Questions For Those Who Converted To Catholicism

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1721397' date='Dec 7 2008, 02:01 AM']You know that thing when you think of evangelical christians and can't help but giggle and roll your eyes, I eventually adopted the same attitude towards all religion.[/quote]
No, I am not familiar with this arrogant attitude.

[Theosis3]

In response to your quotes...

[quote name='Greg' post='1722963' date='Dec 9 2008, 12:20 AM']"The Orthodox Church cannot claim to be the true, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church if she is actually divided into a plurality of mutually independent, competing, and overlapping jurisdictions. This division has long ago ceased to be justified by the peculiarities of Orthodox immigration in America, and has become an open scandal to the faithful, a source of demoralization and dissatisfaction in the laity, and an obstacle to any effort or progress."[/quote]

I would disagree with the first sentence of this paragraph. The Orthodox Church is still one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, in spite of having an uncanonical situation in place. It is clear that there is a problem with the way the jurisdictions are set up in America. And it is an "open scandal to the faithful,". However, I don't think that this irregular situation effects the very essence of the Church. The core of the Orthodox Church does not lie in administration. It is just an abnormal situation that needs to be remedied. This isn't the first time when there were competing groups in the same geographical region (e.g. in Antioch in the 4th century there were competing Patriarchs, with Rome/Alexandria supporting one Patriarch, and Cappadocia/the East supporting another Patriarch; both Antiochian communities were Orthodox, but the situation itself was uncanonical).

[quote]"In externals, Orthodox Christians in North America resemble Roman Catholics. They share a similar sacramental view of life; liturgical forms of corporate worship; traditional forms of piety such as fasting, prayer, monasticism; and generally "conservative" positions on contemporary moral issues. In administration the Orthodox in North America resemble Protestants and are splintered into distinct administrative "jurisdictions", divisions based on ethnic origin and politics, both secular and ecclesiastical. In self-identity, however, Orthodox Christians in North America are like Orthodox Jews; a people apart, unable and at time unwilling to separate the claims of race, religion, and politics: people for whom the Greek terms "diaspora" ("dispersion") has been an expression of enduring meaning"[/quote]

While I wouldn't put it like this, there is some truth to what he is saying. But I have a problem when its loosely portrayed that the Orthodox are splintered like Protestants. All I can say is that this is only true if you are merely taking a [i]glance at the situation[/i]. At the root, these "splintered" jurisdictions [b]are in communion[/b] with each other and are all part of the [b]same Church[/b]. The division is in [i]administration[/i], not in [b]faith[/b], and I think that that is an important distinction to make. The Orthodox are only like Protestants in appearance at first glance, but if you take a deeper look into the matter, I think the oneness of the faith among the Orthodox shines through, in spite of whatever external divisions might exist. It's basing the Church solely on human physicality and organization and not on the Faith that binds them.

[quote]"Despite administrational division, Orthodoxy remains united in faith, the Sacraments, etc. But is this sufficient? When before non-Orthodox we sometimes appear divided in theological dialogues and elsewhere; when we are unable to proceed to the realization of the long-heralded Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church; when we lack a unified voice on contemporary issues and, instead, convoke bilateral dialogues with non-Orthodox on these issues; when we fail to constitute a single Orthodox Church in the so-called Diaspora in accordance with the ecclesiological and canonical principles of our Church; how can we avoid the image of division in Orthodoxy, especially on the basis of non-theological, secular criteria?"[/quote]

I mostly agree with Pat. Bartholomew here. It's not that Orthodoxy is divided, but only "appears divided". However, it's true that the mission of the Orthodox Church is hurt because of the administrative divisions. The conflicts that have arisen over the years do not help. There is currently a certain lack of unity that I'm discovering about the Orthodox Church, but again, this is not a lack of unity in faith at all, but only a lack of administrative unity. It's clear how the Catholic Church would have the advantage over the Orthodox in matters of administrative tasks. One of the things Romans did best was administrative work and organization. Nonetheless, I don't think that God's will is thwarted because of these divisions, but rather he works through the church, helping to resolve the problems that have arisen due to worldly issues.

[mortify]

There is a book written by Stephen Neill, an Anglican writer, which is called _A History of Christian Missions_. He candidly admits that there is no comparing the efforts of the Catholic Church to spread Christianity throughout the world. The fact is for the first [b]19 centuries[/b] the Church was the absolute leader in all missionary activity in the world.

I forgot who, but there was a Church leader living in the Renaissance who used the Church's missionary activity as a proof for it's claim to be the true Church (Protestants had divided themselves in various national churches and showed no missionary activity... a bit like the Orthodox)

[mortify]

Peace Theosis,

[quote name='Theosis3' post='1724411' date='Dec 10 2008, 04:38 PM']I would disagree with the first sentence of this paragraph. The Orthodox Church is still one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, in spite of having an uncanonical situation in place.[/quote]

I'm not even sure what the "Orthodox Church" is, does it include Copts, for example?

