OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 09:35:52 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Does it take the knowledge of a historian to discern who is right?  (Read 1041 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
byhisgrace
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian - Evangelical
Posts: 30


« on: October 28, 2014, 12:45:05 AM »

...about whether the Orthodox or Catholic position on Papal Infallibility is correct? There is so much writings of the Early Church Fathers, that it would probably take me years to read them all. And even if I do...I definitely won't know everything there is to know about them.

For years, I've been praying for God to reveal to me whether the Church is the EOC, the RCC, or something else. I assume that in order to find the answer to that question, I would have to discern whether the office of the Papacy is Apostolic truth.

I've read the ECFs of the first century, and much of the second century. I also read two books from Augustine. After that, I got tired of reading. It was more than a mouthful. Do I really need to spend so much time studying the ECFs and Church History, before I can make an informed decision on who is right?

Thanks.
Logged
Paisius
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 1,235


Scheherazade


« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2014, 12:52:58 AM »

Spend some time at Mass and at the Divine Liturgy. That would be my recommendation. I know some people come to the faith through a study of history but it can be really confusing as well. Instead of history in my opinion your time would be better spent experiencing the life of the Church.
Logged
lovesupreme
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,139


This is where I choose to tread


« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2014, 12:53:35 AM »

Have you heard about those pesky non-Chalcedonians? They also make deciding difficult. Wink

You are correct that it would take years to even approach the level of understanding Church historians have reached, and even they haven't been able to determine which Church is in the right.

Your discernment will come through prayer and lived experience. Those are what lead us to God.

He will guide you to the right place.
Logged

I am prone to bouts of sarcasm. Please forgive me if my posts have offended you.
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,620


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2014, 12:55:26 AM »

Quote
about whether the Orthodox or Catholic position on Papal Infallibility is correct?

Christ appointed twelve disciples, all of equal authority. Note also that Peter, supposedly the chief among them, denied Christ three times, yet he was not rejected as an apostle by Christ.
Logged
byhisgrace
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian - Evangelical
Posts: 30


« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2014, 02:10:44 AM »

Spend some time at Mass and at the Divine Liturgy. That would be my recommendation. I know some people come to the faith through a study of history but it can be really confusing as well. Instead of history in my opinion your time would be better spent experiencing the life of the Church.
I attended mass twice and a Divine Liturgy once. I met and talked, in person, once with an Orthodox priest, and once with a Catholic priest. Unfortunately, nothing "clicked" on me. What do you advice I do, now?

By the way, is there an "RCIA," only for the Orthodox Church?

Thanks.
Logged
byhisgrace
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian - Evangelical
Posts: 30


« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2014, 02:17:10 AM »

Quote
about whether the Orthodox or Catholic position on Papal Infallibility is correct?

Christ appointed twelve disciples, all of equal authority. Note also that Peter, supposedly the chief among them, denied Christ three times, yet he was not rejected as an apostle by Christ.
Wouldn't a Catholic apologist argue that that only proves that Peter is not impeccable?
Logged
byhisgrace
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian - Evangelical
Posts: 30


« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2014, 02:23:13 AM »

Have you heard about those pesky non-Chalcedonians? They also make deciding difficult. Wink

You are correct that it would take years to even approach the level of understanding Church historians have reached, and even they haven't been able to determine which Church is in the right.

Your discernment will come through prayer and lived experience. Those are what lead us to God.

He will guide you to the right place.
Thank you. I trust that He will lead me. I just hope that I respond to His call. Maybe the truth is hidden from me because I need to wait. Maybe the truth is right in front of me, but I have "blinders" on that I need to remove. Who knows? Regardless, I will continue to trust in Him. He is always faithful.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,620


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2014, 02:26:09 AM »

Quote
about whether the Orthodox or Catholic position on Papal Infallibility is correct?

Christ appointed twelve disciples, all of equal authority. Note also that Peter, supposedly the chief among them, denied Christ three times, yet he was not rejected as an apostle by Christ.
Wouldn't a Catholic apologist argue that that only proves that Peter is not impeccable?

You're not taking into account that Christ chose twelve, not one, and gave them all the same authority.
Logged
Minnesotan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Raised evangelical, inquiring into Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Not sure where I'll end up yet
Posts: 703


From the Land of 10,000 Lakes


« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2014, 02:30:21 AM »

By the way, is there an "RCIA," only for the Orthodox Church?

