yeah, I'm in agreement to have Protestants butt out on this one, it's not a argument/debate thread but informational about Eastern Orthodoxy.

Hi--i have different answers to give to different aspects of this discussion (including some simply pertaining to the first post, apart from faith vs. works debates, etc.), but this question here can be answered pretty straightforward, so I'll give it here first.

eternalmystery wrote:

Also, I forgot to bring this up, but it hasn't really been thoroughly explained to me.

I know this thread is about Eastern Orthodoxy, but I still want this answered.

Both the RCC and the EO claim to be the original church Christ founded (of course there is ZERO evidence for this, but the claims are still made despite the lack of evidence for either communion).

Hi. There are really a series of points raised here, but I'll address the basic question about apostolic succession (one of the things I'm not clear on, BTW, is whether you reject this doctrine altogether, or just the claim by either church that they have it, or whatever--if you can clarify that, I'd be happy to say more).

First, the Catholic and Orthodox view on AS are largely similar, but not precisely identical. BOth would agree that AS requires that the ordination of priests occurs through bishops, whose line of ordination in turn traces back to the early roots of the church as led by the Apostles. One can have debates about the details (were the Apostles bishops as such, etc.), but the basic idea is that the authority of the Apostles was passed on to church leaders, who in turn were given the grace and authority to pass this on to others, etc. There is Scriptural and early historical support for this teaching, even thoughh particular details develop over time (i.e. there likely was not one head bishop in certain cities at first, but a group of bisdhops, the funcitons of bishop and priest were conflated and later distinguished, etc.--in my view, these specifications do not detract from the basic biblical and historical roots of nthe teaching).

Now, from the Catholic point of view, ANY church whose bishops
possess such a lineage has AS. Having AS means that all the sacraments exist within that cvhurch. Catholic holds to 7 specific sacraments--baptism, marirage, confirmation, confession, Eucharist, ordination, anointing/healing. These are basically held to be the other AS groups as well. Groups without AS still have the sacraments of baptism and marriage (if the marriage is between two baptized persons), though these are the only two.

From the Catholic point of view, then, all the Orthodox have full AS, as well as the Copts, Armenians, Assyrians, Jacobites, and various others.

From the Catholic point of view, these groups are thus extrmeely close to holding the "fullness of the faith.' The claim that the Catholics are the "one true chruch" is extremely ambiguous and misleading. The Catholics would argue that, yes, they are the only church which possess all of the proper doctrines. However, groups still possess sacraments and grace to the extent that they entail what the Catholic tradition entials. In essence, the Orthodox are the closes because in addition to having AS, they also hold to all correct doctrines, other than the necessity of union with the bishop of Rome (see one of my follow-up posts for more on this point). This in no way dminishes the benefits of the other true aspects of the church which they possess. Other AS groups have a special affinity as well, but it may be somewhat less close because of potentially serious disagreements in Christology, etc. (for example, the Copts, Jacobites, and Armenians were traditionally charged with failing to prperly acknowledge the humanity of Christ, as they rejected the council of Chalcedon, etc.

As for Protestants, they still participate in grace, but the differences are more serious in that they do not possess all of the sacraments, due to their lack of historical AS.

That is the Catholic view. The Orthodox view is less formally developed--one things one finds among Orthodox (and this is potentially a drawback) is that there is often not unanimity on these points, for various reasons. Different Orthodxo groups would assess the status of Rome differently, whereas the Catholic view of the Orthodox is pretty clear-cut. In any case, while the Orthodox recognize the necessity of historical AS (like the Cahtoics), they do not necessarily hold that sacraments are p[resent simply because they are perfortmed within a church with AS. Their is the view that proper doctrine must be adhered to as well--historial AS without prtoper doctrine may or may not yield sacramental efficacy. Generally, one finds among the Orhtodox an agnosticism about the extent to which sacraments outside ther Orhtodox communion are efficacious--however, this answer is not uniform, as far as I know.

Most specifically, this different between Cahtolic and Orthodox views of the sacraments in relation to AS has to do with the distinction between z'valid" and "licit" ordinations formed by Augustine, but not recognized in the East.
The Catholics claims that any ordination where concrete historical AS is present is "valid," meaning sacramental grace occurs. However, for it to be p[roper according to canon law, it must also be "licit." The question of whether Orthodox ordinations are "licit" is one for which there is no formal decision in Catholicism now, as far as I know. However, priests within Cahtolicism who are removed from service can still perform the sacraments validly, but not licitly. Once again, these terms are being used technically---"valid" does not necessarily mean "it's okay to do it," as in everyday speech. The details of this have to do with the fgact that Cathooics believe that ordination leaves an "indelible" mark on the soul--that is, it cannot be taken back. However, one can still be under legal censure against excercising this activity.

All in all, Catholics would say, they are the Church with the full turth, though others groups may have varying degrees of it. Orthodox may or may not hold this view in reverse. It is not an all-or-nothing thing necessarily--that is, the claim that one is "true" does not make all the others entirely false.

Quote :

Both of them claim apostolic succession.

Yet even with these claims of them both being "the Church", neither one agrees on doctrine. In fact, both groups disagree so bad that they are not even in communion with each other.

I'm always hearing stories about how the EO church is the original church and that Rome broke away. And then I get the opposite from Catholics, who claim that it was the EO that broke away from them.

I think these are basically addressed above.

Quote :

This is another reason, besides the works righteousness dogma, why I cannot accept either as being "the Church" in any sense.

It doesn't follow, does it, that because A disagrees with B and B disagrees with A that neither A nor B can be right. Logically, it is certainly possible that one of them is right in their assessment of the other, and the other wrong. It seems to be deciding the question is "unanswerable" much too qucikly, it seems to me, even thouigh it is clear that the answer is not easily arrived at. As far as "the church," a key question has to do with the connection of doctrine to hisotrical AS. Protestants emphasis the former and deny the necessity of the latter, OR re-define AS entirely in doctrinal terms. I find such a move both unbiblical and unhistorical--this may be something that needs to be addressed more later. Both Catholics and Orthodox would agree that if a group lacks historical continuity, they are not operating within the Church as Christ intended it. This is not to say that such movements are lackiong in grace, etc., but it is a serious omission. Technically, Catholics would call such groups "ecclesial communities" but not "churches" as "church" implies the presence of the body and blood of Christ in Eucharist, and this is held to require AS.

Quote :

Every time I see this asked (if I ask it or if someone else somewhere asks it), I can sit there and imagine Catholics and Orthodox duking it out.

"We're the true Church!"
"No, we are!"
"We have the true apostolic succession!"
"No, we do! U iz wrong!"

Hopefully, the above shows that this is NOT the Catholic view, particularly in relation to AS.

In general, I can warn you that careful understanding of these points involves many subtleties, nuances, etc. It is not utterly black and white--one is true, all others are totally false, etc. The Catholic church esepcially has gone to great pains to work out a very careful views of AS and the sacraments which leads to a very precise understadning of the standing of different groups which claim the name of Christianity. The hierarchy is something like this: Catholicism the fullest, Orhtodox second (because AS and all true doctrines other than adherence to papacy, and arguably some Marian dogmasd, which are essentiually agreed to by the Orthodox through understood differently), other AS churches, Protestants who have baptism, non-baptized groups which call themselves Christian but have basically proper Chirstology in doctrine, etc., and other groups (including groups which call themselves Christian but have fundamental propblems regarding theology--their baptism would not be recognized, if they do not recognize the divintiy of Christ, Trinity, etc.)

Quote :

And to be honest, all these crappy, illegitimate claims with zero evidence to support any of it gives me a massive headache.

I don't mean to open a can of worms, but seriously. This is something I have been thinking about.

Good--and I can tell yo uhave been doing some reading, etc. Once again, though, just because there is a lot to sort through, does not mean there is not a correct answer.

