Apparent pro-Petrine Easterners...

[Schultz]

But it would be rather hasty to accept what one is taught for face value without first considering the other side, or at least asking for evidence to back it up.

And it is equally hasty for you to assume that people who disagree with you on this subject have not done just that and "done their homework" so to speak.

[Matthew777]

I do expect that everyone has done their homework and I do understand that there are good reasons for not accepting the Roman Church as a church of truth.

[Twenty Nine]

But just because I experience the truth in Orthodoxy, that does not automatically make whatever truth one experiences in the Roman Catholic Church untruthful.

Right. Both Orthodox and Roman Catholics believe in the Virginity of the Theotokos. Just because one is a Catholic does not make this truth false.

Just because we experience the fullness of Apostolic Christianity within Orthodoxy, that does not mean that Roman Catholics do not experience this fullness within their tradition also (even though I doubt that most American Catholics do.)

But Roman Catholics do not experience this fullness because it fully resides only in Orthodoxy. Christ wants us to be complete. That is why the Holy Spirit guides Orthodoxy in all Truth. Christ does not want division.

If I were to make the a priori statement to a Catholic that since your Church is not Orthodox it is without Apostolic Truth, it would be rather similar to saying, "My dad can beat up your dad."

Not at all. It is YOU who take it to be offensive. Telling and sharing the Truth with someone who is not Orthodox is an act of love and compassion.

Orthodoxy is the only medicine that works...everything else is a sugar pill. Friends don't let friends take sugar pills.

Gregory

[Asteriktos]

But it would be rather hasty to accept what one is taught for face value without first considering the other side.

Just because we don't use politically correct ecumenical-speak, that doesn't mean that we haven't considered the "other side". Before you judged us as being judgmental, and condemned us as being condemning, did you consider the possibility that we had investigated the issues, and had simply come to a different (more acute) conclusion than you? I dare say, some of the participants on this forum have been investigating these issues longer than both of us have been alive. Even Catholics and Oriental Orthodox are trying to admonish you here. This is not about willfully blind Eastern Orthodox Christians who can't see past their own prayer rope.

[Matthew777]

But what is wrong with ecumenical-speak?

[Fr. David]

My point is that the truth of Orthodoxy does not necessarily require Catholicism to be without truth.

No one here would dispute that. But that doesn't seem to be all you were saying. There's a big difference between "being without truth" and "having valid sacraments." Most every Christian confession out there has some measure of truth, but our Church has consistently taught that the Orthodox communion alone has valid sacraments, period, full stop.

But just because I experience the truth in Orthodoxy, that does not automatically make whatever truth one experiences in the Roman Catholic Church untruthful.

How right you are. Yet my search that led me here was not one for "whatever truth one experiences" in this or that communion. I was looking for the "all truth" into which Christ said the Holy Spirit would lead His Church.

Just because we experience the fullness of Apostolic Christianity within Orthodoxy, that does not mean that Roman Catholics do not experience this fullness within their tradition also (even though I doubt that most American Catholics do.)

Ah, but there's the rub. The very fact that we do experience the fullness of Apostolic Christianity necessarily precludes any other communion from experiencing the same. Were it otherwise, we'd be the same Church and nothing would separate us! For two separate, disagreeing bodies to experience the same fullness would constitute either two Churches established by Christ or an inability by one or both (and, ultimately, anyone) from determining where Orthodoxy ends.

If I were to make the a priori statement to a Catholic that since your Church is not Orthodox it is without Apostolic Truth, it would be rather similar to saying, "My dad can beat up your dad."

The Catholic Church isn't without Apostolic Truth; it just doesn't have all of it.

But it would be rather hasty to accept what one is taught for face value without first considering the other side, or at least asking for evidence to back it up.

I wouldn't call a thousand years a hasty decision. And you have done much more than merely consider the other side; you've gone so far that, were you Eastern Orthodox, you would have been outside the clear synodal decisions of the Church. We can look into the other side, as you have. We can even ask for evidence. But we cannot then openly disagree with our bishops' rulings of over a thousand years and still maintain that nothing is rotten in the state of Denmark. As Orthodox, we are bound to interpret situations through the lens our shepherds provide. I profess ignorance as to the precise Non-Chalcedonian stance towards the RCC (more lenient, iirc), but don't be surprised at the Eastern Orthodox insistence that, when all the dust settles, the Church has spoken; the matter is ended.

(Sorry for repeating some things said above  )

[Matthew777]

But why make the conclusion that the Catholic sacraments are invalid?

When Catholic children in Spain open their mouths and a host miraculously appears on their toungs, are they receiving an invalid sacrament?