Yes, it's called the catechumenate.
Logged
WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,735



« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2014, 02:49:51 AM »

It would be history gained by actual experience and not just information from books.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 02:50:24 AM by WPM » Logged
byhisgrace
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian - Evangelical
Posts: 30


« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2014, 04:14:07 AM »

Quote
about whether the Orthodox or Catholic position on Papal Infallibility is correct?

Christ appointed twelve disciples, all of equal authority. Note also that Peter, supposedly the chief among them, denied Christ three times, yet he was not rejected as an apostle by Christ.
Wouldn't a Catholic apologist argue that that only proves that Peter is not impeccable?

You're not taking into account that Christ chose twelve, not one, and gave them all the same authority.
I heard that most of the Early Church Fathers interpreted that the keys of the kingdom were given to all the Apostles, not just Peter. Is that correct?
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,620


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #11 on: October 29, 2014, 04:26:43 AM »

Quote
about whether the Orthodox or Catholic position on Papal Infallibility is correct?

Christ appointed twelve disciples, all of equal authority. Note also that Peter, supposedly the chief among them, denied Christ three times, yet he was not rejected as an apostle by Christ.
Wouldn't a Catholic apologist argue that that only proves that Peter is not impeccable?

You're not taking into account that Christ chose twelve, not one, and gave them all the same authority.
I heard that most of the Early Church Fathers interpreted that the keys of the kingdom were given to all the Apostles, not just Peter. Is that correct?

It's not just the early Fathers who believed that. The keys to the kingdom is the authority to bind and loose, which, as the Gospel says, was given to all the apostles.
Logged
WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,735



« Reply #12 on: October 29, 2014, 04:31:44 AM »

I think you choose to ignore when someone is trying to say something  Roll Eyes
Logged
byhisgrace
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian - Evangelical
Posts: 30


« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2014, 04:37:15 AM »

Quote
about whether the Orthodox or Catholic position on Papal Infallibility is correct?

Christ appointed twelve disciples, all of equal authority. Note also that Peter, supposedly the chief among them, denied Christ three times, yet he was not rejected as an apostle by Christ.
Wouldn't a Catholic apologist argue that that only proves that Peter is not impeccable?

You're not taking into account that Christ chose twelve, not one, and gave them all the same authority.
I heard that most of the Early Church Fathers interpreted that the keys of the kingdom were given to all the Apostles, not just Peter. Is that correct?

It's not just the early Fathers who believed that. The keys to the kingdom is the authority to bind and loose, which, as the Gospel says, was given to all the apostles.
Sounds good. I know that the Orthodox Church believes that Peter is the first among equals, but does not have higher authority or universal jurisdiction. What does that mean, in practice?
Logged
byhisgrace
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian - Evangelical
Posts: 30


« Reply #14 on: October 29, 2014, 04:38:40 AM »

It would be history gained by actual experience and not just information from books.
Experience can be subjective. How can I know by experience whether the Spirit is leading me?
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,620


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #15 on: October 29, 2014, 04:55:03 AM »

Quote
about whether the Orthodox or Catholic position on Papal Infallibility is correct?

Christ appointed twelve disciples, all of equal authority. Note also that Peter, supposedly the chief among them, denied Christ three times, yet he was not rejected as an apostle by Christ.
Wouldn't a Catholic apologist argue that that only proves that Peter is not impeccable?

You're not taking into account that Christ chose twelve, not one, and gave them all the same authority.
I heard that most of the Early Church Fathers interpreted that the keys of the kingdom were given to all the Apostles, not just Peter. Is that correct?

It's not just the early Fathers who believed that. The keys to the kingdom is the authority to bind and loose, which, as the Gospel says, was given to all the apostles.
Sounds good. I know that the Orthodox Church believes that Peter is the first among equals, but does not have higher authority or universal jurisdiction. What does that mean, in practice?

The Orthodox Church commemorates Apostles Peter and Paul jointly, as the chiefs of the Apostles. The hymns sung at Vespers and Matins for their feast clearly express their equal standing. This is also expressed in their iconography: they are very often shown holding a model of a church between them, in icons of the Twelve Apostles, are in the foreground, closest to the viewer (with St Andrew standing directly behind them, reflecting his status as the first one called by Christ), and in icons of Pentecost, which commemorates the descent of the Holy Spirit on the disciples, they are at the head of the arc formed by the seated Twelve.