Would you like to discuss AS at some point? ONce again, I am not clear on whether you reject the idea of historical AS, or simply the claim of Orthodox and/or Catholics (and others) that they have it. In any case, I'm thinking you might find a general discussion on AS helpful and perhaps even ey-opening. But at least helpful. : )

Peace, graybeardheadbanger

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

Hi--i have different answers to give to different aspects of this discussion (including some simply pertaining to the first post, apart from faith vs. works debates, etc.), but this question here can be answered pretty straightforward, so I'll give it here first.

eternalmystery wrote:

Also, I forgot to bring this up, but it hasn't really been thoroughly explained to me.

I know this thread is about Eastern Orthodoxy, but I still want this answered.

Both the RCC and the EO claim to be the original church Christ founded (of course there is ZERO evidence for this, but the claims are still made despite the lack of evidence for either communion).

Hi. There are really a series of points raised here, but I'll address the basic question about apostolic succession (one of the things I'm not clear on, BTW, is whether you reject this doctrine altogether, or just the claim by either church that they have it, or whatever--if you can clarify that, I'd be happy to say more).

First, the Catholic and Orthodox view on AS are largely similar, but not precisely identical. BOth would agree that AS requires that the ordination of priests occurs through bishops, whose line of ordination in turn traces back to the early roots of the church as led by the Apostles. One can have debates about the details (were the Apostles bishops as such, etc.), but the basic idea is that the authority of the Apostles was passed on to church leaders, who in turn were given the grace and authority to pass this on to others, etc. There is Scriptural and early historical support for this teaching, even thoughh particular details develop over time (i.e. there likely was not one head bishop in certain cities at first, but a group of bisdhops, the funcitons of bishop and priest were conflated and later distinguished, etc.--in my view, these specifications do not detract from the basic biblical and historical roots of nthe teaching).

Now, from the Catholic point of view, ANY church whose bishops
possess such a lineage has AS. Having AS means that all the sacraments exist within that cvhurch. Catholic holds to 7 specific sacraments--baptism, marirage, confirmation, confession, Eucharist, ordination. These are basically held to be the other AS groups as well. Groups without AS still have the sacraments of baptism and marriage (if the marriage is between two baptized persons), though these are the only two.

From the Catholic point of view, then, all the Orthodox have full AS, as well as the Copts, Armenians, Assyrians, Jacobites, and various others.

From the Catholic point of view, these groups are thus extrmeely close to holding the "fullness of the faith.' The claim that the Catholics are the "one true chruch" is extremely ambiguous and misleading. The Catholics would argue that, yes, they are the only church which possess all of the proper doctrines. However, groups still possess sacraments and grace to the extent that they entail what the Catholic tradition entials. In essence, the Orthodox are the closes because in addition to having AS, they also hold to all correct doctrines, other than the necessity of union with the bishop of Rome. This in no way dminishes the benefits of the other true aspects of the church which they possess. Other AS groups have a special affinity as well, but it may be somewhat less close because of potentially serious disagreements in Christology, etc. (for example, the Copts, Jacobites, and Armenians were traditionally charged with failing to prperly acknowledge the humanity of Christ, as they rejected the council of Chalcedon, etc.

As for Protestants, they still participate in grace, but the differences are more serious in that they do not possess all of the sacraments, due to their lack of historical AS.

That is the Catholic view. The Orthodox view is less formally developed--one things one finds among Orthodox (and this is potentially a drawback) is that there is often not unanimity on these points, for various reasons. Different Orthodxo groups would assess the status of Rome differently, whereas the Catholic view of the Orthodox is pretty clear-cut. In any case, while the Orthodox recognize the necessity of historical AS (like the Cahtoics), they do not necessarily hold that sacraments are p[resent simply because they are perfortmed within a church with AS. Their is the view that proper doctrine must be adhered to as well--historial AS without prtoper doctrine may or may not yield sacramental efficacy. Generally, one finds among the Orhtodox an agnosticism about the extent to which sacraments outside ther Orhtodox communion are efficacious--however, this answer is not uniform, as far as I know.

Most specifically, this different between Cahtolic and Orthodox views of the sacraments in relation to AS has to do with the distinction between z'valid" and "licit" ordinations formed by Augustine, but not recognized in the East.
The Catholics claims that any ordination where concrete historical AS is present is "valid," meaning sacramental grace occurs. However, for it to be p[roper according to canon law, it must also be "licit." The question of whether Orthodox ordinations are "licit" is one for which there is no formal decision in Catholicism now, as far as I know. However, priests within Cahtolicism who are removed from service can still perform the sacraments validly, but not licitly. Once again, these terms are being used technically---"valid" does not necessarily mean "it's okay to do it," as in everyday speech. The details of this have to do with the fgact that Cathooics believe that ordination leaves an "indelible" mark on the soul--that is, it cannot be taken back. However, one can still be under legal censure against excercising this activity.

All in all, Catholics would say, they are the Church with the full turth, though others groups may have varying degrees of it. Orthodox may or may not hold this view in reverse. It is not an all-or-nothing thing necessarily--that is, the claim that one is "true" does not make all the others entirely false.

Quote :

Both of them claim apostolic succession.

Yet even with these claims of them both being "the Church", neither one agrees on doctrine. In fact, both groups disagree so bad that they are not even in communion with each other.

I'm always hearing stories about how the EO church is the original church and that Rome broke away. And then I get the opposite from Catholics, who claim that it was the EO that broke away from them.

I think these are basically addressed above.

Quote :

This is another reason, besides the works righteousness dogma, why I cannot accept either as being "the Church" in any sense.

It doesn't follow, does it, that because A disagrees with B and B disagrees with A that neither A nor B can be right. Logically, it is certainly possible that one of them is right in their assessment of the other, and the other wrong. It seems to be deciding the question is "unanswerable" much too qucikly, it seems to me, even thouigh it is clear that the answer is not easily arrived at. As far as "the church," a key question has to do with the connection of doctrine to hisotrical AS. Protestants emphasis the former and deny the necessity of the latter, OR re-define AS entirely in doctrinal terms. I find such a move both unbiblical and unhistorical--this may be something that needs to be addressed more later. Both Catholics and Orthodox would agree that if a group lacks historical continuity, they are not operating within the Church as Christ intended it. This is not to say that such movements are lackiong in grace, etc., but it is a serious omission. Technically, Catholics would call such groups "ecclesial communities" but not "churches" as "church" implies the presence of the body and blood of Christ in Eucharist, and this is held to require AS.

Quote :

Every time I see this asked (if I ask it or if someone else somewhere asks it), I can sit there and imagine Catholics and Orthodox duking it out.

"We're the true Church!"
"No, we are!"
"We have the true apostolic succession!"
"No, we do! U iz wrong!"

Hopefully, the above shows that this is NOT the Catholic view, particularly in relation to AS.

In general, I can warn you that careful understanding of these points involves many subtleties, nuances, etc. It is not utterly black and white--oje is true, all others are totally false, etc. The Catholic church esepcially has gone to great pains to work out a very careful views of AS and the sacraments which leads to a very precise understadning of the standing of different groups which claim the name of Christianity. The hierarchy is something like this: Catholicism the fullest, Orhtodox second (because AS and all true doctrines other than adherence to papacy, and arguably some Marian dogmasd, which are essentiually agreed to by the Orthodox through understood differently), other AS churches, Protestants who have baptism, non-baptized groups which call themselves Christian but have basiucally proper Chirstology in doctrine, etc., and other groups (including groups which call themselves Christian but have fundamental propblems regarding theology--their baptism would not be recognized, if they do not recognize the divintiy of Christ, Trinity, etc.)

Quote :

And to be honest, all these crappy, illegitimate claims with zero evidence to support any of it gives me a massive headache.

I don't mean to open a can of worms, but seriously. This is something I have been thinking about.

Good--and I can tell yo uhave been doing some reading, etc. Once agian, though, just because there is a lot to sort through, does not mean there is not a correct answer.