[Tabby]

Quote from: Matthew777 on Today at 02:50:58 PM
If I were to make the a priori statement to a Catholic that since your Church is not Orthodox it is without Apostolic Truth, it would be rather similar to saying, "My dad can beat up your dad."

The Catholic Church isn't without Apostolic Truth; it just doesn't have all of it.

could explain this? I dont see it this way I see that the RCC has all Apostolic Truth.  what do you think the RCC dont have that you do?

[Fr. David]

could explain this? I dont see it this way I see that the RCC has all Apostolic Truth.  what do you think the RCC dont have that you do?

Tabby,

First of all...welcome to the forum! Good to have you!

Secondly, a disclaimer...I don't have any personal animosity towards RCs. Thanks for asking in such a cordial manner.

OK, to answer your question (finally!), I would say that it's more along the lines of what the RCC has that we don't! Namely, additions to the faith such as the filioque, papal infallibility and ex cathedra, papal supremacy, the immaculate conception of Mary, too much dependance on scholasticism (seen most clearly to me in the unnecessary doctrine of transubstatiation), indulgences/purgatory/limbo, too much emphasis (and a wrong one, at that) on original sin, the doctrine of satisfaction atonement...yeah, that's all that's coming right off the top of my head.

I think two things that we would have that the RCC doesn't is much more consistent fidelity to liturgical integrity and traditional fasting rules.

All this leads me to believe that, were one to ask which confession more thoroughly encompasses the original deposit of faith, the above reasons would leave no doubt which one I'd pick.

[Matthew777]

Namely, additions to the faith such as the filioque

I never really could understand this addition. Do they have any Scriptural reason for the flioque clause?

papal infallibility and ex cathedra

According to current Catholic teaching, the Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra and that the papacy has only spoken ex cathedra in declaring the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.

papal supremacy

I believe that the Bishop of Rome is first among equals but is in no way absolutely authoritive over all other bishops.

the immaculate conception of Mary

Mary was, after all, without sin.

too much dependance on scholasticism

One cannot properly approach the mystical with the analytical and in that regard, Scholastic theology offends me.

I think two things that we would have that the RCC doesn't is much more consistent fidelity to liturgical integrity...

The one thing that totally bothers me about the Roman Church.

Even though the Catholic Church has problems, I fail to see how their sacraments are invalid. This is perhaps willfull ignorance on my part though I seriously doubt it.

[Marjorie]

The children of Father Michael attended Catholic school for free. Why? Because the Catholic Church is generous enough to provide free education to the children of Orthodox priests.
I hope that means something to you.

What about the children of Protestant ministers? I really dislike when "being generous" by Catholics is defined as Catholics being generous to Orthodox and Orthodox to Catholics. I am generous to Catholics, but only as generous to them as I am to Protestants. And non-Christians!

Marjorie

[Matthew777]

But my point is that the Roman Church feels a special relationship with us that they do not share with Protestants.

[Marjorie]

Having a mutual respect for the Roman Church is the right direction, and the members of my church would agree with that. This does not mean ignoring the bad things about the Roman Church such as the "Liturgical Renewel", etc. But these bad things do not make us hate Catholicism, they just remind us of how much we should appreciate and hold fast to our own faith.

You don't have to hate Roman Catholicism to disagree with it. You can respect the RCC without agreeing with it. I respect Judaism (the religion I was brought up with), but I don't agree with it. I don't hate Judaism, but I don't agree with it. I feel the same way towards the RCC.

Marjorie

[Marjorie]

But my point is that the Roman Church feels a special relationship with us that they do not share with Protestants.

So then it's not about being generous-- it's about "feeling a special relationship." Orthodoxy simply does not feel that special relationship with the RCC. We must love them, but just as we should love Anglo-Catholics (in fact, their faith is closer to that of Orthodoxy), or Lutherans, or Quakers, or even Jews and Buddhists and Taoists and Atheists.

Marjorie

[Tabby]

Tabby,

First of all...welcome to the forum! Good to have you!

Thank you

Secondly, a disclaimer...I don't have any personal animosity towards RCs. Thanks for asking in such a cordial manner.

I never took what you said as if you did...thanks for clearing that up though...and you are welcome actually I was going to reword my message because giving it a second look one could take it as if I wanted to debate it or something like that...but I am glad you didnt...so i thank you.