The hymnography of other apostles also speaks of these others in similar terms of authority and praise. When seen as a whole, the equality of apostolic authority among them all is clear.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 04:55:20 AM by LBK » Logged
byhisgrace
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian - Evangelical
Posts: 30


« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2014, 05:03:25 AM »

I think you choose to ignore when someone is trying to say something  Roll Eyes
Trust me, I ponder on everypne's replies, and I really appreciate them Smiley
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 05:22:10 AM by byhisgrace » Logged
gueranger
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 292


St. Alexis of Wilkes Barre, pray for me a sinner.


« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2014, 07:04:24 AM »

I have agonized over becoming Orthodox. It was history that brought me in, and yes, I feel like I had to become a scholar.

I love the traditional Latin Mass, and I understand the appeal of Traditional Roman Catholicism. But I was living in a little bubble of tradition in a Church that is openly hostile to its own tradition.

Visit lots of Catholic and Orthodox parishes. Not just one or two of each. Get a feel for the landscape.

Pray and study. Mostly pray.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 07:05:47 AM by gueranger » Logged

“Hold firmly that your faith is identical to that of the ancients, deny this and you dissolve the unity of the Church.” -St. Thomas Aquinas

http://www.amazon.com/His-Broken-Body-Understanding-Catholic/dp/0615183611

http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-banished-heart-9780567442208/
gueranger
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 292


St. Alexis of Wilkes Barre, pray for me a sinner.


« Reply #18 on: October 29, 2014, 07:08:44 AM »

Have you heard about those pesky non-Chalcedonians? They also make deciding difficult. Wink


Truth.
Logged

“Hold firmly that your faith is identical to that of the ancients, deny this and you dissolve the unity of the Church.” -St. Thomas Aquinas

http://www.amazon.com/His-Broken-Body-Understanding-Catholic/dp/0615183611

http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-banished-heart-9780567442208/
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,399



« Reply #19 on: October 29, 2014, 07:12:07 AM »

The truth itself is simple, but it does have more than one component. The primary component is spiritual. Basically, do you agree with things? Do they make sense in your heart? The answer might not come easy, but the "method" of the spirit is really the one that makes or breaks everything in the end, the one that makes one seek and love the truth. Other components, important as they may be, do not have a primary role, ultimately, because they are more systematic and don't require that you assume what you believe but that you weigh and discern your beliefs.
Logged

Paisius
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 1,235


Scheherazade


« Reply #20 on: October 29, 2014, 02:30:10 PM »

Spend some time at Mass and at the Divine Liturgy. That would be my recommendation. I know some people come to the faith through a study of history but it can be really confusing as well. Instead of history in my opinion your time would be better spent experiencing the life of the Church.
I attended mass twice and a Divine Liturgy once. I met and talked, in person, once with an Orthodox priest, and once with a Catholic priest. Unfortunately, nothing "clicked" on me. What do you advice I do, now?

By the way, is there an "RCIA," only for the Orthodox Church?

Thanks.



You have to be patient. You can't expect things to "click" from one visit or conversation. That's not what Christianity is. Forget about trying to compare or looking for proofs. You have to experience the life of the Church. Read the daily Scripture readings. Go to every service you can get to. That is where you will learn Orthodoxy.
Logged
byhisgrace
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian - Evangelical
Posts: 30


« Reply #21 on: October 29, 2014, 08:41:46 PM »

Spend some time at Mass and at the Divine Liturgy. That would be my recommendation. I know some people come to the faith through a study of history but it can be really confusing as well. Instead of history in my opinion your time would be better spent experiencing the life of the Church.
I attended mass twice and a Divine Liturgy once. I met and talked, in person, once with an Orthodox priest, and once with a Catholic priest. Unfortunately, nothing "clicked" on me. What do you advice I do, now?

By the way, is there an "RCIA," only for the Orthodox Church?

Thanks.



You have to be patient. You can't expect things to "click" from one visit or conversation. That's not what Christianity is. Forget about trying to compare or looking for proofs. You have to experience the life of the Church. Read the daily Scripture readings. Go to every service you can get to. That is where you will learn Orthodoxy.

What if I die an Evangelical, before I ever become convinced of what the true Church is? God wouldn't send me to hell for that, would he?
Logged
Paisius
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 1,235


Scheherazade


« Reply #22 on: October 29, 2014, 08:44:51 PM »

Spend some time at Mass and at the Divine Liturgy. That would be my recommendation. I know some people come to the faith through a study of history but it can be really confusing as well. Instead of history in my opinion your time would be better spent experiencing the life of the Church.
I attended mass twice and a Divine Liturgy once. I met and talked, in person, once with an Orthodox priest, and once with a Catholic priest. Unfortunately, nothing "clicked" on me. What do you advice I do, now?