Would you like to discuss AS at some point?

graybeardheadbanger

Great post, thanks!

eternalmystery wrote:

Anastasis, sorry bro. I forgot to save our MSN conversation.

Luckily, I did.

Quote :

As for theosis, do you believe that one has to achieve it in this life in order to be redeemed and saved by God and ultimately let into heaven? What happens to those who try and don't achieve it?

We believe that by Christ's death and resurrection, all men shall be raised and go to be in the presence of God for all eternity. However, our internal conditions, based on how we have responded to Christ and been shaped by Him through his eternal and life-giving Spirit, will determine whether we experience the holiness and love of God as fulfillment and joy (as we were meant to) or as judgment and torment. There is only one sun, and healthy eyes delight in it, and diseased eyes cower from it.

This is why the Orthodox cannot accept a juridical view of justification that acts as little more than a legal transaction, where God puts his fingers in his ears and closes his eyes yelling "I see nothing! NOTHING!" This is why we do not separate the initial part of our salvation (the forgiveness of our sins) from our sanctification - our life with God in the world to come will not be based on how God sees us, but on what we actually objectively are. Of course, this is not works-righteousness, because we can do none of this of ourselves, apart from the work of the Holy Spirit.

That is why we must co-operate with God and respond to the graces that he gives us - he has opened the door, but our decision to walk through and respond to what he has given, so that we may indeed truly become like Christ and be partakers of the divine nature in the life to come, is just as important. It is neither us as depraved human beings, unable to even make a decision for Christ unless Christ chooses to put us on His list, nor is it we as humans desperately trying to win favour with God, working so that we can get into heaven. Rather, it is a dance, God giving himself to us by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Chrismation, his Body and Blood in the Eucharist, His sanctifying grace and forgiveness in Confession, and all the other ways in which He has made his grace known to the world.

As for those who do not attain theosis in this life - theosis is not a quantifiable thing that you either get or you don't. Rather, theosis shall never end, and we shall continue to be conformed closer and closer to the image of God throughout eternity.

If you haven't already, you should listen to/read this.

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/closetohome/saved/

It's a layperson's (and a convert from Evangelicalism to Orthodoxy) attempt to explain how she would write her "salvation testimony" now, as opposed to how she did in bible college.

Δόξα Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ καὶ Ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, καὶ νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν.

Forgive me!
Anastasis.

[quote="Mikey Erasmus"][quote="graybeardheadbanger"]

Quote :

Great post, thanks!

Thanks, I'm glad you made it all the way through!

As an Eastern rite Catholic, let me give some of my perspective on the pros and cons of Orthodoxy:

Pros:

AS, all sacraments

preserved liturgy of about 1,600 years, facilitating tremendous awareness of Christ-like exemplars (saints) through iconography, calendar, hymns, relics, etc.

therapeutic more than juridical understanding of atonement (sin as sickness more than legal violation/ salvation as healing)

very clear emphasis on salvation as deification/theosis

Cons: (once again, from an EC perspective)

lack of union with bishop of Rome makes it difficult to achieve clarity/unanimity on any number of issues, including the importance of following one liturgical calendar over another (Julian or Gregorian), various moral teachings (esp. in respect to contraception and medical experimentation), lack of clarity as to how doctrines are approved (ecumenical councils only effective once "received" by monastics and laity, but not clear0-cut conception of what constitutes "reception"--this could be a pro, however--the demand for clarity could be taken as being an unhealthy demand for rational, systematic explanation, whereas the Spirit operates more mysteriously, etc.) --in any case, communion with bishop of Rome, even if lack of it is justified (a debate unto itself) constitutes at the very least a loss of traditional very important practice--numerous instances exist of how the East benefited from Roman guidance in certain theological disputes, etc.--of course, some will cite "filioque" as evidence on the other side, etc.)

Pros or Cons (depending upon perspective)

lack of clear-cut teaching on how to understand the sacraments and possibility for salvation outside the visible parameters of Orthodox Church--e.g. do Protestants have valid baptism? Some O say yes, some say no, etc. Some may find this "lack of clarity" to be a pro, as it simply admits limits and humility in respect to our knowledge (we know where salvation is--we cannot know if it is possible elsdewhere or not)

Hope that adds something more to reflect upon, graybeardheadbanger

interesting

I should add that from the standpoint of Catholicism (and somewhat less from Orthodoxy), the broken union is particularly peculiar in that, from the Catholic point of view, the theological issues named as the cause of the break betewwn 1054 and 1453 would not be deemed communion-breaking today. Indeed, even the broken communion then was a complex matter--not all EOs churches broke at once, it was initiated by Rome under the pretenses of a Caridnal against the knowledge of the Pope, the Patriarch then reciprocated believely (honestly, but wrongly) that the Cardinal was acting on orders from the Pope, etc. etc. There is also the complicarted fact that 2 reunion councils occurred, (Lyons, in the 1200s, and Florence-ferrara, in the 1400s0 which the Orthodox later reneged on (see comments on reception in prior post). The "required" views of Catholicism now which the Orhtodox do not formally accept (papal primacy, Marian Assumption, Immaculate Conception--the latter two are largely accepted by Os in some form, however) cannot really constitute the source of schism or heresy, since these were all defined as dogma by the RC after the schism (e.g. papal primacy was not finally dogmatized until 1870). So, the lack of O adherence to these teachings does not constitute a "breaking away."

Similarly, it is difficult for the Orthodox to definitively declare these views "false"--from the Orthodox perspective, they can certainly say that Rome is not in a position to rule on these matters without their participation, but tyhe fact that they cannot form an ecumenical council apart from Rome (a point Orthodox are unclear on among themselves--do pan-Orthodox synods, minus Rome, count, etc.?) makes it difficult for them to define these views as formal hersies (though many will offer tyhis is a private theological judgment--the same holds true for the filioque--one finds a wide range of opinion among the Orthodox concerning whether this can be regarded as formally heretical--all that can really be judged is that Rome acted in a canonically inappropriate fashion by approving this change outside a council, etc.--though some will say this is moot, as no future council would have been able to make a change anyway, etc.--once again, one finds a divergence of views among the Os on these matters)

IMO, the irony of this is that because the Orthodox lack a basis for develoiping doctrine do the loss of communion with Rome, they have actually been forced to become "fixed" on the liturgy--which has had the benefit of helping them preserve their Orthodoxy! However, it has also made it harder for them to remain conversant with modern society in a way that enables them to exercise proportionate influence over key ethical questions of the day, etc. By contrast, the RC remains vital in these areas, BUT is constantly threatened by modernity and having to fight agains tthe distortion of liturgy, etc.--what allows it to be engaged effectively in dilaoguing with the world places it at risk with the world's influencesm and vice versa with Orthodoxy. It is for this reason that Pope JP II said that the church needs to breathe with two lungs, east and West, and thus the damage of this union therefore effects the health of both.

What this may mean for the RC, then, is that while she possesses the "fullness" of proper teaching, her ability to exercise this most effectively is damaged by loss of union with much of the Christian East (bearing in mind that this is not utterly absent, since within all Eastern groups there are members in union with Rome--e.g. the Eastern Catholics of various rites--but they are generally numerically much more limited than their Orthodox counterpart).

One final aside: because, from the current RC view, the O are not really guilty of heresy (because their disagreement is largely in issues defined by Rome after the split), Rome actually does acknowledge that Catholics can commune and receive confession with Orthodox under certain circumstances (e.g. lack of access to a Catholic church). However, only a handlful of Orhtodox jurisdictions have agreed to this, and allowed thjem same for their people (see the Barlamand Agreement). This is yet another matter with which the Orthodox are of different formal positions among themselves.

graybeardheadbanger

Anastasis wrote:

eternalmystery wrote:

RCC, EO, OO view is: faith plus works = justification

And while we're on the subject, why is faith any less of a work than other deeds?