OK, to answer your question (finally!), I would say that it's more along the lines of what the RCC has that we don't! Namely, additions to the faith such as the filioque,

"filioque"? I am not sure I know what this is....I may but not in this term...I dont know so I cant respond to this...yet

papal infallibility

This belief was shared for centuries of the papal infallibility until the church broke off....I was just curious why the change of feeling on this?

immaculate conception of Mary

I just learned today that the orthodox dont believe this and learned why...I totally understand it...but dont believe it which my thoughts on this doesnt matter nor important...but it is cool to know what the belief is and why...

too much dependance on scholasticism (seen most clearly to me in the unnecessary doctrine of transubstatiation),

I am sorry for me being stupid....but could you help me understand what you mean?

indulgences/purgatory/limbo,

You dont believe in this? but it is in the bible...what do you believe...does one go straight to heaven?

too much emphasis (and a wrong one, at that) on original sin

What do you mean too much emphasis on orignal sin? I am not understanding this. I know one needs to know about the orginal sin to know the importance of baptism...again I am sorry for not understanding...I am stupid...

the doctrine of satisfaction atonement

?

yeah, that's all that's coming right off the top of my head.

I appreciate it.

I think two things that we would have that the RCC doesn't is much more consistent fidelity to liturgical integrity and traditional fasting rules.

we fast and there are rules...not sure if anybody follows it or not...but I do...maybe there is a different rule between orthodox and RCC? if so what is your rule?


and again thanks

[Matthew777]

Can't we be in a sense of awe and respect for what we do share in common with the Roman Church despite our divisions?

[Marjorie]

Just because we experience the fullness of Apostolic Christianity within Orthodoxy, that does not mean that Roman Catholics do not experience this fullness within their tradition also (even though I doubt that most American Catholics do.)

This is the crux of the misunderstanding and the hardest thing for non-Orthodox to understand. Orthodoxy is not simply the "truest of all religions" or the belief system that is the purest. Orthodoxy is the Church because it is a living communion, not because it has all the right ideas. The Church is not about ideas; it's about a Person, and the communion with Him. If communion is severed, there is no Church. That's simply what it is. The Church is contained within the communion. The RCC, no matter how close in doctrine, or how far away in doctrine, is not part of the Orthodox communion. Therefore it is outside the Church. This is not about being un-loving towards RCs, no more than it is hateful to say to a Protestant, "you are not part of the Church." It just is what it is. Schism takes someone outside the communion of the Church... period.

John Zizioulas has a great chapter on eucharistic communion as the ontological basis of the Church called "Truth and Communion" in his wonderful book, Being As Communion.

Marjorie

[Marjorie]

Can't we be in a sense of awe and respect for what we do share in common with the Roman Church despite our divisions?

Yes, and I feel this respect for Anglo-Catholics too-- and many Protestants. All Christians share much in common. But we are not all in communion with each other. And the Church is communion, not just a bunch of people with similar ideas.

Marjorie

[Matthew777]

Technically, my church is not part of the Orthodox communion.

[Marjorie]

Technically, my church is not part of the Orthodox communion.

True, but I am speaking from the EO vantage point.

Besides, the same theology of communion must apply to the OOs, no? The RCC is not in communion with the OOC...

Marjorie

[Jakub]

Matthew,

A curious question, when and what age did you become/join your Orthodox Church ?

I ask for reference only.

james

[Fr. David]

"filioque"? I am not sure I know what this is....I may but not in this term...I dont know so I cant respond to this...yet

It's the part of the Creed where you say, "And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Those last three words are filioque in Latin and were added to the Creed in the 500s without the consent of the Eastern Church, who still doesn't include it in the Creed. So we see it as an illegal addition, as well as just plain false.

This belief was shared for centuries of the papal infallibility until the church broke off....I was just curious why the change of feeling on this?

Huh. My understanding was that many bishops were under the impression that popes could err prior to V1.

I am sorry for me being stupid....but could you help me understand what you mean [about scholasticism]?

Oh, you are not stupid!   All that means is the need to define everything. The word transubstantiation is how Rome defined the way in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. We just don't see how that's very important; we say it's a mystery and leave it at that.

You dont believe in [indulgences/purgatory/limbo]? but it is in the bible...what do you believe...does one go straight to heaven?

Well, we believe in an intermediate state of the dead where we get our final purification before going to heaven, but it's for entirely different reasons than the purgatory of the Catholic Church...again, they define something further than they need to and wind up going astray.

What do you mean too much emphasis on orignal sin? I am not understanding this. I know one needs to know about the orginal sin to know the importance of baptism...

And there is an original sin in Orthodoxy...we just differ on how much that first sin affects us. I believe this was touched on by Paradosis in this thread.

...again I am sorry for not understanding...I am stupid...