I think whatever vague unity these particular churches have is based on the fact they were once ruled by Byzantium. As Constantinople grew in eminence it's customs and ideas spread throughout the Eastern empire, for this reason I think there is some similarity.

The West, on the other hand, was isolated from the East, and vice versa, and so Christianity uniquely sprouted on it's own in that part of the world. I always found the ways of the Latins admirable for this reason.

For Catholics visible unity is based on three things, holding on to the same faith, possessing the same channels of grace (sacraments), and being under the same authority.

[Theosis3]

A clear example of Unity among the Orthodox Christians is the funeral and burial of Patriach Alexis II. This is an excerpt from the list of Orthodox serving at his funeral:

The funeral service for the late Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church was celebrated by His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople and the Patriarchal Locum Tenens of the Moscow Patriarchal Throne Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad together with the Primates and representatives of the Local Orthodox Churches, members of the Holy Synod, and other archpastors of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Paying last respects to His Holiness Patriarch Alexy were delegations of all Local Orthodox Churches. The delegation of the Church of Constantinople was led by His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew; the Church of Alexandria by metropolitan Peter of Aksum; the Church of Antioch by bishop Nifon of Philippopilis, representative of the Patriarch of Great Antioch and All the East in Moscow; the Church of Jerusalem by metropolitan Hesychios of Kapitolias; the Georgian Church by His Holiness and Beatitude Patriarch-Catholicos of All Georgia Iliya II; the Serbian Church by metropolitan Amfilohiy of Crna Gora and Primorje, chairman of the Holy Synod; the Romanian Church by His Beatitude Patriarch of Romania Daniel; the Bulgarian Church by metropolitan Dometian of Vidin; the Church of Cyprus by metropolitan Georgios of Paphos; the Church of Greece by His Beatitude Hieronymos of Athens and All Greece; the Church of Albania by His Beatitude Archbishop Anastasios of Tirana and All Albania; the Church of Poland by archbishop Szymon of Lodz and Poznan; the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia by His Beatitude Metropolitan Christopher of the Czech Lands and Slovakia; the Orthodox Church in America by archbishop Seraphim of Ottawa and Canada.

These were the Orthodox Hierarchs in attendance and participating in the funeral, an outward sign of inward communion. This communion has maintained a unity of faith for the past two thousand years--and for the past thousand years even without communion with a bishop claiming to be the head of the Church universal.

[Selah]

Yes, I did consider Eastern Orthodox, along with Anglican. What really drew me to the Catholic Church, though, was the history behind it, the beauty of their Mass, among other things.

Edited December 11, 2008 by Selah

[Greg]

[quote name='Theosis3' post='1725717' date='Dec 11 2008, 05:42 PM']A clear example of Unity among the Orthodox Christians is the funeral and burial of Patriach Alexis II...
These were the Orthodox Hierarchs in attendance and participating in the funeral, an outward sign of inward communion. This communion has maintained a unity of faith for the past two thousand years--and for the past thousand years even without communion with a bishop claiming to be the head of the Church universal.[/quote]

Theosis,

Perhaps, but not necessarily. Also attending were Russian President Medvedev, Russian Prime-Minister Putin, members of the Russian government, the State Duma deputies, members of the Russian Federation Council, and ambassadors from the U.S., Great Britain, France, Canada, Japan, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Greece and other countries.

Is the Orthodox Church in communion with these people and groups? I don't believe so.

There was also a Catholic delegation:
Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, retired president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and Pontifical Council Cor Unum
Archbishop Antonio Mennini, the Holy See's representative to the Russian Federation
Jesuit Father Milan Zust, an official of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
Monsignor Ante Jozif, secretary of the nunciature in Moscow

Is the Orthodox Church in communion with the Catholic Church? No.

Just because someone is willing to sit in the same room with another person does not necessarily mean that they are "in communion."

Greg

References:
[url="http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?page=43577"]Funeral service for His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II[/url]
[url="http://www.zenit.org/article-24496?l=english"]Papal Delegation to Attend Funeral of Alexy II[/url]

[Greg]

Theosis,

A few comments:

[quote name='Theosis3' post='1724360' date='Dec 10 2008, 04:04 PM']... Khomiakov puts it this way: the Orthodox Church is catholic "because she belongs to the whole world, and not to any particular locality; because by her all mankind and all the earth, and not any particular nation or country, are sanctified; because her very essence consists in the agreement and unity of the spirit and life of all the members who acknowledge her, throughout the world".[/quote]

You are correct that catholic/universal has more than one meaning. The statement you quote could also be said of the Catholic Church.