By the way, is there an "RCIA," only for the Orthodox Church?

Thanks.



You have to be patient. You can't expect things to "click" from one visit or conversation. That's not what Christianity is. Forget about trying to compare or looking for proofs. You have to experience the life of the Church. Read the daily Scripture readings. Go to every service you can get to. That is where you will learn Orthodoxy.

What if I die an Evangelical, before I ever become convinced of what the true Church is? God wouldn't send me to hell for that, would he?



No of course not. If God sent people to hell for being mistaken we'd all be in trouble.
Logged
byhisgrace
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian - Evangelical
Posts: 30


« Reply #23 on: October 29, 2014, 08:54:27 PM »

Spend some time at Mass and at the Divine Liturgy. That would be my recommendation. I know some people come to the faith through a study of history but it can be really confusing as well. Instead of history in my opinion your time would be better spent experiencing the life of the Church.
I attended mass twice and a Divine Liturgy once. I met and talked, in person, once with an Orthodox priest, and once with a Catholic priest. Unfortunately, nothing "clicked" on me. What do you advice I do, now?

By the way, is there an "RCIA," only for the Orthodox Church?

Thanks.



You have to be patient. You can't expect things to "click" from one visit or conversation. That's not what Christianity is. Forget about trying to compare or looking for proofs. You have to experience the life of the Church. Read the daily Scripture readings. Go to every service you can get to. That is where you will learn Orthodoxy.

What if I die an Evangelical, before I ever become convinced of what the true Church is? God wouldn't send me to hell for that, would he?



No of course not. If God sent people to hell for being mistaken we'd all be in trouble.
Whew, that's a relief Smiley

Thanks for your advice. I'll be more patient, and continue the life of the Church.
Logged
Georgii
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR, German Diocese
Posts: 342


Holy Martyr Afra, pray to God for us!


« Reply #24 on: October 29, 2014, 08:55:16 PM »

No of course not. If God sent people to hell for being mistaken we'd all be in trouble.

We all are in trouble, but God is merciful. Smiley
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 09:16:24 PM by Georgii » Logged

my garment accuses me, for it is not a wedding garment
byhisgrace
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian - Evangelical
Posts: 30


« Reply #25 on: October 30, 2014, 12:07:50 AM »

We all are in trouble, but God is merciful. Smiley
Amen!
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 12:08:56 AM by byhisgrace » Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,193


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #26 on: November 05, 2014, 10:13:07 PM »

Quote
about whether the Orthodox or Catholic position on Papal Infallibility is correct?

Christ appointed twelve disciples, all of equal authority. Note also that Peter, supposedly the chief among them, denied Christ three times, yet he was not rejected as an apostle by Christ.

"Get thee behind me Satan".... pretty strong words.
Logged
jb504079
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 6


« Reply #27 on: November 21, 2014, 04:21:04 PM »

I almost became Roman Catholic, but I continued to study, and I became Orthodox.  One of my biggest questions then about Papal Primacy was "Why Rome?"  If PETER was the "only rock" on which the Church was built, and only PETER'S authority passes on to his successors, why not his successors in Antioch?  Why Rome alone?  Did Peter not anoint a successor Bishop in Antioch after founding the Church there?  Sure he did.

So, if the whole Papacy doctrine hinges on "Peter", and not "Rome", then what are we to think of Peter's successors in Antioch?
Logged
LenInSebastopol
Dimly Illumined
Warned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptized, March 9, 2014
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 391


« Reply #28 on: November 21, 2014, 06:30:18 PM »

It would be history gained by actual experience and not just information from books.
Experience can be subjective. How can I know by experience whether the Spirit is leading me?

1 John 4:1 can help as can prayer and fasting
Logged

Mark 14:36
God is with us, understand O' ye nations, and submit yourselves, for God is with us
byhisgrace
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian - Evangelical
Posts: 30


« Reply #29 on: November 21, 2014, 06:58:20 PM »

I almost became Roman Catholic, but I continued to study, and I became Orthodox.  One of my biggest questions then about Papal Primacy was "Why Rome?"  If PETER was the "only rock" on which the Church was built, and only PETER'S authority passes on to his successors, why not his successors in Antioch?  Why Rome alone?  Did Peter not anoint a successor Bishop in Antioch after founding the Church there?  Sure he did.