And again, I say, you're not! You know, in a way, you're blessed in a way we eggheads and "Geek Orthodox" aren't! You have a much better chance at approaching childlike faith, I think, than we do, because you get along just fine without having to know about the "whens," "whys," "hows" and "whos" of history, patristics, liturgics, and all that other "churchy" stuff. Not that that stuff is bad, but it's like the guy who listened to the astronomy professor go on and on about the mathematical formulas of the paths of the stars for hours, then went outside that night and, simply and in awe, just looked at the stars.

My patron saint, Peter, was an unlearned fisherman. I'm a college-educated Spanish teacher who's looking to go into a M.Ed. program. Who's got the better faith between us?

? (regarding the doctrine of satisfaction atonement)

This is the idea that Jesus died on the Cross to satisfy God's anger or restore His honor, which has been offended by our sin. A payment, in other words, for our debt of sin, which God pays himself and which will then allow us a "clean slate" and entrance into heaven, since God can't stand to have sin in His presence or allow sin to go unpunished due to His honor.

Problem with this is, God has no problem being around sin; it's us with the problem. He has no problem forgiving sin at the drop of a hat with no repayment; He did this while on earth. We in the East look at it this way: sin's not a debt to be paid; it's a sickness to be healed. The Catholic idea, to us, focuses too much on the outside--paying some kind of debt--and not enough on the inside--healing the effects of sin. It's like going into a doctor's office and the doctor says to you, "You're all better now," without actually treating what's sick on the inside.

we fast and there are rules...not sure if anybody follows it or not...but I do...maybe there is a different rule between orthodox and RCC? if so what is your rule?

Glad to hear you follow it...Orthodox abstain from animal products, wine and oil on almost every Wednesday and Friday of the year, as well as during Lent. There's a lighter version of this for the forty days prior to Nativity (fish/wine/oil allowed on weekends, wine/oil on Tuesdays and Thursdays). We also have a two-week fast in August before the falling asleep of the Blessed Virgin Mary and a fast in June for the Apostles.

and again thanks

Anytime.  

[Matthew777]

Matthew,

A curious question, when and what age did you become/join your Orthodox Church ?

I ask for reference only.

james

I converted to Orthodoxy two years ago during my junior year of high school. Please refer to the thread Why I am no longer a Roman Catholic in the convert issues forum. 

[Tabby]

It's the part of the Creed where you say, "And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Those last three words are filioque in Latin and were added to the Creed in the 500s without the consent of the Eastern Church, who still doesn't include it in the Creed. So we see it as an illegal addition, as well as just plain false.

oh yeah I know what that is now...just never heard of the word. I dont see any problem with these words. added or or not. but I understand where you are coming from...but in the 500 there wasnt an orthodox...it was one church...so what do you mean by permision of the eastern church? Or am I missing something?

how about the "Hail Mary"? (I know the prayer is not the creed)...the last half was added in...."holy mary mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death" Do you say the second half of the "Hail Mary"?

Huh. My understanding was that many bishops were under the impression that popes could err prior to V1.

the pope can err in human nature like us...however it is only when it is in matters of doctrine of faith and morals...is when he is infallible and that is because of Jesus Christ's promise ...it will never change nor will it be added or taken away. In other words the pope can make a mistake in other areas....although I am sure he tries his best to avoid errors in every day life matters...but when it comes to the doctrine of faith and morals...that is when the pope is not in err..

Oh, you are not stupid!  All that means is the need to define everything. The word transubstantiation is how Rome defined the way in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. We just don't see how that's very important; we say it's a mystery and leave it at that.

oh I see. I can only guess why this is with the RCC...I can actually understand why they do. At the same time, I think that most RCC can agree it is a mystery. although I am only guessing on that...

Well, we believe in an intermediate state of the dead where we get our final purification before going to heaven, but it's for entirely different reasons than the purgatory of the Catholic Church...again, they define something further than they need to and wind up going astray.

my understanding of purgatory is the final purification before going to heaven....but what is this "define something futher than they need to"...what is the "something further"?

And there is an original sin in Orthodoxy...we just differ on how much that first sin affects us. I believe this was touched on by Paradosis in this thread.

yeah I read that, but if I may ask another question....if this is so...about the orthodox view on "original sin" then how important is baptism?

And again, I say, you're not! You know, in a way, you're blessed in a way we eggheads and "Geek Orthodox" aren't! You have a much better chance at approaching childlike faith, I think, than we do, because you get along just fine without having to know about the "whens," "whys," "hows" and "whos" of history, patristics, liturgics, and all that other "churchy" stuff. Not that that stuff is bad, but it's like the guy who listened to the astronomy professor go on and on about the mathematical formulas of the paths of the stars for hours, then went outside that night and, simply and in awe, just looked at the stars.

