Why EO cannot attend heterodox church services?

[rusmeister]

I've been here in Reading, PA since Monday morning from 9 to 5 every day, in the Church of St. Benedict with a group of Roman Catholic (mostly) and some Episcopalians, receiving formation training in Catechesis of the Good Shepherd level 2. How lonely it is to be a lone Orthodox in a heterodox world. Their faith is deep, in some essential and important ways, and their devotion is great, yet they are different from us in that there are various untruths that come with the package of beliefs of their respective ecclesiastical bodies. This sometimes gets to me. Yet I can't talk about this with any of them. I get to go home on Saturday evening. I can't wait to see my people again.

Why are you forced to be in this particular group?

 

[truefiction1]

Why are you forced to be in this particular group?

A ministry within the Church, to which I am called by the Holy Spirit, requires that I discover what is good and useful here and then use it in working with the Lord's children.

 

[ArmyMatt]

In case you were curious, this comes from a common protestant interpretation of Romans 14:1.

if read in the NIV, it will probably say it like it is usually taken.

I guess so, but that still does not say anything about essential vs non-essential beliefs.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I guess so, but that still does not say anything about essential vs non-essential beliefs.

Good to know. The concept of not arguing about "disputable matters" probably arose due to the protestant dynamic of multiple denominations. The concept is not necessary in orthodoxy since everyone believes the same things.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Good to know. The concept of not arguing about "disputable matters" probably arose due to the protestant dynamic of multiple denominations. The concept is not necessary in orthodoxy since everyone believes the same things.

probably, plus the need to doctrinal minimalism

 

[rusmeister]

Good to know. The concept of not arguing about "disputable matters" probably arose due to the protestant dynamic of multiple denominations. The concept is not necessary in orthodoxy since everyone believes the same things.

Everyone is SUPPOSED to believe the same things. But as I have discovered, people come into the Church with little or no catechesis AND do not submit to the idea of the Church correcting them.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

Everyone is SUPPOSED to believe the same things. But as I have discovered, people come into the Church with little or no catechesis AND do not submit to the idea of the Church correcting them.

I remember in my old non-denominational (Baptist) church, the closest we got to any kind of catechesis was a "101" class with the pastor for a total of 1 hour. One of the younger women in that "class" espoused an obvious modalist heresy of Water, Ice, Gas = Trinity, and I called her on it, and the response was like: "Oh..." Not even the pastor caught it or confronted it.

Other than that, catechism was virtually non-existent, with "small groups" usually forming where each individual shares/discusses what a particular verse or passage means to them ending with an agree and/or agree to disagree among the participants.

There wasn't even a unity of belief within a small group within a "church."

 

[truefiction1]

I just attended a Roman Catholic mass this afternoon that was played out like a confirmation and first Communion celebration.

 

[truefiction1]

Everyone is SUPPOSED to believe the same things. But as I have discovered, people come into the Church with little or no catechesis AND do not submit to the idea of the Church correcting them.

I don't think that many Orthodox are catechized whatsoever, because of the commitment (on the part of capable people) that would be needed to accomplish that in the Church's current state.

 

[rusmeister]

I don't think that many Orthodox are catechized whatsoever, because of the commitment (on the part of capable people) that would be needed to accomplish that in the Church's current state.

Obviously that means the Church must inevitably fall apart, leaving only a remnant. It’s that combination of the lack of catechism and joining in a time of relative prosperity and peace (lack of persecution) when the religion is legal and no one need pay or sacrifice for what they believe. Large numbers join because it is popular/exotic, and fall away when things go seriously south. But that revelation certainly has been devastating to me. There was a great Fr Seraphim (Rose) quote about it, but I’ve forgotten it.

 

[truefiction1]

Obviously that means the Church must inevitably fall apart, leaving only a remnant. It’s that combination of the lack of catechism and joining in a time of relative prosperity and peace (lack of persecution) when the religion is legal and no one need pay or sacrifice for what they believe. Large numbers join because it is popular/exotic, and fall away when things go seriously south. But that revelation certainly has been devastating to me. There was a great Fr Seraphim (Rose) quote about it, but I’ve forgotten it.

And when one does pay and sacrifice for what they believe, they are ridiculed and oppressed for doing it, by members of their own household and parish, because of the burdens this presents to them.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

probably, plus the need to doctrinal minimalism

Yes.

 

[rusmeister]

And when one does pay and sacrifice for what they believe, they are ridiculed and oppressed for doing it, by members of their own household and parish, because of the burdens this presents to them.

Yeah, that’s part of paying.

 

[BukiRob]

Well, technically speaking, the DON'T believe in the same God. They have made up a God and a salvation out of their own minds and promote that as if it is God's truth. The sad part is that they are the losers for this inasmuch as they will not have the challenge/blessing of the disciplines that are in Orthodoxy.

Example: when the Roman Catholic sex scandals hit some 20 years ago, everyone was focused on the RC priests. The abuse in the RC church only represented about 4% of all ordained clergy in that body. Yet at the same time, someone did some digging and found out that the rate of sexual abuse among Protestant pastors was around 30%.

Why?

No fasting, no prayers, no contact with the saints, no Eucharist, no Sacraments. It's like trying to run a marathon without the proper training and fuel for the body. It just doesn't work.

The first sign of a CULT is when you profess things like we don't believe in the same God. Do you know what keeps me from E.O.? The absolutely NON SENSE about an ever-virgin Mary along with praying to Mary! OUR INTERCESSOR IN HEAVEN is YESHUA! Romans 8:34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, but rather, was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.