Bingo, IMO.

I suspect the tendency to think of "faith" primarily in terms of intellectual assent to certain propositions reflects the influence of unChristian mind-body dualism/gnosticism, ratrher than a wholistic perspective. To "love the Lord thy God with all one's mind, soul, heart, and strength" doesn't seem to indicate faith followed by works, but belief and works as forming a continuous process and seemeless whole. Loving God with one's "strenght" seems to imply activity--and this is associated here as being a key aspect of faith itself, nt simply as a follow-up inevitable byproduct.

Likewise, if one goes the route of saying, "Justificaiton is not by works in any way, BUT we can see if one is "truly" justified by his or her works,' one always has the problem of having to answer "how many works are needed to provide evidence of this? How much sin is needed to provide evidence against it?" etc. Any answer one gives seems arbitrary. One cannot make works a proof of salvation, IMO, anymore than a contributing "cause."

As time allows, I will try to demonstrate this in light of Romans, which I thini is commonly misappropriated against the Catholic and Orthodox (and for that matter, Copt, etc.) position on salvation.

graybeardheadbanger

I love your posts! Super informative! I'm going to the library today to get some books on the eastern orthodox church....good stuff.

Mikey Erasmus wrote:

I love your posts! Super informative! I'm going to the library today to get some books on the eastern orthodox church....good stuff.

Feel free to ask for recommendations. Different authors are good on different things; as with everything, you need to seek a variety ofperspectives as well (e.g. thos eof a Russian and Slavophile bent, as well as some Old Calendar Greeks, tend to be more polemical against Catholics, IMO, etc., though one can still learn much from these sources).

Obviously, the Fathers are the best place to read. The Orthodox would especiually recommend the Cappadocians (Basil, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory Nazianzus), Maximus the Confessor, and Gregory Palamas.

Contemporary writers to look at include Papadakis, Ware (pretty general, but gives good overview of the facts), Olivier Clement (one of the more balanced authors, IMO), John Zizoulous, Vladimir Lossky, Seraphim Rose (more devotional, but still a very inspiring figure), John Meyendorff, Dimitru Staniloae, the Metropolitan of Nefpaktos (his name escapes me, but he has primers on Orthodox spirituality, and on Orthodox view of life after death--I think his name might be Hierotheos),
Frederica Metthews-Greene (haven't actually read her, but she is supposed to be good on spirituality and iconography), Alexander Schmemann (excellent on liturgy and such) and various others who slip my mind.
Issue of St. Vladimir's quarterly are also recommended. DEFINITELY consider getting some volumes of the Philokalia (I believe there are 4 or 5 in total--I only have a couple, but volume 2 and 4 I find especially good--you can find things from Maximus the Confessor and various others in these).

Some other authors like Philip Sheridan and Frank Shaffer are worthwhile, but more simplisitc and/or polemical, IMO. Spiritual literature that doesn't cover the specifics of theology can also be great in helping one develop a "feel" for Orthodoxy--things like spiritual reflections of Theophan the Recluse, Elder Cleopas of BUlgaria, etc.

Some of the so-called Russophiles (Khomiakov, Bulgakov, Solovive!!!, etc.) are quite interesting, BUT lean in certain ways toward speculative philosophy and sometimes eclecticsm and esotericism. I find Solovive particularly fascinating, and he has some penetrating insihgts, but he is more of a speculative and orginal thinkers than one who spells out the details of established Orthodoxy (some would find them questionable in the Orthodoxy as well, especially true of thinkers like Berdyaev, etc.) Dostoyevsky, the novelist, is also considered good for getting a sense of Russian Orthodoxy.

Orhtodoxy is a fascinating discovery. I wouldn't ignore the Catholic church in your investigations either, however--though the ancient nature of Orthodoxy is highly attractive. You may also enjoy learning what you can about other ancient Christian traditions, despite their potential theological complications--i.e. the Copts, Assyrians (includinf the ancient churches of India), etc. etc.

graybeardheadbanger

Thanks for the suggestions!

I see that greybeard mentioned the Nicene Fathers (I'm assuming that's what he meant).

You can actually get that online for free. If you download the e-Sword Bible program (kinda like a computer Bible), you can get the 9 volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers for free as an add-on. I got that plus a load of others.

eternalmystery wrote:

I see that greybeard mentioned the Nicene Fathers (I'm assuming that's what he meant).

You can actually get that online for free. If you download the e-Sword Bible program (kinda like a computer Bible), you can get the 9 volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers for free as an add-on. I got that plus a load of others.

You can also get many of the post and Ante (not Anti LOL) Fathers online at www.newadvent.org, as well as many of the early councils, etc. (local as well as ecumenical)

Good to see you are starting to delve into these, EM--what have youlooked at so far?

graybeardheadbanger

37 of Schaff's 38 volumes can be found online here:
http://www.bible.ca/history/fathers/

Or you can buy it in hardback for about $400

After some research and discussion with Orthodox and Catholic friends, I think, for the time being I will remain a protestant. There are beliefs in both denominations that I cannot get past. I do not think that the Orthodox style of worship is the best or only legitimate style of worship. I also do not believe that they are the one true church.

No one has provided me with proof about those two beliefs.

General_Uproar wrote:

After some research and discussion with Orthodox and Catholic friends, I think, for the time being I will remain a protestant. There are beliefs in both denominations that I cannot get past. I do not think that the Orthodox style of worship is the best or only legitimate style of worship. I also do not believe that they are the one true church.

No one has provided me with proof about those two beliefs.

What are some examples of these beliefs that you cannot get past?

Also, the claims of a group being "one true church" need to be understood very carefully--once again, this does not necessarily rule out the possibility of salvation etc. for others. It is best taken to mean, when it is used, that they take themselves to be the only church which preserves everything Christ intended, and does not exclude anything intended. This is really not that unreasonable of a claim when one considers the alternative; either some group got it all right, or none did. If the latter is true (as is likely your view), this has serious implications also. For one thing, somebody would have to be in a position to make the judgment about what wasn't right with each group--but wouldn't this put that person in a position of knowing everything that was necessary, thereby leading to a contradiction with the original position? (that no one can have it all right).

As I noted above, one of my personal reasons for finding Catholicism more tenable than Orhtodoxy (which I nonetheless would encourage anyone to erxplore) is thatn Catholicism has the details of this view more fomrally worked out, especially in respect for what this means for other Christian groups. In any case, consider what I've saud here: can one make the judgment that no one has it quite right without presupposing such understanding oneself? Moreover, does it sit well with us when Christ promised to preserve the truth through His church to say that none of them got "the truth" quite right? This isn't to say that the all the implicaitons of truth cannot continue to be more fuly understood, but to hold that something is outright wrong with each seems to be a problem, given Christ's promise.

Just something to think about. Id' be curious to hear your thoughts.

Peace, graybeardheadbanger

General_Uproar wrote:

After some research and discussion with Orthodox and Catholic friends, I think, for the time being I will remain a protestant. There are beliefs in both denominations that I cannot get past. I do not think that the Orthodox style of worship is the best or only legitimate style of worship. I also do not believe that they are the one true church.

No one has provided me with proof about those two beliefs.

I totally understand.

For me, it's not the prayers to saints or Mary (or petitioning them for prayer as they call it), or transsubstantiation, or the Real Presence in the Eucharist, or any of that. That's not even why the Reformers left the RCC in the first place, because the vast majority of them kept the beliefs of Real Presence/transsubstantiation, and numerous other things.

The main reason why I could never join up with either group is the salvation views. The faith + works for salvation thing bothers me greatly.