My patron saint, Peter, was an unlearned fisherman. I'm a college-educated Spanish teacher who's looking to go into a M.Ed. program. Who's got the better faith between us?

then I take that as a compliment....there is alot of stuff that I am stupid or "unlearned" about...and I dont think I will be able to get to all of it in this life time....

This is the idea that Jesus died on the Cross to satisfy God's anger or restore His honor, which has been offended by our sin. A payment, in other words, for our debt of sin, which God pays himself and which will then allow us a "clean slate" and entrance into heaven, since God can't stand to have sin in His presence or allow sin to go unpunished due to His honor.

Problem with this is, God has no problem being around sin; it's us with the problem. He has no problem forgiving sin at the drop of a hat with no repayment; He did this while on earth. We in the East look at it this way: sin's not a debt to be paid; it's a sickness to be healed. The Catholic idea, to us, focuses too much on the outside--paying some kind of debt--and not enough on the inside--healing the effects of sin. It's like going into a doctor's office and the doctor says to you, "You're all better now," without actually treating what's sick on the inside.

I believe and understand that we are suppose to do what is on the outside and inside...for it is what comes out is what we need to take control of. I think there is a misunderstanding here or something because if I sinned and went to confession...it is expected of me (it is MY responsiblity to fulfill) to heal what causes ME to sin......however I am just a weak human...and this is how I am dependant on Christ.....

Glad to hear you follow it...Orthodox abstain from animal products, wine and oil on almost every Wednesday and Friday of the year, as well as during Lent. There's a lighter version of this for the forty days prior to Nativity (fish/wine/oil allowed on weekends, wine/oil on Tuesdays and Thursdays). We also have a two-week fast in August before the falling asleep of the Blessed Virgin Mary and a fast in June for the Apostles.

so do we well i dont know about the "oil" part...however we actually stopped eating meat all kinds of meat (except fish) for three months...I totally gave it up...so now I have to give up in replace of that....so what I am NOW doing is just fasting on bread and water alone.


again thank you...you have been a help of me understanding the orthodox view...

[ByzantineSerb]

All of these discussions are great and all, as diologue is healthy for the memory and soul.

However, no one has totally answered my original inquiry- how do the Orthodox effectively countermand the "Latins" who wield the Eastern Fathers' apparently pro-Papacy stances?

[Asteriktos]

how do the Orthodox effectively countermand the "Latins" who wield the Eastern Fathers' apparently pro-Papacy stances?

More likely with a prayer rope than with a florilegium

[ByzantineSerb]

Cute, but again, not helpful.

Unless, of course, the "prayer rope", chotki (sp?), was made of leather.

[Asteriktos]

It wasn't meant to be cute, it was the truth. And I think it's up to God, and you, whether it's helpful. If you want everything systematically outlined for you, with references to 20 proof texts, then Orthodoxy definately isn't the place for you! You'd go crazy very quickly.

[Αριστοκλής]

It seems, ByzantineSerb, that you demand a response rather than avail yourself the 50+ pages in at least two other boards here from the last 2 years. I am glad we've so many new members because we oldies get tired of re-typing, re-writing, the same answers continually and all that with the loving patience of a cleric. 

Have you read the existing threads here?

Demetri

[Jennifer]

Ben, I highly recommend The  Primacy of Peter. 

It explores in a lot of detail some of the allegedly pro-papal writings of the Fathers. 

[Jennifer]

oh yeah I know what that is now...just never heard of the word.  I dont see any problem with these words.  added or or not. but I understand where you are coming from...but in the 500 there wasnt an orthodox...it was one church...so what do you mean by permision of the eastern church?  Or am I missing something? 

Tabby, here's an interesting article about the history of the filioque. 

Yes, there is only one Church, but the Church is composed of several different Churches all in communion with one another. 

Adding language to the Church's profession of faith is wrong because of what St. Vincent of Lerins teaches us: the catholic faith is that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.

how about the "Hail Mary"?  (I know the prayer is not the creed)...the last half was added in...."holy mary mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death"  Do you say the second half of the "Hail Mary"?

First, there are both western and eastern Orthodox Christians.  Eastern Orthodox do not recite the last half of the Hail Mary because it's not a part of our tradition.  On the other hand, western Orthodox Christians recite the western rosary (sans the luminous mysteries, of course).   Look here for more information on western Orthodoxy: westernorthodoxy.com. 

the pope can err in human nature like us...however it is only when it is in matters of doctrine of faith and morals...is when he is infallible and that is because of  Jesus Christ's  promise ...it will never change nor will it be added or taken away.  In other words the pope can make a mistake in other areas....although I am sure he tries his best to avoid errors in every day life matters...but when it comes to the doctrine of faith and morals...that is when the pope is not in err..

