qawe]

There are good reasons to join the Orthodox church, "Not being Protestant" is not one of them.

Is wanting to not have a disease not a good reason to see a doctor?

Sorry, William - false analogy, working off the assumption that the Orthodox Church IS the doctor, on which you and I agree, but not Daedalus

[ialmisry]

Christ is risen!

There are good reasons to join the Orthodox church, "Not being Protestant" is not one of them.

Is wanting to not have a disease not a good reason to see a doctor?

Sorry, William - false analogy, working off the assumption that the Orthodox Church IS the doctor, on which you and I agree, but not Daedalus

Daedalus doesn't think anyone needs to see the doctor and take his medicine.

[qawe]

Christ is risen!

There are good reasons to join the Orthodox church, "Not being Protestant" is not one of them.

Is wanting to not have a disease not a good reason to see a doctor?

Sorry, William - false analogy, working off the assumption that the Orthodox Church IS the doctor, on which you and I agree, but not Daedalus

Daedalus doesn't think anyone needs to see the doctor and take his medicine.

I don't really follow.  In any case, it is obvious that Daedalus meant that MERELY not being Protestant is not a good enough reason to be Orthodox, with which I agree, since one must be convinced that Orthodoxy is the truth, not only that another sect is not.

[Daedelus1138]

I don't really follow.  In any case, it is obvious that Daedalus meant that MERELY not being Protestant is not a good enough reason to be Orthodox, with which I agree, since one must be convinced that Orthodoxy is the truth, not only that another sect is not.

  Right... I'm not persuaded by the polemics about apostolicity, icons, and lots of prayer and fasting as being things above what Protestantism presents.

  I am in a dialogue with Orthodox Christians in RL with the OCA and I'm still open to converting if I feel lead to do so.  But I'm not sold on the idea that the Byzantine tradition has a monopoly on the Gospel.  It may be where I need to be, then again maybe not.  It is a good thing to keep an open mind, though.

[Peter J]

I've seen more apologists of the Vatican try to equate Orthodoxy with Protestantism than I can shake a stick at.

Sadly, the Catholic Church has a lot of bad apologists.   

But I take comfort in the fact that she also has a lot of good apologists (many of whom are in positions of leadership IRL, like the papacy).

[TheTrisagion]

I've seen more apologists of the Vatican try to equate Orthodoxy with Protestantism than I can shake a stick at.

Sadly, the Catholic Church has a lot of bad apologists.   

But I take comfort in the fact that she also has a lot of good apologists (many of whom are in positions of leadership IRL, like the papacy).

If it weren't for RC apologists showing me the defects with Protestantism, I probably wouldn't have discovered Orthodoxy, so I will always have a soft spot in my heart toward the RC for that.

[Peter J]

I've seen more apologists of the Vatican try to equate Orthodoxy with Protestantism than I can shake a stick at.

Sadly, the Catholic Church has a lot of bad apologists.   

But I take comfort in the fact that she also has a lot of good apologists (many of whom are in positions of leadership IRL, like the papacy).

If it weren't for RC apologists showing me the defects with Protestantism, I probably wouldn't have discovered Orthodoxy, so I will always have a soft spot in my heart toward the RC for that.

[Peter J]

There are good reasons to join the Orthodox church, "Not being Protestant" is not one of them.

Is wanting to not have a disease not a good reason to see a doctor?

So "Not being Protestant" is a good reason to join the Orthodox Church?

:scratch chin:

[TheTrisagion]

There are good reasons to join the Orthodox church, "Not being Protestant" is not one of them.

Is wanting to not have a disease not a good reason to see a doctor?

So "Not being Protestant" is a good reason to join the Orthodox Church?

:scratch chin:

lol,  If I just wanted to escape protestantism, I sure as heck would pick an easier faith than Orthodoxy.  Maybe Buddhism.  They always seemed kinda chill.  Or UU, that is the definition of an easy religion.

[Cyrillic]

I've seen more apologists of the Vatican try to equate Orthodoxy with Protestantism than I can shake a stick at.

Sadly, the Catholic Church has a lot of bad apologists.   

But I take comfort in the fact that she also has a lot of good apologists (many of whom are in positions of leadership IRL, like the papacy).

If it weren't for RC apologists showing me the defects with Protestantism, I probably wouldn't have discovered Orthodoxy, so I will always have a soft spot in my heart toward the RC for that.

Same here.

[Papist]

Hahaha. Well sure, Peter, but wouldn't Catholics say the same (the second saying, not the first one) about what they perceive as similarities between Catholicism and Orthodoxy? In my time in the RCC, it was very common to hear people present the two as two sides of the same coin, similar to how Catholicism and Protestantism are often presented in EO apologetics.

While there are genuine differences, traditional Catholicism and Orthodoxy have quite a bit in common. Catholics and Orthodox are much closer to one another than either are protestants. Comparing Catholics to protestants is nothing more than a polemical game.

[The young fogey]

My 16-year trip through Orthodoxy. I respect but disagree with those who join for principled theological reasons; I wasn't there for good reasons. A refuge, not a real conversion; trying to camouflage my conservative Catholicism in Orthodox guise to look cool. Now I don't give a rip what secular folks think of it. I wish you well. It's not perfect here (Vatican II stunk) but my conscience is clear.

[William]

There are good reasons to join the Orthodox church, "Not being Protestant" is not one of them.

Is wanting to not have a disease not a good reason to see a doctor?