[quote name='Theosis3' post='1724360' date='Dec 10 2008, 04:04 PM']... For how many hundreds of years did the Church manage to keep the one faith together without an agreed-upon catechism?[/quote]

What about The Didache, an early catechism, written about 100AD?

[quote name='Theosis3' post='1724360' date='Dec 10 2008, 04:04 PM']... the Church managed to keep the same faith without even an agreed-upon Biblical canon for a few hundred years.[/quote]

However, they did have Apostolic succession and when the early church recognized a threat from heretical sects also claiming to be Christian (Marcion being the first, I believe) it did two additional things: Developed a creed and established a biblical canon. Even today, however, the Orthodox Church does not agree upon the canon. Another reason I could not be Orthodox.

[url="http://www.orthodox-church.info/eob/eobintro.pdf"]Introduction to the Eastern Orthodox Bible[/url].

Greg

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1720510' date='Dec 5 2008, 10:22 PM']The East's liturgy isn't as pure as one would think, just ask an Old Believer.[/quote]

I talk to them whenever I need some chain to secure my bike.

[Greg]

[quote name='Theosis3' post='1724360' date='Dec 10 2008, 04:04 PM']Maybe it's God's will that it hasn't taken place yet.[/quote]

Theosis,

Your comment here was about the Holy and Great Council, but would you also say that this might also apply to the as-yet realized unity of the various Orthodox jurisdictions in the Americas?

Greg

Edited December 13, 2008 by Greg

[Saint Therese]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1721408' date='Dec 7 2008, 02:14 AM']Well, I've been lurking for a while, and when I see Obama being painted as the anti-christ and everything anti-pro-life construed as murder I feel naturally compelled to stand up for things like truth and reason. Truth and reason are very important elements of my personal philosophy.

Plus I also want to convert everyone to atheism. [/quote]

The truth is that abortion is murder and O'bama is an anti-christ.

[bonkers]

[quote name='Saint Therese' post='1726864' date='Dec 12 2008, 10:06 PM']The truth is that abortion is murder and O'bama is an anti-christ.[/quote]

Actually the truth is there is no god and no such thing as an anti-christ.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1726883' date='Dec 12 2008, 11:20 PM']Actually the truth is there is no god and no such thing as an anti-christ.[/quote]


I'm wondering how you determine what "truth" is. You say that truth and reason play a big part in your personal philosophy ...

Some people say that their criteria for determining truth is limited to what can be "proven," and by "proven" they mean demonstrated by deductive reasoning, usually the scientific method.

Would you say this is the case for yourself? Or do use some other rational criteria?

[bonkers]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' post='1726919' date='Dec 13 2008, 01:23 AM']I'm wondering how you determine what "truth" is. You say that truth and reason play a big part in your personal philosophy ...

Some people say that their criteria for determining truth is limited to what can be "proven," and by "proven" they mean demonstrated by deductive reasoning, usually the scientific method.

Would you say this is the case for yourself? Or do use some other rational criteria?[/quote]

I would say the scientific method is the most reliable and objective method for distinguishing between fiction and fact, and everything else is merely opinion and therefore susceptible to all sorts of human fallacies such as ignorance, prejudice, bias etc. Would you agree?

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1726924' date='Dec 13 2008, 01:54 AM']I would say the scientific method is the most reliable and objective method for distinguishing between fiction and fact, and everything else is merely opinion and therefore susceptible to all sorts of human fallacies such as ignorance, prejudice, bias etc. Would you agree?[/quote]

The scientific method is very useful for some things, but useless for others. It cannot tell us about everything that is True, because it relies on experimentation. The very nature of an experiment means that the elements must be controlled. We can only control what is beneath us, what is inferior to us, what we hold in our power.

And yet, I think we might agree that the most important and interesting parts of human experience are infinitely superior to us. What is the true nature of love, death, friendship ... these questions are beyond the scientific method. What kinds of love are there, which is highest, which is "true?" There is no series of tests to "prove" the answers ...

Biologists and Chemists, use the scientific method a great deal in their work. Physicists less so. One principle of physics says that a formula is more likely to be true if it is "beautiful." They agree there is some concept of objective beauty .. it exists, and yet there is no test to prove what it is.

I asked about what you determined to be Truth, because if you will only believe what is "proven" by the scientific method, then what you can have definite beliefs on must be necessarily limited. For example, the scientific method cannot tell us if there is a God or not. There is no experiment that can be done to determine this. It cannot be "proven" this way, either way. The subject matter is superior to us, we cannot control the elements involved.

Since atheism cannot be proven, it is an act of faith. You may feel that the weight of the available evidence falls on that side; or that deductive reasoning of a philosophical system indicate that is so. Your belief in atheism may be rational, just as a person's belief in God may be rational. But neither of them are proven by the scientific method.

I have another question ... would you say that reason stand at the very center of matter? That reason is part of the very essence of the universe? Is rationality grounded as the basis of all things?