So, if the whole Papacy doctrine hinges on "Peter", and not "Rome", then what are we to think of Peter's successors in Antioch?

I agree. I don't buy the Catholic apologetic argument that the Papal office is necessary in order to fulfill Christ's promises to the Church (i.e. the gates of hell will not prevail, the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth, Christ will be with us always, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth with the authority to bind and loose, etc.)

However, I can't seem to get around one of the classic Catholic apologetic proof-texts from the ECFs: "Against Heresies 3.3.2" by Irenaeus of Lyons, even though I read the entire book. He seems to clearly state that the Church of Rome had higher authority over other Churches, not just a place of honor. Then again, though, I do notice that Irenaeus appealed to Rome by the authority of Peter AND Paul, not just the "seat of Peter."   
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,485



« Reply #30 on: November 21, 2014, 10:06:17 PM »

I almost became Roman Catholic, but I continued to study, and I became Orthodox.  One of my biggest questions then about Papal Primacy was "Why Rome?"  If PETER was the "only rock" on which the Church was built, and only PETER'S authority passes on to his successors, why not his successors in Antioch?  Why Rome alone?  Did Peter not anoint a successor Bishop in Antioch after founding the Church there?  Sure he did.

So, if the whole Papacy doctrine hinges on "Peter", and not "Rome", then what are we to think of Peter's successors in Antioch?

See this sealed it for me. It's probably just my abysmal ignorance, but it never seemed that complicated and impossible to grasp.
Logged

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

 St. John Chrysostom
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,965



« Reply #31 on: November 22, 2014, 12:46:19 AM »

I almost became Roman Catholic, but I continued to study, and I became Orthodox.  One of my biggest questions then about Papal Primacy was "Why Rome?"  If PETER was the "only rock" on which the Church was built, and only PETER'S authority passes on to his successors, why not his successors in Antioch?  Why Rome alone?  Did Peter not anoint a successor Bishop in Antioch after founding the Church there?  Sure he did.

So, if the whole Papacy doctrine hinges on "Peter", and not "Rome", then what are we to think of Peter's successors in Antioch?

If I were trying to argue for the Latins I would ask "Which of Antioch's Peters?".

Off the top of my head: Greek Orthodox Patriarch, Syriac Non-Chalcedonian Patriarch (Jacobite), Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch, Syriac Catholic Patriarch, the Syriac Maronite Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, or the now defunct Latin Patriarch of Antioch.

Of course then one could point out that most of those were overlapping Catholic Patriarchs, so who knows.
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,445



WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 22, 2014, 01:31:35 AM »

I almost became Roman Catholic, but I continued to study, and I became Orthodox.  One of my biggest questions then about Papal Primacy was "Why Rome?"  If PETER was the "only rock" on which the Church was built, and only PETER'S authority passes on to his successors, why not his successors in Antioch?  Why Rome alone?  Did Peter not anoint a successor Bishop in Antioch after founding the Church there?  Sure he did.

So, if the whole Papacy doctrine hinges on "Peter", and not "Rome", then what are we to think of Peter's successors in Antioch?

If I were trying to argue for the Latins I would ask "Which of Antioch's Peters?".

Off the top of my head: Greek Orthodox Patriarch, Syriac Non-Chalcedonian Patriarch (Jacobite), Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch, Syriac Catholic Patriarch, the Syriac Maronite Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, or the now defunct Latin Patriarch of Antioch.

Of course then one could point out that most of those were overlapping Catholic Patriarchs, so who knows.

Actually, that's a pretty good point. Regardless Rome/Antioch, the Latin church obviously wins by virtue of having the majority vote in Antioch.

*sigh* I guess it's time to enroll in RCIA.  Grin
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,635



« Reply #33 on: November 22, 2014, 04:12:52 AM »

Spend some time at Mass and at the Divine Liturgy. That would be my recommendation. I know some people come to the faith through a study of history but it can be really confusing as well. Instead of history in my opinion your time would be better spent experiencing the life of the Church.
I attended mass twice and a Divine Liturgy once. I met and talked, in person, once with an Orthodox priest, and once with a Catholic priest. Unfortunately, nothing "clicked" on me. What do you advice I do, now?

By the way, is there an "RCIA," only for the Orthodox Church?