We believe in the infallibility of the Church but not the infallibility of the pope because it was not believed in the first thousand years of the Church (see St. Vincent discussed above). 

my understanding of purgatory is the final purification before going to heaven....but what is this "define something futher than they need to"...what is the "something further"?

It's unneeded speculation.  We know from Scriptures that we should pray for the dead.  We also know from the gospels that there's a heaven and a hell.  But that's all we know so why should we speculate further? 

yeah I read that, but if I may ask another question....if this is so...about the orthodox view on "original sin" then how important is baptism? 

We don't believe in "original sin," or "ancestral sin" in the western sense of the word.  The Orthodox understanding is that after Adam sinned, human nature became sick.  We inherit our human nature from Adam so inherit that "sick" human nature.  But we don't inherit Adam's sin because we didn't commit our own sin.  Baptism frees our nature from slavery to sin. 

so do we well i dont know about the "oil" part...however we actually stopped eating meat all kinds of meat (except fish) for three months...I totally gave it up...so now I have to give up in replace of that....so what I am NOW doing is just fasting on bread and water alone. 

Good for you.  Fasting used to be an important part of Roman Catholicism but it's hardly emphasized anymore.  I used to attend an RC parish where fasting was emphasized.  Basically we were the only RCs in the diocese who fasted during lent. 

What you say about bread and water makes me curious if you're into Medjugorje.  Which is, IMHO, one of the biggest scams of recent history. 

[Tabby]

hello Jennifer I am just going to respond to a few of your comments only because the ones I dont respond to you gave me info on YOUR belief and dont need clerifing...

We don't believe in "original sin," or "ancestral sin" in the western sense of the word.  The Orthodox understanding is that after Adam sinned, human nature became sick.  We inherit our human nature from Adam so inherit that "sick" human nature.  But we don't inherit Adam's sin because we didn't commit our own sin.  Baptism frees our nature from slavery to sin. 

so what do you believe the importance of baptism? 

Good for you.  Fasting used to be an important part of Roman Catholicism but it's hardly emphasized anymore.  I used to attend an RC parish where fasting was emphasized.  Basically we were the only RCs in the diocese who fasted during lent. 

i dont know how many parishes you attended when you went to the RCC, but the ones I have been too talks about fasting and the importance...even in my RCIA there was a lesson about fasting a whole lessen where it all started...showed biblical accounts with the ECF and so on...

What you say about bread and water makes me curious if you're into Medjugorje.  Which is, IMHO, one of the biggest scams of recent history.

 

Why do you think medjugorje is a scam?  what do you think about Fatima?....oh to answer your question I just know about the medjugorje not that I have read any of it or "into" it...there is too many appearence for me to keep up....all I know about medjugorje is that they havent investaged it yet because the appearation is still happening....but that is all I know...why?  is there something about bread and water that links to medjugorje?  Actually we are NOT required to believe in the appearation (I think I am not using the right term)...but the ones that I have read I do believe like the Ladiy of fatima, and the Lady of the Lourdes...

about how  I chose bread and water...I thought that myself I thought that would be the best fast...especially when I have stopped eating meat for good...

[Jennifer]

so what do you believe the importance of baptism?

Baptism is important, more than important, necessary, because through baptism we join the Church.  Salvation in the Orthodox Church is about restoring the image of God in man.  In baptism, we can become partakers in the divine nature. 

i dont know how many parishes you attended when you went to the RCC, but the ones I have been too talks about fasting and the importance...even in my RCIA there was a lesson about fasting a whole lessen where it all started...showed biblical accounts with the ECF and so on...

I've been to many RCC parishes and fasting was only discussed at one parish. 

Why do you think medjugorje is a scam? what do you think about Fatima?....oh to answer your question I just know about the medjugorje not that I have read any of it or "into" it...there is too many appearence for me to keep up....all I know about medjugorje is that they havent investaged it yet because the appearation is still happening....but that is all I know...why? is there something about bread and water that links to medjugorje? Actually we are NOT required to believe in the appearation (I think I am not using the right term)...but the ones that I have read I do believe like the Ladiy of fatima, and the Lady of the Lourdes...

Medjugorje is a scam because it was invented by a bunch of disobedient Croatian nationalist priests.  The Medjugorje Deception

I don't have an opinion on Fatima. 

about how I chose bread and water...I thought that myself I thought that would be the best fast...especially when I have stopped eating meat for good...

