Why Catholicism

[RezaMikhaeil]

I think its important to note that Orthodox and Romans interpret words such as "immaculate" differently.

Reza

[color="#FF0000"][b]Someone else here can explain the case of ectopic pregnancies. There is some special circumstances surrounding it and abortion, etc. that I cannot explain. God bless![/b][/color] This is what I was referring to...

[Guest aussie]

mary is sinless?

how about "all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God"?

[FullTruth]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1178760' date='Jan 28 2007, 05:27 PM']
Abraham did sin. No one has ever claimed that he didn't, nor did Scripture say that he didn't, nor did Scripture compare him to pure gold or to the Ark of the Covenant. Abraham has nothing to do with this argument. You are only finding other righteous people and trying to show that they were sinful, but that does not mean that all righteous people were sinful.

As for being under the blood, we are not only under, but filled with it, so that we may be purified completely (although this does not happen all at once, nor, for most, does it happen completely in this lifetime).
[/quote]
I'm just saying to be seen as righteous and holy before the lord has nothing to do with being [b]Sinless[/b].

Once someone accepts salvation, they become 'sinless' in the sight of the lord. All those who have been called out appear sinless to YHWH now.

[b]We appear sinless to YHWH[/b], because [b]we acknowledge we are sinners[/b] and we need his gracious gift, Yeshua's life, death, burial, and ressurection.

So Mary can be [b]sinless[/b] in the sight of YHWH by the same process. She is favoured and believed and obeyed YHWH, therefore it imparted righteousness to her.

Do you see where I am going with this.

Appearing sinless to YHWH and being sinless is two different things.

This is backed up by Scripture

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:8.

So we must acknowledge we are all sinners before YHWH forgives and chooses to forget we are sinners.

Mary can't say, nor can anybody say we have no sin, for the bible says if we - and we usually means everybody - say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.

Mary was a special girl, whole hearted to the Lord. But flesh inherits sin because of the original sin of Adam and Eve. But YHWH can choose not to see the sin in Mary because she had faith and obeyed the Lord, and he counted it righteousness to her, just as he did for Abraham.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1178811' date='Jan 28 2007, 06:57 PM']
[color="#FF0000"][b]1. Lack of a central authority. There is no Orthodox Church. I would have had to become Russian Orthodox, or Greek, or Ukrainian, or Coptic (or . . . etc.), all ethnic distinctions. (There is no Irish Orthodox Church. )[/b][/color]

This has to do with the original Sees or original rites. As you might know, originally there were 4 Sees or Rites and since then we've been mingled and mixed but there is an American Orthodox Church now too. It has nothing to do with putting race above religion, as it does that the Coptic Church was once in charge of ministering to the south, while Rome was in charge of ministering to the west, Syriac Orthodox from Lebanon as far East as Japan, and Eastern Orthodox the Northern Regions. [/quote]

When did this "American Orthodox Church" come into existence? It had to have been within the last 6 months!

Excerpts from Fr. Stanley Harakas' article on Orthodox unity:

[url="http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HarakasUnity.php"]http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HarakasUnity.php[/url]

QUOTE
It is said that in the United States and Canada there are somewhere around five to six million Orthodox Christians. If true, that would make the Orthodox Church a relatively large minority church. If that is the case, [b][color="#3366FF"]you can't help but wonder about our invisibility on the national scene[/color][/b]. Even after decades of effort from the time of Archbishop, and later Patriarch Athenagoras, Archbishop Michael, and above all Archbishop Iakovos of blessed memory, [b][color="#3366FF"]we are hardly ever noticed in the public scene.[/color][/b]

But that is the least of it. [b][color="#3366FF"]The Orthodox Church in the United States is an almost totally fragmented reality[/color][/b]. If you only count the canonical (fully recognized) Orthodox Church bodies in the U.S.A. and Canada there are nine separate "Orthodox jurisdictions."

[b]. . .[/b]

Recently, one of the most powerful calls for Orthodox Christian Church unity appeared in a theological journal under the title "Orthodox Reunion: Overcoming the Curse of Jurisdictionalism in America" (St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, 50:3). It is a powerful and urgent appeal to overcome the division of Orthodox Christianity, which not only raises theological red flags but also systematically lists and counters nearly every possible argument against moving towards Orthodox Church unity in our time in this country. Actually, the article was the keynote address at an [b][color="#3333FF"]Antiochian Orthodox Church conference held in June, 2006 by Fr. Josiah Trenham.[/color][/b] He begins with a biblical affirmation of unity and the blessings of future Church unity for the Orthodox Church in this nation. [b][color="#3366FF"]Whatever unity may exist today, through the shared chalice, he describes as "incomplete, mangled and intolerable." [/color] [/b]Disunity, he feels weakens the Orthodox identity in America and his goal is a "common synod," an actual body of bishops who preside over all the Orthodox Christians in America.