So "Not being Protestant" is a good reason to join the Orthodox Church?

:scratch chin:

Yes. Triumphalism, exclusivism and strident polemical rhetoric are good things which we should embrace and not feebly mock.

[Peter J]

Triumphalism, exclusivism and strident polemical rhetoric are good things which we should embrace and not feebly mock.

Do you want a T.E.S.P.R. bumper sticker? I've been giving them out, but I still have 98 left.

[stanley123]

My 16-year trip through Orthodoxy. I respect but disagree with those who join for principled theological reasons; I wasn't there for good reasons. A refuge, not a real conversion; trying to camouflage my conservative Catholicism in Orthodox guise to look cool. Now I don't give a rip what secular folks think of it. I wish you well. It's not perfect here (Vatican II stunk) but my conscience is clear.

Here's a question for you. Did the Church before the schism in 1054 accept the universal jurisdiction of Rome? If so, how do you explain the fact that when Cerularius was excommunicated, all of the Eastern bishops and Patriarchs remained in communion with Cerularius? If they thought that Rome was supreme or had jurisdiction over the East, why wouldn't they have wanted to stay in communion with Rome instead?

[LBK]

My 16-year trip through Orthodoxy. I respect but disagree with those who join for principled theological reasons; I wasn't there for good reasons. A refuge, not a real conversion; trying to camouflage my conservative Catholicism in Orthodox guise to look cool. Now I don't give a rip what secular folks think of it. I wish you well. It's not perfect here (Vatican II stunk) but my conscience is clear.

Here's a question for you. Did the Church before the schism in 1054 accept the universal jurisdiction of Rome? If so, how do you explain the fact that when Cerularius was excommunicated, all of the Eastern bishops and Patriarchs remained in communion with Cerularius? If they thought that Rome was supreme or had jurisdiction over the East, why wouldn't they have wanted to stay in communion with Rome instead?

Rome never had universal jurisdiction prior to the schism. Universal jurisdiction of one patriarchate over all the others contradicts the conciliar tradition of the Church held from the beginning. Christ appointed twelve apostles, not just one, and gave them all, not just one, the authority to bind and loose. First among equals does not mean supreme over all.

[The young fogey]

Most readers know about Catholic development of doctrine and of course most here don't believe in it. That the papacy looked more or less the same as far back as 1054 bolsters the papal claims. The Catholic Church is so big that the Pope couldn't micromanage you even if he wanted to (certainly true for most of history, with poor communication and travel), so we're puzzled when non-Catholics complain about papal power. Usually, from other Westerners, it really means they want him to have more power, to change the church into what they want: divorce and remarriage, birth control, abortion, homosexual pseudo-marriage, and women clergy. His office can't change those things. (Development of doctrine can't.) They're not mad at him for universal jurisdiction but for being Catholic. With Orthodox ethnics it's not really about egalitarianism among the apostles but asserting their own now-outmoded claims to empire (Byzantium and tsarist Russia); they saw Rome as a rival and threat and still do. (The Orthodox communion is not so much a close family of apostolic equals as an aggregation of churches very little to do with each other.) The self-loathing easternizing American converts have simply brought over their anti-papalism from Protestantism. I like the East but I don't hate the West, and can't believe God would leave his true church basically landlocked in Eastern Europe. (Catholicism has fulfilled the Great Commission.) So I'm happy being Catholic.

[Cyrillic]

I like the East but I don't hate the West, and can't believe God would leave his true church basically landlocked in Eastern Europe. (Catholicism has fulfilled the Great Commission.)

A few weeks ago I was, among other places, in Macedonia. Not very surprisingly, there was no Roman Catholic parish around. Why is it so hard to believe that the true Church was landlocked in the east for centuries while the Roman Catholic Church still is mostly limited to the west?

[LBK]

With Orthodox ethnics it's not really about egalitarianism among the apostles but asserting their own now-outmoded claims to empire (Byzantium and tsarist Russia); they saw Rome as a rival and threat and still do.

Nonsense. While there are phyletists in the Orthodox world, this sweeping generalization is wildly inaccurate. I've been Orthodox for 50 years, across several ethnicities and jurisdictions, and talk of resurrecting the glories of Byzantium or imperial Russia has been practically non-existent. After more than 40 years, the Greeks continue to refuse restoring a monarchy in Greece itself, so you think they're remotely interested in a Byzantine renaissance?

(The Orthodox communion is not so much a close family of apostolic equals as an aggregation of churches very little to do with each other.)

More nonsense. The glue which most visibly binds the Orthodox churches together, and expresses apostolic conciliarity is their liturgical and iconographic integrity and commonality. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

[Cyrillic]

More nonsense. The glue which most visibly binds the Orthodox churches together, and expresses apostolic conciliarity is their liturgical and iconographic integrity and commonality. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Western rite?

[The young fogey]

I like the East but I don't hate the West, and can't believe God would leave his true church basically landlocked in Eastern Europe. (Catholicism has fulfilled the Great Commission.)

A few weeks ago I was, among other places, in Macedonia. Not very surprisingly, there was no Roman Catholic parish around. Why is it so hard to believe that the true Church was landlocked in the east for centuries while the Roman Catholic Church still is mostly limited to the west?

You know my answer: we claim you as an estranged part of us, which upsets you like when an Anglican claims us as a branch of his church.

Macedonia, for example, being the universe for a Macedonian is traditional and understandable, but with Western converts it's an affectation; they know better.