I asked because that's a Medjugorje 'thing.' 

[Tabby]

Baptism is important, more than important, necessary, because through baptism we join the Church.  Salvation in the Orthodox Church is about restoring the image of God in man.  In baptism, we can become partakers in the divine nature.

ok...I want to bring up something....you said something that when adam did what he did humans became sick (I think of that when I hear about "orignal sin"...I guess there is more to it I suppose...but that is how I look it. orginal sin is from the fall and human became sick..I guess I am having trouble understanding the "differences"..)....is the "baptism" like the doctors medicine to be cured?

I've been to many RCC parishes and fasting was only discussed at one parish.

I heard by others that they had to change parishes because a preist was too liberal....well it is like this...you have school teachers they know their stuff....but the problem is they dont know how to teach it....I dont know why some parishes dont talk about fasting..maybe they just assume that you should know and it is your responsibilty to know and do it?  who knows...I dont.

Medjugorje is a scam because it was invented by a bunch of disobedient Croatian nationalist priests.  The Medjugorje Deception

It's a good thing that it isnt a doctrine to believe in appearations...in other words we dont HAVE to believe it.

I asked because that's a Medjugorje 'thing.'

oh..I see...

I just think for myself sense I dont eat junkfood or sweets or anything really enjoyable as most think...and since I already gave up meat for good...the best fast would be just bread and water alone..

anyways thanks

 

[Jennifer]

ok...I want to bring up something....you said something that when adam did what he did humans became sick (I think of that when I hear about "orignal sin"...I guess there is more to it I suppose...but that is how I look it. orginal sin is from the fall and human became sick..I guess I am having trouble understanding the "differences"..)....is the "baptism" like the doctors medicine to be cured?

It's seems similar and I'm not one of those who advocate there being a huge difference in the two understandings.  The crux of the difference as I see it is that Orthodoxy doesn't teach that man inherited Adam's sin, or guilt, but rather only his fallen nature.  Mankind inherites death from Adam but not a personal sin.  As an example, Orthodoxy doesn't teach that unbaptized babies who die go to limbo.  Although I don't think Rome teaches that either.

Baptism doesn't "cure" the soul.  Baptism makes it possible for the soul to be cured. 

I heard by others that they had to change parishes because a preist was too liberal....well it is like this...you have school teachers they know their stuff....but the problem is they dont know how to teach it....I dont know why some parishes dont talk about fasting..maybe they just assume that you should know and it is your responsibilty to know and do it? who knows...I dont.

It's not a matter of "liberal" priests.  Fasting is no longer required of Roman Catholics.  Before the Council, Roman Catholics used to fast from midnight before receiving the Eucharist just like the Orthodox.  Fasting on ember days and during lent was also required.  Now all that's required is fasting on ash wednesday and good friday and for an hour before receiving.  Of course some Catholics know that more than the minimum is a good thing and practice fasting.  Some priests recommend fasting.  But the vast majority do not.

It's a good thing that it isnt a doctrine to believe in appearations...in other words we dont HAVE to believe it.

But the question is why do Roman Catholics flock to these weird apparitions?  My theory is that since Vatican II trashed the old liturgy and most parishes discarded the old devotions, people have to look elsewhere to get their spiritual 'fix.' 

If you want to learn more, I highly recommend The Orthodox Church. 

[Tabby]

Jennifer thank you for explaining about the baptism and the recomendation of the book...

I do want to say something that the RCC does teach about fasting...I went directly to my CCC to see...and this is what I got

2043 The fourth precept ("You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church") ensures the times of ascesis and penance which prepare us for the liturgical feasts and help us acquire mastery over our instincts and freedom of heart.85

The fifth precept ("You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church") means that the faithful are obliged to assist with the material needs of the Church, each according to his own ability.86

The faithful also have the duty of providing for the material needs of the Church, each according to his own abilities.87

1969 The New Law practices the acts of religion: almsgiving, prayer and fasting, directing them to the "Father who sees in secret," in contrast with the desire to "be seen by men."24 Its prayer is the Our Father.25

1434 The interior penance of the Christian can be expressed in many and various ways. Scripture and the Fathers insist above all on three forms, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving, which express conversion in relation to oneself, to God, and to others. Alongside the radical purification brought about by Baptism or martyrdom they cite as means of obtaining forgiveness of sins: effort at reconciliation with one's neighbor, tears of repentance, concern for the salvation of one's neighbor, the intercession of the saints, and the practice of charity "which covers a multitude of sins."

this is just a few out of the CCC.  (there is more)

We also fast on wed and fri on certain seasons (I dont know all the members do or not, but I do...and from what I have read in the CCC the church does teach it...well not stating that the preist mentions it or not...that is another topic, but my opionion I think the priest should)...