[b]. . .[/b]

Further, he shows our disunity actually works against our mission to be the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church in this place. He concludes his message on a positive note, however, listing almost a dozen positive steps that should be taken to nudge the canonical Orthodox Churches to move in the direction of Orthodox unity in America.

[b] . . .[/b]

Fr. Stanley Harakas, a retired Priest of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, taught Orthodox Christian Ethics at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, MA for 30 years.
END QUOTE

I'll address your other comments separately.

Jay

------------------------
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[Katholikos]

Reza,

QUOTE FROM "AMERICAN ORTHODOX CHURCH" website:

The American Orthodox Church originally established in 1921 - 1927 with the blessings of the Holy Patriarchate of Moscow
No Other so-called "Mother Church" or jurisdiction has been
actively in existence until 1971-1972 (California Corporation)
and this is why we are called, by some, as the true Mother Church in the U.S.A. and Canada because we are an active
thriving jurisdiction with clergy and faithful in the U.S. and Canada. [b][color="#3366FF"]We do not claim to be the "Mother Church"of all who use the name "American Orthodox Church" just those who were once with us.[/color][/b]

Many take the term and phrase "Mother Church" to extremes in pronouncing that we claim to be the "Mother Church" of all who use the same jurisdictional name, as a means to create confusion...

We are not a part of Theocacna.

END QUOTE

This does nothing to unify the various ethnic Orthodox Churches. It merely creates another one. There are others, e.g. Ukrainian Orthodox Church also has an "American Orthodox Church" which was established in 1974 (I think).

I thought you meant that an overarching unity which encompasses all Orthodox jurisdictions had been established.


Jay

------------------------
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

Edited January 29, 2007 by Katholikos

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1179086' date='Jan 28 2007, 11:04 PM']
I think its important to note that Orthodox and Romans interpret words such as "immaculate" differently.

Reza

[color="#FF0000"][b]Someone else here can explain the case of ectopic pregnancies. There is some special circumstances surrounding it and abortion, etc. that I cannot explain. God bless![/b][/color] This is what I was referring to...
[/quote]
All I can tell you is abortion is not intended as the means or the end, it is a "side effect." I know there are people on this board who know the full story though. I'm not a science guy really. Hopefully this will catch their attention. God bless!

Edited January 29, 2007 by thedude

[ronyodish]

Here is my answer as to why I'm Catholic and not Orthodox. First off, I am an Eastern Catholic, specifically, a Chaldean Catholic (aka East Syriac Catholic). I choose to remain in communion with the Pope of Rome for the following reasons:

I like the universality of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not just Roman, it is Byzantine, Armenian, East Syriac, West Syriac, and Alexandrian.

Whereas Orthodoxy is composed of three major groups not in communion with each other.
a. Eastern Orthodox Church - Byzantine
b. Oriental Orthodox Church - Alexandrian, West Syriac, and Armenian
c. Assyrian Church of the East - East Syriac

Each of these three groups has a piece of the Ritual Patrimony. Only the Catholic Church truely is universal, that is, the totality of the Ritual Patrimony is found in Catholicism.

I like the unifying mission of the Pope of Rome. The Pope is the gaurdian of universal unity. His role is to confirm his brethren in the faith.

The Orthodox have been unable to restore communion with each other since the first major schism in the 5th century. The first Church to sever communion with the Pope of Rome and the Universal Church is the Assyrian Church of the East, then the Oriental Orthodox, and finally the Eastern Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox have not yet been able to restore communion with the Oriental Orthodox, and both have not yet been able to restore communion with the Assyrian Church.

Despite this, various members of these separated Churches have come back to universal unity with the Pope, and are known as the Eastern Catholic Churches. There is one Eastern Church which has never broken communion with Rome and that is the Maronite Church. It is typically listed as one of the West Syriac Churches, but unlike the Syriac Catholic Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church which both have Orthodox counterparts, the Maronite Church has no Orthodox counterpart.

I like the Patristic witness and praise given to the Church of Rome. St. Irenaeus says for example in Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter III, paragraph 2:

[quote]2. 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.[/quote]

A Saint from my own East Syriac Patrimony, St. Ephraim, who is also well venerated by the West Syriacs and by the Universal Church, has this beautiful saying on St. Simon the Rock (Peter) as though coming from Christ Himself:

[quote]Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter [Kepa, Rock], because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which My teaching flows, you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in My institution, and so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures! (Homilies 4:1)[/quote]

We know that St. Peter established a Church at Antioch, and both Catholic West Syriacs as well as Orthodox West Syriacs trace their Apostolic Succession to that See. The East Syriacs (Catholic and Orthodox) trace their Apostolic Succession to the See founded by St. Thomas the Apostle in Mesopotamia and Persia called Seleucia-Ctesiphon, though some list them with the Antiochenes as well.