Thanks.

These things take time and wisdom to discern. I just read all of the arguments I could find of the opposing side, and I've arrived at a conclusion. I still plan on reevaluating that conclusion before I do anything decisive, but it's difficult. Life is extremely complex.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Jonathan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 810


WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 22, 2014, 08:20:45 AM »

This is a really good book for an intro to these history issues http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1481905880/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1416658742&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SY200_QL40
Logged
MalpanaGiwargis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic, but Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 58


« Reply #35 on: November 22, 2014, 08:24:55 AM »

If I can offer a reply to the OP as one who is not (yet?) Orthodox, I converted to Catholicism back in the late 90s when I was in college. At the time, it seemed a perfect solution to the objections I had always had to the largely Baptist Christianity I grew up in (my family was devout but denominationally-vague). Examining my life at that time, though I certainly “believe[d] and profess[ed] all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God” (from the profession of faith before my reception), I think my decision to convert was, among other things, excessively based on doctrine and Western history. Obviously doctrine is important, but syllogism and deduction divorced, even conceptually, from prayer is a problem. I don't think that that is intrinsic to Catholicism, but the Latin tradition is more tempted to rationalism than the many Eastern traditions. And by focusing on the West, Catholicism naturally seemed to me more correct than Protestantism; while the Reformers had many very valid points, their position ultimately had to be rejected because they did not return to apostolic doctrine and practice, instead choosing to invent their own churches and polities.

To cut this off a bit, focus less on history, less on doctrine. Brilliant minds on every side have come to different conclusions. Catholics become Orthodox and Orthodox become Catholic, each claiming a clear conscience and certainty from their investigations. Pray every day and cultivate a relationship with someone in each tradition to talk to. A priest is obviously a good place to start; he may have valuable information for you. Don't make a quick decision - coming to God is not a sprint, but a marathon. Trust that God will guide you where He wants you. Keep in mind the wise saying of St. Anthony the Great:

“Somebody asked Anthony, 'What shall I do in order to please God?' He replied, 'Do what I tell you, which is this: wherever you go, keep God in mind; whatever you do, follow the example of Holy Scripture; wherever you are, stay there and do not move away in a hurry. If you keep to these guidelines, you will be saved.’”
Logged
byhisgrace
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian - Evangelical
Posts: 30


« Reply #36 on: November 22, 2014, 11:12:48 AM »

If I can offer a reply to the OP as one who is not (yet?) Orthodox, I converted to Catholicism back in the late 90s when I was in college. At the time, it seemed a perfect solution to the objections I had always had to the largely Baptist Christianity I grew up in (my family was devout but denominationally-vague). Examining my life at that time, though I certainly “believe[d] and profess[ed] all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God” (from the profession of faith before my reception), I think my decision to convert was, among other things, excessively based on doctrine and Western history. Obviously doctrine is important, but syllogism and deduction divorced, even conceptually, from prayer is a problem. I don't think that that is intrinsic to Catholicism, but the Latin tradition is more tempted to rationalism than the many Eastern traditions. And by focusing on the West, Catholicism naturally seemed to me more correct than Protestantism; while the Reformers had many very valid points, their position ultimately had to be rejected because they did not return to apostolic doctrine and practice, instead choosing to invent their own churches and polities.

To cut this off a bit, focus less on history, less on doctrine. Brilliant minds on every side have come to different conclusions. Catholics become Orthodox and Orthodox become Catholic, each claiming a clear conscience and certainty from their investigations. Pray every day and cultivate a relationship with someone in each tradition to talk to. A priest is obviously a good place to start; he may have valuable information for you. Don't make a quick decision - coming to God is not a sprint, but a marathon. Trust that God will guide you where He wants you. Keep in mind the wise saying of St. Anthony the Great:

“Somebody asked Anthony, 'What shall I do in order to please God?' He replied, 'Do what I tell you, which is this: wherever you go, keep God in mind; whatever you do, follow the example of Holy Scripture; wherever you are, stay there and do not move away in a hurry. If you keep to these guidelines, you will be saved.’”