Not to mention that the RCC in my area at least operates so corruptly that it's unbelievable. A good percentage of my state (Louisiana) is Catholic (I think somewhere around 80%), and most of them:

1. Don't know a bit of RCC theology.
2. Don't care to read the Bible. I talked to the local priest here in my town one time, and it took him a good 10 minutes just to find the book of 1 Corinthians. He was looking in the OT for it, and finally just got tired of searching and actually went to the table of contents just to find the page number it was on.
3. Are very repulsed by the message of the true Gospel, especially when it comes to repentance and literally giving their entire life to Christ, and think that by just being a baptized member of the RCC that they are on good terms with God.

I have a couple of friends who were sexually abused by priests here. Their parents tried to get justice. The archdiocese here wouldn't help them out. On the contrary, they did spend huge amounts of money defending the pedophiles and perverts that did this to them.
And what is the outcome of this injustice? They are so anti-Christian now that I can't even talk to them. The moment I mention anything about Christ or God they get turned off IMMEDIATELY.

Not to mention the overall massive lack of teaching and instructing. I know that there are catholics here and elsewhere that are in fact saddened and disappointed by this, but it didn't get this way overnight. The vast ignorance among catholics that we see is something that took centuries to do.

I do not want to be a part of a church that doesn't even know what to do with pedos in their ministry and has a massive lack of teaching. I want to go somewhere where I can grow closer to God and actually learn something.

I don't mean to open a can of worms or anything. I realize that there are, in fact, catholics that have the same, or at least similar views to mine. But this is stuff that I cannot get past.

You're pushing it again, Broc. Please stop taking stabs and repeatedly posting about why you hate Catholics. Or covering that fact up by posting about why you're not a Catholic. It's seems your just taking every opportunity you can to speak out against the Catholic church.

[quote="eternalmystery"]

General_Uproar wrote:

After some research and discussion with Orthodox and Catholic friends, I think, for the time being I will remain a protestant. There are beliefs in both denominations that I cannot get past. I do not think that the Orthodox style of worship is the best or only legitimate style of worship. I also do not believe that they are the one true church.

No one has provided me with proof about those two beliefs.

Quote :

I totally understand.

For me, it's not the prayers to saints or Mary (or petitioning them for prayer as they call it), or transsubstantiation, or the Real Presence in the Eucharist, or any of that. That's not even why the Reformers left the RCC in the first place, because the vast majority of them kept the beliefs of Real Presence/transsubstantiation, and numerous other things.

Broc, I really do hope we can continue to dialogue, because while I will call you out on a few things, I know you are someone who cares about truth and justice, etc. What I say here, realize I say knowing that many in the RCC (as with everywhere ) have sinned and tarnished their witness because of grave evil (I have probably even fallen into this myself at times, though thank goodness not in relation to the sins you are addressing).
I believe the Spirit has used you for the good, and I celebrate the blessings God has borught to your life over difficult situations you shared at FS that almost seem hopeless, etc. Having said these thigns, I do really feel the need to respond to what you say, on a theological and spiritual level.


Wouldn't you admit, in respect to these points you raised above, that if things like real presence are true, this would be HUGE. This would not just be a minor point, it seems to me. Read the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, and you'll see what I mean. It also means that Christ's marriage to the Church may literally be a consummation of body, and not just something in our mind or "spiritual,' just as human marriage has bodily intimacy. The reason these discussions are so important to me because I believe people who love Jesus would want to have the fullest, most intimate relationship with Him possible. If they may be missing that, I would want them to consider the best evidence they could for these beliefs--it would be extremely important. I don't know if it is a matter of salvation--only God knows that--but I do know that it would always be sad if one could have a more intimate relationshipo with Christ, and they missed it because of bad example, psychological barriers, limited information, etc. I am hoiping that on these boards, and with others you may meet in oyur life, that you will find people who can show a better side to the ancient Churches, that your heart may be more open to exploring them more deeply. It is already clear to me that you do read and discuss, etc., and I hope you continue to seek out the BEST sources and the most informed people, because I believe you are someone who can re-think things if given the right opportunity. (I will also add that I for one have never had a problem with a way you enter into these discussions. While i do sometimes see you as maybe acting as though your mind is more made up than it should be, etc., I also believe you are genuinelyu willing to learn more--and what you express never strikes me as disrespectful--even if it is at times, IMO, prematurely concluded--but as someone whjo really think truth matters.

I any case, think about that--IF someone is wrong about Eucharist, real/presence, wouldn't this be somehting really important? Wouldn't being in error in this matter be serious, espeically given that the whole point is for Christ to be wed to His Bride, the Church, and that this is done by givingh Hisd body for Her--not just on the cross, perhaps, but on the cross so that we can be joined in a blessed consummation of body AND spirit?

Quote :

Not to mention that the RCC in my area at least operates so corruptly that it's unbelievable. A good percentage of my state (Louisiana) is Catholic (I think somewhere around 80%), and most of them:

1. Don't know a bit of RCC theology.
2. Don't care to read the Bible. I talked to the local priest here in my town one time, and it took him a good 10 minutes just to find the book of 1 Corinthians. He was looking in the OT for it, and finally just got tired of searching and actually went to the table of contents just to find the page number it was on.
3. Are very repulsed by the message of the true Gospel, especially when it comes to repentance and literally giving their entire life to Christ, and think that by just being a baptized member of the RCC that they are on good terms with God.

I have a couple of friends who were sexually abused by priests here. Their parents tried to get justice. The archdiocese here wouldn't help them out. On the contrary, they did spend huge amounts of money defending the pedophiles and perverts that did this to them.
And what is the outcome of this injustice? They are so anti-Christian now that I can't even talk to them. The moment I mention anything about Christ or God they get turned off IMMEDIATELY.

Not to mention the overall massive lack of teaching and instructing. I know that there are catholics here and elsewhere that are in fact saddened and disappointed by this, but it didn't get this way overnight. The vast ignorance among catholics that we see is something that took centuries to do.

I do not want to be a part of a church that doesn't even know what to do with pedos in their ministry and has a massive lack of teaching. I want to go somewhere where I can grow closer to God and actually learn something.

I don't mean to open a can of worms or anything. I realize that there are, in fact, catholics that have the same, or at least similar views to mine. But this is stuff that I cannot get past.

Believe me, I sympathize with much of what you are saying, I really do.
Certain Members of the Catholic hierarchy will certainly have to answer to God for their sins, etc. (bearing in mind that scandals occur among Protestants too, of course). I personally think much of what you describe is the result of the church getting too slack for a time after Vatican II. But I do think it is fair that you acknowledge these points, based on this post:

1) it seems here that your complaints are less theological, and more based on other shortcomings of the RCC. The RCC must answer for this; however, I would not agree that something is proven false by the fact that so many people don't live up to it. There is no question the Catholics need to drastically improve their catechesis (I could go on about why I think things got this way, but we'll leave that aside for now). The RC leadership in many places has begun to face up to the shortcomings in how it has failed to be hled accountable for sins in the past---statements by John Paul II and Pope Benedict make this very clear. I would also say that I don't believe the problem with most priests was pedophilia, but it was more a homosexual problem, where opportunities were taken where they were accessible.

I also would not disagree that a certain attitude of clericalism contributed to this problem; however, such problems also exist among Protestants, though it is not as extensive largely because the groups are not as large. MANY pastors have had affairs on the side, or had closet homosexuality, etc. This reflects a universal human problem with sin--itn is not a specifically Catholic problem.

2) Broc, it is unfortunate that your experience, as well as possibly also
your attention, is selective. I can honestly say I've never met a priest who thought 1 Corinthians was in the OT. There are likley priests who don't know the Bible as they should. However, there are also many very fine scholars of the Bible in Catholic circles. My wife and I just attened a sveral-day Catholic seminar guided by a number of Bible professors who became Catholic as a result of seriously studying Scripture. Your critiques hold sociologically--to a point--but they do not disprove the tenability of Catholic views. I will not say Catholicism (or Orhtodoxy, for that matter) is obviously true--buit it is also has far better argument going for it in defense of its beliefs than you may be aware, or acknowledge.
The rather large exodus of Protestant ministers to Catholicism (and Orthodoxy, to some extent) surely attests to this.