I cant answer for the members or answer for the preist who doesnt talk about it...but that doesnt mean the "Church" doesnt teach it.


again thank you so much....you have been a help along with a few others...

[Schultz]

But the question is why do Roman Catholics flock to these weird apparitions?  My theory is that since Vatican II trashed the old liturgy and most parishes discarded the old devotions, people have to look elsewhere to get their spiritual 'fix.' 

People have been flocking to these things long before the much maligned Vatican II was convened.  There are FAR more practicing and pious Catholics who don't put much stock in these things than there are those who chase after statues that wash up in Texas. 

Also, Vatican II did not "trash" the old liturgy.  The present Novus Ordo Mass was a result of Paul VI, long after the council was over.

[Matthew777]

Apparitions DO happen:



http://www.zeitun-eg.org/

[sdcheung]

Thats what happens when you have a bit of undigested gyro, you see wierd "apparitions".
Demons at work. 

Apparitions DO happen:



http://www.zeitun-eg.org/

[Matthew777]

Why would anyone accuse Theotokos appearing above an Orthodox Church of being a demon?

[TomS]

Why would anyone accuse Theotokos appearing above an Orthodox Church of being a demon?

Simple -- observing something like this would generally cause more of an awe and supernatural closeness with the "person" seen in the apparition. Not to speak of the idea that the "person" appearing in the apparition would be considered to be the link to Christ.

Why doesn't Christ appear? Why is it always Mary? Because the evil one knows that since Mary was exactly like us - she is our "soft spot". He will use her and apparitions of her, and adoration of her bordering on worship, to distract us from the Savior. This is how the evil one has used the Roman Catholic Church by creating the praying the Rosary reciting the "Hail Mary Full of Grace" prayer. It puts Mary up as the intermediary. She is NOT.

This is a simplistic explanation - but it is what I believe.

[Jennifer]

Simple -- observing something like this would generally cause more of an awe and supernatural closeness with the "person" seen in the apparition. Not to speak of the idea that the "person" appearing in the apparition would be considered to be the link to Christ.

Why doesn't Christ appear? Why is it always Mary? Because the evil one knows that since Mary was exactly like us - she is our "soft spot". He will use her and apparitions of her, and adoration of her bordering on worship, to distract us from the Savior. This is how the evil one has used the Roman Catholic Church by creating  the praying the Rosary reciting the "Hail Mary Full of Grace" prayer. It puts Mary up as the intermediary. She is NOT.

This is a simplistic explanation - but it is what I believe.

Tabby, in case you read this, Tom does not speak for all (or even most) Orthodox when he writes this.  Tom's opinions about the Virgin Mary are not consistent with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. 

[Matthew777]

When we pray the Hail Mary during the Holy Liturgy, are we praying to Satan? Are you accusing the Orthodox Church of Satanic worship?

And if the apparation of the Virgin Mary confirms one's faith in Christ and the Orthodox Church, is that apparition of Satan? -

Matt 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
Matt 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
Matt 12:27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast [them] out? therefore they shall be your judges.
Matt 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

And have you considered then in the apparitions of the Virgin Mary, she is holding the Christ-child?

[ByzantineSerb]

It seems, ByzantineSerb, that you demand a response rather than avail yourself the 50+ pages in at least two other boards here from the last 2 years. I am glad we've so many new members because we oldies get tired of re-typing, re-writing, the same answers continually and all that with the loving patience of a cleric.

Demetri

Well, first of all, I can't find the 50 + pages on the issue. I had seen it several months ago, but alas,  can't find it.

Look, I'm not looking for a response. I don't expect people to re-type things for my pitiful benefit. In fact, a special thank you to Jennifer for posting a link!

God bless.

[TomS]

Tom's opinions about the Virgin Mary are not consistent with the teachings of the Orthodox Church.

That's absolutely true. And also why I said that this is what I believe at the end of my post.

Still -

Do YOU believe that these apparitions are REALLY Mary?
And if you do, WHY is it always Mary who appears?
And HOW is it even decided that it is Mary?
Do we have a photograph of Mary?
Is she wearing a huge "Mary (the mother of God)" placard sign on her?

Why is it so hard for people to understand that ALL of this nonsene is from the evil one!??!!! Go see the people after they see these apparitions - they become obsessed with the apparition and become worshipers of IT and are distracted from HE WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD!!!!

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: Apparent pro-Petrine Easterners...