St. Peter then went on to Rome and with St. Paul build a Church in Rome. There, St. Peter became the Roman Church's first Bishop and Pope, and there he was martyred. From then on, the Church of Rome became the principle See of unity among all Christians. For example, early on, because of some dissention that occured among the Corinthians, St. Clement the Pope of Rome wrote them a pastoral/exhortational letter despite the fact that they were outside of Rome. This is a seed of Papal Primacy. Certainly, the full flowering of Papal Primacy has developed over the centuries, but there were seeds of it in the early Church, just like there were seeds of other doctrines in the early Church which have since developed and matured.

The voice of Peter continued through his successors at Rome. Had St. Peter died in Antioch and never gotten to Rome, then Antioch would have been the universal and unifying voice of Christianity. Antioch is therefore a See of Peter but not the Principal See.

It is clear from Scripture that Peter was the head of the Apostles. He is mentioned as first among them in Matt. 10:2. His name is changed from Simon to Rock in John 1:42 and Matt. 16:17-18 to indicate his role in the foundation of the Church. Jesus tells him three times to take care of the flock in John 21:15-17. Jesus prays for him in Luke 22:32 so that his faith may not fail and that he would strengthen his brother Apostles in the faith. In the book of Acts, he starts speaking on behalf the Apostles during Pentecost (2:14), and at the Council of Jerusalem, after much debate on the question of circumcision for the gentiles, he is the first to rise and speak up (15:6-7).

Peter was the leader of the Apostles and they were in communion with him. Today, the Roman successor of Peter is likewise the leader of the successors of the Apostles, and while the Catholic successors are in communion with him, the Orthodox successors are not. My own Chaldean Catholic Patriarch, successor of St. Thomas the Apostle, is in communion with the Pope of Rome, just as St. Thomas was in communion with St. Peter. Why would I become Orthodox and lose the communion with my own Patriarch as well as with the Pope, when I can be both Eastern and in communion with the Pope at the same time as I am right now? And if I were to become Orthodox, which will never happen, which communion would I join? The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or the Assyrian Church? How is any of them the plan of God for all humanity if they can't even agree on how to settle their differences and reestablish communion with each other?

I'll stick with Catholicism, it is much easier for me to see the Catholic Church as the Church whom Christ promised the gates of hell will not overcome (Matt. 16:18), thany any other Church.

With that said, I still love the Orthodox and I yearn for all of them to reestablish communion with each other and communion with Rome.

God bless,

Rony

Edited January 29, 2007 by Rony Odish

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1179147' date='Jan 29 2007, 01:30 AM']
I'm just saying to be seen as righteous and holy before the lord has nothing to do with being [b]Sinless[/b].

Once someone accepts salvation, they become 'sinless' in the sight of the lord. All those who have been called out appear sinless to YHWH now.

[b]We appear sinless to YHWH[/b], because [b]we acknowledge we are sinners[/b] and we need his gracious gift, Yeshua's life, death, burial, and ressurection.

So Mary can be [b]sinless[/b] in the sight of YHWH by the same process. She is favoured and believed and obeyed YHWH, therefore it imparted righteousness to her.

Do you see where I am going with this.

Appearing sinless to YHWH and being sinless is two different things.

This is backed up by Scripture

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:8.

So we must acknowledge we are all sinners before YHWH forgives and chooses to forget we are sinners.

Mary can't say, nor can anybody say we have no sin, for the bible says if we - and we usually means everybody - say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.

Mary was a special girl, whole hearted to the Lord. But flesh inherits sin because of the original sin of Adam and Eve. But YHWH can choose not to see the sin in Mary because she had faith and obeyed the Lord, and he counted it righteousness to her, just as he did for Abraham.
[/quote]

Again, St. John was making a general reference to humanity. This one is even less strong, as he never said, "pantes."

The problem here is that there is Protestant theology in your statement. We are not saved because God forgets our sin, we are saved because though our sins be red as scarlet, He makes them white as snow. God doesn't just ignore our sin, He actually cleanses us of them. Mary was righteous from the moment of conception and chose God with her entire life, thus making her sinless. Others are righteous, but imperfectly so, and they sin, but are truly penitent for it. As for original sin, Mary was preserved from it. Please respond to my earlier proofs on this. I will not clog up the board by writing it all out again and again.