3) as for selective attention, it may well be that one finds some of the most egregious examples of sin in Catholicism, AND some of the greatest examples of Christlikeness. I do think you are somewhat guilty of noticing the negative--whch is COMPLETELY fair to hold the RCC accountable for--but if the negative serves as evidence against its truth (supposedlY), doesn't the good serve as evidence for it? Do we not know from Scripture itself that God's own people often fell into the most abysmal behavior, even though there were others who shined for the truth in tumultuous times? I see the RCC like this as well. Broc, there is no organization in the history of the world who has done more to help the poor, etc. Look at hospitals, orphanages, schools, counseling centers, pro-life organizations (ther RCC by far and away has taken a stronger and more well-thought out stand on life issue than any other group), etc. etc. If you are going to mention the negative, fairness and balance requires acknowledging the good as well.
(I would especially emphasize this in the life matters--Catholics are always disproportionately represented in these events, from what I've seen--and many Cahtolics scholars take great care in developing incredibly thorough learning in issues relating to contraception, stem cell research, etc. It seems clear to me that their faith and love of Jesus is clearly attested to in these labors.

In any case, some poorly educated priests, sinful hierarchs, and poorl;y-catechized persons do not disprove the RCC position (or the Orthodox)--there are actual arguments one must make, and respond to, etc. I aussre you, Broc, that people who know the Bible as well as anyone you or I know have chosen for Orthodoxy or Catholicism.

In short, all you have shown me is that the RCC needs good people to hold her accountable so that her good can shine, and the evil can be resisted. IF the RCC has much of the fullness of what Christ and His apostles established in her teachiong and traditions, and charitable works, then the goal is for good people to contribute toward keeping her accoutnable in holiness. This can be helped by good people being open to the RCC.

In any case, I wonder--if you met Catholics who knew the Bible well, were saintly people, etc., would you acknowledge it? And why would you take this as an "aberration' relative to their catholicism, rather than the evil?


In short, I would like to see less selective attention to what one finds in Catholicsm. I would also like to see more genuine open dialogue about ideas--it is seeming more and more to me now that your reactions are based on psychology than on theology. I don't say this to be harsh, because I know you care about truth, and I believe the Spirit uses you for the good. I also celebrate some of the blessing God has brought to your life that you shared in the past over at FS, etc., even when things look hopeless. It just hurts me to think that there might be something out there you could be part of, or at least learn from. I grieve for the evils you have observed--however, I also challenge you to look at the whole picture, and to continue to delve seriously into the theological, historical, and Biblical supports fot the ancient churches. AS I have said, they are more substantial than most critics realize.

Peace, graybeardheadbanger

Mikey Erasmus wrote:

You're pushing it again, Broc. Please stop taking stabs and repeatedly posting about why you hate Catholics. Or covering that fact up by posting about why you're not a Catholic. It's seems your just taking every opportunity you can to speak out against the Catholic church.

Mikey, how about reading my posts? I DO NOT hate Catholics. YOU stop accusing me of holding positions that I don't really hold to (in this case, hatred of RCC/EO/etc)

My post was NOT a cover up. The next time you reply to any of my posts, read the entire things instead of just assuming stuff. Pls?

I don't say this to be mean or arrogant or rude. I'm saying this because you are not even taking into account why I have the mindset I do. Did you even read what I posted about how the local RCC even operates in my area, Mikey, or did you just post what you did just for the sake of doing so? The RCC here, as I have stated, has hurt my area so badly that it is almost beyond repair. It will take decades, if not centuries, to repair the damage they have caused here. I'm not talking about individual laypeople in the RCC. I'm talking about the system.

And by the way, you would do well to:

1. Go read your Bible.
2. Compare it to RCC theology (more specifically the CCC and the Council of Trent)

If you do these things and also take into account the evil they have committed here in my area, then you will get a better grasp of why I think the way I do in this matter.

And for the love of all that is holy, STOP accusing me of hating people. I don't hate anyone, and it makes me VERY upset for someone to accuse me of this. Read before you reply. Thanks.

General_Uproar wrote:

After some research and discussion with Orthodox and Catholic friends, I think, for the time being I will remain a protestant. There are beliefs in both denominations that I cannot get past. I do not think that the Orthodox style of worship is the best or only legitimate style of worship. I also do not believe that they are the one true church.

No one has provided me with proof about those two beliefs.

Would you like to speak on MSN or something similar so that we can have a back-and-forth discussion, so that you can bounce a few questions off me in real-time?

ETA: Though I do believe that if you were interested in looking into it, whatever is holding you back, I still believe that you should at least attend a Divine Liturgy a few times and have a few conversations with a parish priest. I also get the feeling that the issues that you've expressed are holding you back would not be so much so once you gained a proper understanding of what the Orthodox stance on these are. Regardless, it was followers of Jesus who said in response to things that they didn't like the sound of, "This is a hard saying; who can accept it?", so don't be surprised if there are things that might ruffle your feathers a fair bit.

Broc, your last posts are more about personal grudges you hold against your local Catholic community than anything else.

Not every catholic is like the ones you described and you seem to talk about some subjects as if they ONLY occur in the Catholic denomination (such as corruption).

I think these personal problems hold you from having a sober take on the (extremely well written) posts made by some others (mainly GBHB) or catholicism in general.

It seems to be a trigger that immediately links to your local community, dare to watch outside of that, look at a different one.

You can ask questions, but watch the rather rude way you can talk about this.
Respect the fact some people actually TRULY FOLLOW these believes here.

Heck, I'm not into Catholicism, and I wouldn't be able to be a part of this denomination,
but I truly respect why others genuinely do.

So please, take this into account when posting.
Because even while I agree with you on many topics (not all), I do think they come across rather rude. (not all posts/questions, but some)

Maybe you should re-read some of your own posts, I seem to think it's quite obvious why people react the way they do, your posts do come across quite hostile (even if they're not meant to be that way, they do)

[quote="graybeardheadbanger"]

eternalmystery wrote:

General_Uproar wrote:

After some research and discussion with Orthodox and Catholic friends, I think, for the time being I will remain a protestant. There are beliefs in both denominations that I cannot get past. I do not think that the Orthodox style of worship is the best or only legitimate style of worship. I also do not believe that they are the one true church.

No one has provided me with proof about those two beliefs.

Quote :

I totally understand.

For me, it's not the prayers to saints or Mary (or petitioning them for prayer as they call it), or transsubstantiation, or the Real Presence in the Eucharist, or any of that. That's not even why the Reformers left the RCC in the first place, because the vast majority of them kept the beliefs of Real Presence/transsubstantiation, and numerous other things.

Broc, I really do hope we can continue to dialogue, because while I will call you out on a few things, I know you are someone who cares about truth and justice, etc. What I say here, realize I say knowing that many in the RCC (as with everywhere ) have sinned and tarnished their witness because of grave evil (I have probably even fallen into this myself at times, though thank goodness not in relation to the sins you are addressing).
I believe the Spirit has used you for the good, and I celebrate the blessings God has borught to your life over difficult situations you shared at FS that almost seem hopeless, etc. Having said these thigns, I do really feel the need to respond to what you say, on a theological and spiritual level.