I wish I can give "reputation points" on this forum! Malpana, great post an great advice!
Logged
byhisgrace
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian - Evangelical
Posts: 30


« Reply #37 on: November 22, 2014, 12:46:21 PM »

If I can offer a reply to the OP as one who is not (yet?) Orthodox, I converted to Catholicism back in the late 90s when I was in college. At the time, it seemed a perfect solution to the objections I had always had to the largely Baptist Christianity I grew up in (my family was devout but denominationally-vague). Examining my life at that time, though I certainly “believe[d] and profess[ed] all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God” (from the profession of faith before my reception), I think my decision to convert was, among other things, excessively based on doctrine and Western history. Obviously doctrine is important, but syllogism and deduction divorced, even conceptually, from prayer is a problem. I don't think that that is intrinsic to Catholicism, but the Latin tradition is more tempted to rationalism than the many Eastern traditions. And by focusing on the West, Catholicism naturally seemed to me more correct than Protestantism; while the Reformers had many very valid points, their position ultimately had to be rejected because they did not return to apostolic doctrine and practice, instead choosing to invent their own churches and polities.

To cut this off a bit, focus less on history, less on doctrine. Brilliant minds on every side have come to different conclusions. Catholics become Orthodox and Orthodox become Catholic, each claiming a clear conscience and certainty from their investigations. Pray every day and cultivate a relationship with someone in each tradition to talk to. A priest is obviously a good place to start; he may have valuable information for you. Don't make a quick decision - coming to God is not a sprint, but a marathon. Trust that God will guide you where He wants you. Keep in mind the wise saying of St. Anthony the Great:

“Somebody asked Anthony, 'What shall I do in order to please God?' He replied, 'Do what I tell you, which is this: wherever you go, keep God in mind; whatever you do, follow the example of Holy Scripture; wherever you are, stay there and do not move away in a hurry. If you keep to these guidelines, you will be saved.’”
Do you believe that Catholicism stands or falls on whether Papal infallibility is Apostolic truth? If so, then why isn't this quote from Irenaeus good enough for you?

Quote
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2014, 12:49:53 PM by byhisgrace » Logged
jewish voice
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 707



« Reply #38 on: November 22, 2014, 01:03:17 PM »

Just to point something out that I have asked rcc priest before. Wasn't James the brother of Jesus the leader in acts it was Peter and Paul who brought there case before him on what laws if and should non Jew have to take on. Just something to think about
Logged
MalpanaGiwargis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic, but Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 58


« Reply #39 on: November 22, 2014, 01:05:13 PM »

Do you believe that Catholicism stands or falls on whether Papal infallibility is Apostolic truth? If so, then why isn't this quote from Irenaeus good enough for you?

To the first question, I don't know if I would say that it "stands or falls." That said, if Papal Infallibility is false, then obviously the Roman Church has been in error for a long time and needs to drop the pretension and return to Orthodoxy. Infallibility is just a logical outgrowth of the Roman doctrine of Papal Supremacy - that may really be what Catholicism stands or falls on. Whether Rome is the "true Church" or not, there is a lot of good in the Roman tradition, and its liturgy and piety was certainly compatible with Orthodoxy in the first millennium. And there are also certainly a lot of things that are true in Catholicism. So if Papal Infallibility is false, then obviously Rome needs to abjure it and other doctrinal aberrations that stem therefrom and return to its place in Orthodoxy.

To the second, my faith does not stand or fall on the words of one Father, no matter how illustrious. No matter what I ultimately do from a Church affiliation standpoint, I am comfortable in saying that the overwhelming Patristic witness regarding the Roman Church's papal claims is one of deafening silence. The few proof texts brought in favor of the Roman doctrine are usually taken out of context or read tendentiously; no less a Roman Pope than St. Gregory the Great seems to reject many aspects of the modern doctrine. Regarding the quote from St. Irenaeus's quote, I don't think it has to be read in the way a Catholic apologist would. It could simply mean that since to that point in time the Roman Church had always preserved the apostolic faith in its purity, it was a reliable way of testing Orthodoxy - does one agree with the Roman Church? Remember that St. Irenaeus lived before the period of the ecumenical councils, which are now the true measure of orthodox Christian belief.

But note what St. Irenaeus does not say: he does not say that this "preeminent authority" is founded on St. Peter as "prince of the apostles," nor does he say that the Roman Church cannot deviate from the Orthodox faith. He does not say that the Pope of Rome has supreme, immediate, universal, and ordinary jurisdiction over everyone, including the other bishops, nor does he say that the Roman Pope's pronouncements are irreformable of themselves apart from any consensus of the Church. Reading 19th-century formulations into the 2nd-3rd centuries is simply impossible.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2014, 01:05:43 PM by MalpanaGiwargis » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.148 seconds with 68 queries.