[Guest aussie]

From what you've just said, it makes sense that mary would have sinned, but then when she served God wholeheartedly and became with child, he cleansed her of her sins, just as He can with each of us.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='aussie' post='1179345' date='Jan 29 2007, 01:41 PM']
From what you've just said, it makes sense that mary would have sinned, but then when she served God wholeheartedly and became with child, he cleansed her of her sins, just as He can with each of us.
[/quote]
Except that when we are cleansed of our sins, we still retain an inclination to sin, that is, the stain of sin, and the Blessed Virgin could not have that stain because it would have made her unable to bear Christ.

[RezaMikhaeil]

Great Post Rony!!! I'm going to post when I get a moment, I just wanted to say that you have a great post...

Reza

[ronyodish]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1179694' date='Jan 29 2007, 07:26 PM']
Great Post Rony!!! I'm going to post when I get a moment, I just wanted to say that you have a great post...

Reza
[/quote]

Thanks Reza. As I said, I love you guys in Orthodoxy, but as an Easterner I can never separate my communion with the Pope of Rome simply for the fact that the early Church was in communion him, and current Orthodoxy are not.

God bless,

Rony

[Katholikos]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1178811' date='Jan 28 2007, 06:57 PM']

[color="#FF0000"][b]The Orthodox now sanction contraception (flip-flop), which is contrary to Natural Law and the purpose of marriage.[/b][/color] It's not a flip-flop, the church has NEVER taken an official position on contraceptives, it's always been a personal conviction. It's kinda funny that you brought up contraceptives, Nature Law, and abortion because the Romman Church [if I'm not mistaken] allows women, who's life is at risk, to get an abortion rather then let nature take it's course. Due to this, you don't have a right to lecture on "natural law" because not everyone is always in the position to adhere to natural law and no one is in the position to judge someone that doesn't adhere to natural law 100% of the time.[/quote]
Bishop Kallistos Ware, in the second edition (revised 1993) of his book,[i] The Orthodox Church[/i], states:

[b]“Concerning contraceptives and other forms of birth control, [u]differing opinions exist within the Orthodox Church.[/u][color="#3366FF"] In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail, not only in the west but in traditional Orthodox countries.[/color] Many Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers consider that the responsible use of contraception within marriage is not in itself sinful. In their view, the question of how many children a couple should have, and at what intervals, is best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own consciences” [/b] (page 296).
(color and underscore added)

Flip-flop.

The Orthodox have caved in to the pressures of modern society on the issue of contraception, and what was, until the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930, considered a grave sin by all Christian groups is now acceptable and even recommended. The Catholic Church stands alone in proclaiming the Truth.

I again state that the Orthodox condone chemical abortions, because The Pill, which they sanction, is an abortifacient. At the same time, they oppose surgical abortions, although the result is the same -- the death of a child in an early stage of development.

Jay

[Katholikos]

Excerpt from Catholics United for the Faith,

An ectopic pregnancy is a serious pathological condition.

QUOTE

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the lives of both the mother and child are placed at risk. The moral teachings of the Church call for medical treatment that respects the lives of both. Most recently, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reiterated these principles:

· In the case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.[2]

· Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.[3]

On one hand, there can be no direct attack on the child (direct abortion) to save the life of the mother. On the other hand, the life of the mother is equally valuable and she must receive appropriate treatment. It might be that the only available remedy saves the life of the mother but, while not a direct abortion, brings about the unintended effect of the death of the child. Morally speaking, in saving the life of the mother, the Church accepts that the child might be lost.

This principle applies in other pregnancy complications as well. With severe hemorrhaging, for example, if nothing is done, both will die. In respecting the life of the mother, the physician must act directly on the uterus. At that time the uterus loses its ability to support the life of the embryo. The mother’s life is preserved and there has been no intentional attack on the child. The mother and the uterus have been directly treated; a secondary effect is the death of the child.

Another example arises in the treatment of uterine (endometrial) cancer during a pregnancy. The common treatments of uterine cancer are primarily hysterectomy (surgical removal of the uterus) and sometimes chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Again, taking the life of the baby is not intended, but a hysterectomy does mean the removal of the womb and the death of the child. Yet, if a hysterectomy must be performed to save the life of the mother, the Church would deem the procedure morally licit.

Thus, a moral distinction must be made between directly and intentionally treating a pathology (a condition or abnormality that causes a disease) and indirectly and unintentionally causing the death of the baby in the process.

This distinction is derived from a moral principle called “double effect.” When a choice will likely bring about both an intended desirable effect and also an unintended, undesirable effect, the principle of double effect can be applied to evaluate the morality of the choice. The chosen act is morally licit when (a) the action itself is good, (b) the intended effect is good, and © the unintended, evil effect is not greater in proportion to the good effect. For example, “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not” (Catechism, no. 2263, citing St. Thomas Aquinas).

END QUOTE

[url="http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57"]http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57[/url]

edited to add URL

Edited January 30, 2007 by Katholikos