Wouldn't you admit, in respect to these points you raised above, that if things like real presence are true, this would be HUGE. This would not just be a minor point, it seems to me. Read the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, and you'll see what I mean. It also means that Christ's marriage to the Church may literally be a consummation of body, and not just something in our mind or "spiritual,' just as human marriage has bodily intimacy. The reason these discussions are so important to me because I believe people who love Jesus would want to have the fullest, most intimate relationship with Him possible. If they may be missing that, I would want them to consider the best evidence they could for these beliefs--it would be extremely important. I don't know if it is a matter of salvation--only God knows that--but I do know that it would always be sad if one could have a more intimate relationshipo with Christ, and they missed it because of bad example, psychological barriers, limited information, etc. I am hoiping that on these boards, and with others you may meet in oyur life, that you will find people who can show a better side to the ancient Churches, that your heart may be more open to exploring them more deeply. It is already clear to me that you do read and discuss, etc., and I hope you continue to seek out the BEST sources and the most informed people, because I believe you are someone who can re-think things if given the right opportunity. (I will also add that I for one have never had a problem with a way you enter into these discussions. While i do sometimes see you as maybe acting as though your mind is more made up than it should be, etc., I also believe you are genuinelyu willing to learn more--and what you express never strikes me as disrespectful--even if it is at times, IMO, prematurely concluded--but as someone whjo really think truth matters.

I any case, think about that--IF someone is wrong about Eucharist, real/presence, wouldn't this be somehting really important? Wouldn't being in error in this matter be serious, espeically given that the whole point is for Christ to be wed to His Bride, the Church, and that this is done by givingh Hisd body for Her--not just on the cross, perhaps, but on the cross so that we can be joined in a blessed consummation of body AND spirit?

Quote :

Not to mention that the RCC in my area at least operates so corruptly that it's unbelievable. A good percentage of my state (Louisiana) is Catholic (I think somewhere around 80%), and most of them:

1. Don't know a bit of RCC theology.
2. Don't care to read the Bible. I talked to the local priest here in my town one time, and it took him a good 10 minutes just to find the book of 1 Corinthians. He was looking in the OT for it, and finally just got tired of searching and actually went to the table of contents just to find the page number it was on.
3. Are very repulsed by the message of the true Gospel, especially when it comes to repentance and literally giving their entire life to Christ, and think that by just being a baptized member of the RCC that they are on good terms with God.

I have a couple of friends who were sexually abused by priests here. Their parents tried to get justice. The archdiocese here wouldn't help them out. On the contrary, they did spend huge amounts of money defending the pedophiles and perverts that did this to them.
And what is the outcome of this injustice? They are so anti-Christian now that I can't even talk to them. The moment I mention anything about Christ or God they get turned off IMMEDIATELY.

Not to mention the overall massive lack of teaching and instructing. I know that there are catholics here and elsewhere that are in fact saddened and disappointed by this, but it didn't get this way overnight. The vast ignorance among catholics that we see is something that took centuries to do.

I do not want to be a part of a church that doesn't even know what to do with pedos in their ministry and has a massive lack of teaching. I want to go somewhere where I can grow closer to God and actually learn something.

I don't mean to open a can of worms or anything. I realize that there are, in fact, catholics that have the same, or at least similar views to mine. But this is stuff that I cannot get past.

Believe me, I sympathize with much of what you are saying, I really do.
Certain Members of the Catholic hierarchy will certainly have to answer to God for their sins, etc. (bearing in mind that scandals occur among Protestants too, of course). I personally think much of what you describe is the result of the church getting too slack for a time after Vatican II. But I do think it is fair that you acknowledge these points, based on this post:

1) it seems here that your complaints are less theological, and more based on other shortcomings of the RCC. The RCC must answer for this; however, I would not agree that something is proven false by the fact that so many people don't live up to it. There is no question the Catholics need to drastically improve their catechesis (I could go on about why I think things got this way, but we'll leave that aside for now). The RC leadership in many places has begun to face up to the shortcomings in how it has failed to be hled accountable for sins in the past---statements by John Paul II and Pope Benedict make this very clear. I would also say that I don't believe the problem with most priests was pedophilia, but it was more a homosexual problem, where opportunities were taken where they were accessible.

I also would not disagree that a certain attitude of clericalism contributed to this problem; however, such problems also exist among Protestants, though it is not as extensive largely because the groups are not as large. MANY pastors have had affairs on the side, or had closet homosexuality, etc. This reflects a universal human problem with sin--itn is not a specifically Catholic problem.

2) Broc, it is unfortunate that your experience, as well as possibly also
your attention, is selective. I can honestly say I've never met a priest who thought 1 Corinthians was in the OT. There are likley priests who don't know the Bible as they should. However, there are also many very fine scholars of the Bible in Catholic circles. My wife and I just attened a sveral-day Catholic seminar guided by a number of Bible professors who became Catholic as a result of seriously studying Scripture. Your critiques hold sociologically--to a point--but they do not disprove the tenability of Catholic views. I will not say Catholicism (or Orhtodoxy, for that matter) is obviously true--buit it is also has far better argument going for it in defense of its beliefs than you may be aware, or acknowledge.
The rather large exodus of Protestant ministers to Catholicism (and Orthodoxy, to some extent) surely attests to this.

3) as for selective attention, it may well be that one finds some of the most egregious examples of sin in Catholicism, AND some of the greatest examples of Christlikeness. I do think you are somewhat guilty of noticing the negative--whch is COMPLETELY fair to hold the RCC accountable for--but if the negative serves as evidence against its truth (supposedlY), doesn't the good serve as evidence for it? Do we not know from Scripture itself that God's own people often fell into the most abysmal behavior, even though there were others who shined for the truth in tumultuous times? I see the RCC like this as well. Broc, there is no organization in the history of the world who has done more to help the poor, etc. Look at hospitals, orphanages, schools, counseling centers, pro-life organizations (ther RCC by far and away has taken a stronger and more well-thought out stand on life issue than any other group), etc. etc. If you are going to mention the negative, fairness and balance requires acknowledging the good as well.
(I would especially emphasize this in the life matters--Catholics are always disproportionately represented in these events, from what I've seen--and many Cahtolics scholars take great care in developing incredibly thorough learning in issues relating to contraception, stem cell research, etc. It seems clear to me that their faith and love of Jesus is clearly attested to in these labors.

In any case, some poorly educated priests, sinful hierarchs, and poorl;y-catechized persons do not disprove the RCC position (or the Orthodox)--there are actual arguments one must make, and respond to, etc. I aussre you, Broc, that people who know the Bible as well as anyone you or I know have chosen for Orthodoxy or Catholicism.

In short, all you have shown me is that the RCC needs good people to hold her accountable so that her good can shine, and the evil can be resisted. IF the RCC has much of the fullness of what Christ and His apostles established in her teachiong and traditions, and charitable works, then the goal is for good people to contribute toward keeping her accoutnable in holiness. This can be helped by good people being open to the RCC.

In any case, I wonder--if you met Catholics who knew the Bible well, were saintly people, etc., would you acknowledge it? And why would you take this as an "aberration' relative to their catholicism, rather than the evil?


In short, I would like to see less selective attention to what one finds in Catholicsm. I would also like to see more genuine open dialogue about ideas--it is seeming more and more to me now that your reactions are based on psychology than on theology. I don't say this to be harsh, because I know you care about truth, and I believe the Spirit uses you for the good. I also celebrate some of the blessing God has brought to your life that you shared in the past over at FS, etc., even when things look hopeless. It just hurts me to think that there might be something out there you could be part of, or at least learn from. I grieve for the evils you have observed--however, I also challenge you to look at the whole picture, and to continue to delve seriously into the theological, historical, and Biblical supports fot the ancient churches. AS I have said, they are more substantial than most critics realize.

Peace, graybeardheadbanger

I knew you would sympathize with me in this regard GB.

However, even though I know that these things do not necessarily prove Catholicism to be false, it is enough to repel me from it because corruption and me do not get along well (what can I say, I'm a grinder/punk/metalhead guy LOL). What has been accomplished, especially in my area, as I have stated, will take years upon years upon years to fix. It will not be fixed within the current pope's lifetime for sure, and probably not in the lifetimes of the next several future pope's lifetimes either. The damage, especially in my area, is so deep that I personally wonder if it will ever be fixed.

As for scandals in protestant churches, yes I know they happen. But they usually get dealt with. I know there have been times where it hasn't, but usually most of the time it does get dealt with.

For example - there was a youth pastor here that was caught in an affair with one of the youth. He was excommunicated, had his license revoked, and was put in jail with charges on him all within about a 2 day span. It just kinda baffles me that a system as large as the RCC is isn't able to properly do this, but a church made up of less than 200 members can.

eternalmystery wrote:

Mikey Erasmus wrote:

You're pushing it again, Broc. Please stop taking stabs and repeatedly posting about why you hate Catholics. Or covering that fact up by posting about why you're not a Catholic. It's seems your just taking every opportunity you can to speak out against the Catholic church.

Mikey, how about reading my posts? I DO NOT hate Catholics. YOU stop accusing me of holding positions that I don't really hold to (in this case, hatred of RCC/EO/etc)

My post was NOT a cover up. The next time you reply to any of my posts, read the entire things instead of just assuming stuff. Pls?

I don't say this to be mean or arrogant or rude. I'm saying this because you are not even taking into account why I have the mindset I do. Did you even read what I posted about how the local RCC even operates in my area, Mikey, or did you just post what you did just for the sake of doing so? The RCC here, as I have stated, has hurt my area so badly that it is almost beyond repair. It will take decades, if not centuries, to repair the damage they have caused here. I'm not talking about individual laypeople in the RCC. I'm talking about the system.

And by the way, you would do well to:

1. Go read your Bible.
2. Compare it to RCC theology (more specifically the CCC and the Council of Trent)

If you do these things and also take into account the evil they have committed here in my area, then you will get a better grasp of why I think the way I do in this matter.

And for the love of all that is holy, STOP accusing me of hating people. I don't hate anyone, and it makes me VERY upset for someone to accuse me of this. Read before you reply. Thanks.

I'll back you up on the claim that you have neither said, nor acted like, you hated any individual person persons. You do have extreme anger toward the RCC (however, one can be a devout Catholic and feel that way! )

As I've said many times before, you are somewhat who is not disrespectful, but earnest. I do hope, however, that you can have some positive encounters which enable you to consider what I've discussed in the previous post.

As for particular points of theology, I'd feel free to discuss any here. I do think it's significant that you've acknowledged some insights about traditional beliefs avout Eucharist--this is a VERY important step, IMO.

As for other ideas, I'll share what was helpful for me. The Catholic views are often held as being the odd-man-out position, when 90% of them are held by all ancient Christians. You have come to realize this, learning more about EO and it seems, even the Oriental Orthodox (Assyrians,. Copts, etc.) For me, what got me thinking is this: if these ancient groups, all with ancient roots, share common or very close ideas on a number of points, it seems like an overwhelming burden of proof is needed to assume that
they misunderstood Scripture on these points. Also, a good deal of care would need to be taken to show clerar examples of where later statements deviate from what earlier Fathers held. One can find passing remarks here and there which may seem to fit Reform theology, but bear in mind that these Fathers by and large except the authority of councils to both determine the canon of Scripture, and to interpret it. (Of course, this is messy, as not all groups accepted all councils--however, they usually resisted these on the claim that certain councils did not "juve" with others, so they at least believed in principle that the authority of bishops and councils were the proper means, exemplified in the NT period itself, for determining these issues). I would suggest that the view on works and their relation to salvation is one of these. We can go over some of that discussion again if you like.

graybeardheadbanger

[quote="eternalmystery"][quote="graybeardheadbanger"][quote="eternalmystery"]

General_Uproar wrote:

I knew you would sympathize with me in this regard GB.

However, even though I know that these things do not necessarily prove Catholicism to be false, it is enough to repel me from it because corruption and me do not get along well (what can I say, I'm a grinder/punk/metalhead guy LOL). What has been accomplished, especially in my area, as I have stated, will take years upon years upon years to fix. It will not be fixed within the current pope's lifetime for sure, and probably not in the lifetimes of the next several future pope's lifetimes either. The damage, especially in my area, is so deep that I personally wonder if it will ever be fixed.

As for scandals in protestant churches, yes I know they happen. But they usually get dealt with. I know there have been times where it hasn't, but usually most of the time it does get dealt with.

For example - there was a youth pastor here that was caught in an affair with one of the youth. He was excommunicated, had his license revoked, and was put in jail with charges on him all within about a 2 day span. It just kinda baffles me that a system as large as the RCC is isn't able to properly do this, but a church made up of less than 200 members can.

This raises some really good points. Smaller groups are less likely to get embroiled in bureacracies, etc. However, smaller groups also have less accountability, as well as less of a check on their theological interpretations, etc. If the church is universal, it seems to me it must have agreement on key points of doctrine and moral teaching. The small independent church model does not work for this. The larger model increases the prospects for bureacracy--however, it also allows much more effectivness to be done as well (per charitable works, etc.) It's a mixed bag. As for churches that work loosely with other churches, I have seen the outcome of that as well. Friends in the US Presbyterian church, for example, have had to accept the decisions of inteparish conferences (I forget what they call them) to vhave more accepting attitudes toward homosexual practices, etc. Sure, they can drop out of the denomination, but this shatters the notion of universality.

In addition, a larger authority also has the opportunity to intervene on behalf of the "little guy." Unquestionably, certain local hierarchs in the US and now we know Ireland failed in this regard. However, one finds counter examples in history as well. For example, the Donatists in the 5th century said that one who denied the faith in times of perseuction could not be brought back into the church even if repentant (except perhaps at time of death). They were excomunicated from their local churches in Africa. It was Pope Stephen who intervened to demand that such people be allowed to partake fully in the sacraments once again, if they repented.


What I would say is this: IF a church has been correct in teaching, then even if it has grossly dropped the ball in how it has conducted itself (much like ancient Israel), the answer is not to refuse entry into the church, or to leave it. The answer is to serve as a prophetic witness to help bring up about this correction. I realize you are not in agreement with certain teachings, but my point is, this is precisely why this should be the point of discussion. The idea htat the ancient churches have erred in fundamental teachings requires showing either 1) that they deviated from previous correct views that they held, or 2) that these views were wrongly held from the beginning of the post-NT church, until certain Reformers got it right 1500 years later (even htough they too hads major disagreements), or 3) holding to a "remnant" theory that suggests that the "institutional" churches were wrong from the beginning, but there were always a "remnant" of true believers (I find this option particularly untenable historically--the "remnants" we see outside the formal church in ancient times were almost always gnostics or heretics of some other kind--Montanists might be the best example of a reasonable alternative, but they would have a hard time showing their roots to go back to the earliest times).

If these options don't work, then one must consider that some ancient church embodies the fullest expression of the faith (if it is held by anyone at all) and that perhaps it has failed to live up to it (keeping in mind that much good may also be done by this same organization).

In any case, if you legitimately have an insurpassable psychological block to Catholicism (something that I hope could be mended by epxerience to knowledgeable, faithful, good Catholics who show the other side), then I certainly would still encourtage you to explore EO. I have definite reasons for favorint RC, and the EO has its own history of social problems, but I would still celebrate it as a positive development in your life. I do caution people against jumping too uqickly into Orthodoxy, however, simply on the basis that it's not Catholic, and one "knows" that can't be right. But a diferent nudge here and there and I could have ended up Orthodox myself--I am increasingly confident in the Catholic position, BUT I do think Catholics need to be more aware of Orthodoxy, and its strenghts as well. If I were raised Orthodox, I'd see little reason to leave, though I'd likely be less convinced that lack of union with Rome was as unproblematic as Orhtodox typically assert--though I do know some who understand the seriousness of this situation. In any case, for those who are Portestant or of no faiht at all, I certainly would encourage them to explore Orthodoxy alongside Catholicismm I must add that going to Divine Liturgy is a powerful experience as well--unfortunately, one with which contemporary Catholicism can only compare in rare cases (in terms of the RC liturgy, etc.)

graybeardheadbanger