The view on Mary is massively problematic as unless there is sexual intercourse the Marriage is not consummated. It shows a GROTESQUE perversion of the Jewish culture of that time! The marriage contract stipulates the MINIMUM amount of physical intimacy between husband and wife. Secondly, GOD TELLS Joseph; 19 And her husband Joseph, since he was a righteous man and did not want to disgrace her, planned to [c]send her away secretly. 20 But when he had thought this over, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for [d]the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a Son; and you shall name Him Jesus, for [e]He will save His people from their sins.” 22 Now all this [f]took place so that what was spoken by the Lord through [g]the prophet would be fulfilled:

Marriage in Jewish culture was a VERY serious matter. 1st stage is the Kiddushin- Betrothal, they are legally bound and can only be separated if one of the two is unfaithful. Second, is the marriage Contract (she'tar) it is proof (legally) of marriage. This is separate from the ketubah, which is given as protection for the woman after the kiddushin. Third is the physical union between husband and wife.

Finally, extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary evidence. You can not cite 2 scriptural verses (On the testimony of TWO or more witnesses a matter is established.) that even provide the CLOUDEST view that Mary was anything other than a devout, Jewish woman who walked with God and was OBEDIENT to the scriptural decrees of a Jewish wife. She herself RECOGNIZED the need for a Savior. declaring the fruit of here womb HER SAVIOR.

I agree with the VAST majority of the teachings and views of Eastern Orthodox but I part ways on the entire view of Mary as an intercessor and her being sinless. As 1 John declares, If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The first sign of a CULT is when you profess things like we don't believe in the same God.

that’s not what makes something a cult.

OUR INTERCESSOR IN HEAVEN is YESHUA! Romans 8:34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, but rather, was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

our intercessor is Christ before His Father to be sure, but that doesn’t mean that saints don’t intercede before Christ.

Finally, extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary evidence. You can not cite 2 scriptural verses (On the testimony of TWO or more witnesses a matter is established.) that even provide the CLOUDEST view that Mary was anything other than a devout, Jewish woman who walked with God and was OBEDIENT to the scriptural decrees of a Jewish wife. She herself RECOGNIZED the need for a Savior. declaring the fruit of here womb HER SAVIOR.

of course she needed a Savior, we don’t deny that. and we also can site verses in the Bible that supports her being ever-virgin.

 

[Not David]

The first sign of a CULT is when you profess things like we don't believe in the same God. Do you know what keeps me from E.O.? The absolutely NON SENSE about an ever-virgin Mary along with praying to Mary! OUR INTERCESSOR IN HEAVEN is YESHUA! Romans 8:34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, but rather, was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.


The view on Mary is massively problematic as unless there is sexual intercourse the Marriage is not consummated. It shows a GROTESQUE perversion of the Jewish culture of that time! The marriage contract stipulates the MINIMUM amount of physical intimacy between husband and wife. Secondly, GOD TELLS Joseph; 19 And her husband Joseph, since he was a righteous man and did not want to disgrace her, planned to [c]send her away secretly. 20 But when he had thought this over, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for [d]the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a Son; and you shall name Him Jesus, for [e]He will save His people from their sins.” 22 Now all this [f]took place so that what was spoken by the Lord through [g]the prophet would be fulfilled:

Marriage in Jewish culture was a VERY serious matter. 1st stage is the Kiddushin- Betrothal, they are legally bound and can only be separated if one of the two is unfaithful. Second, is the marriage Contract (she'tar) it is proof (legally) of marriage. This is separate from the ketubah, which is given as protection for the woman after the kiddushin. Third is the physical union between husband and wife.

Finally, extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary evidence. You can not cite 2 scriptural verses (On the testimony of TWO or more witnesses a matter is established.) that even provide the CLOUDEST view that Mary was anything other than a devout, Jewish woman who walked with God and was OBEDIENT to the scriptural decrees of a Jewish wife. She herself RECOGNIZED the need for a Savior. declaring the fruit of here womb HER SAVIOR.

I agree with the VAST majority of the teachings and views of Eastern Orthodox but I part ways on the entire view of Mary as an intercessor and her being sinless. As 1 John declares, If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

The fact she was chosen to be the Mother of God is something that distinguishes from other women.

 

[prodromos]

The first sign of a CULT is when you profess things like we don't believe in the same God. Do you know what keeps me from E.O.? The absolutely NON SENSE about an ever-virgin Mary along with praying to Mary! OUR INTERCESSOR IN HEAVEN is YESHUA! Romans 8:34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, but rather, was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.


The view on Mary is massively problematic as unless there is sexual intercourse the Marriage is not consummated. It shows a GROTESQUE perversion of the Jewish culture of that time! The marriage contract stipulates the MINIMUM amount of physical intimacy between husband and wife. Secondly, GOD TELLS Joseph; 19 And her husband Joseph, since he was a righteous man and did not want to disgrace her, planned to [c]send her away secretly. 20 But when he had thought this over, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for [d]the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a Son; and you shall name Him Jesus, for [e]He will save His people from their sins.” 22 Now all this [f]took place so that what was spoken by the Lord through [g]the prophet would be fulfilled:

Marriage in Jewish culture was a VERY serious matter. 1st stage is the Kiddushin- Betrothal, they are legally bound and can only be separated if one of the two is unfaithful. Second, is the marriage Contract (she'tar) it is proof (legally) of marriage. This is separate from the ketubah, which is given as protection for the woman after the kiddushin. Third is the physical union between husband and wife.

Finally, extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary evidence. You can not cite 2 scriptural verses (On the testimony of TWO or more witnesses a matter is established.) that even provide the CLOUDEST view that Mary was anything other than a devout, Jewish woman who walked with God and was OBEDIENT to the scriptural decrees of a Jewish wife. She herself RECOGNIZED the need for a Savior. declaring the fruit of here womb HER SAVIOR.

I agree with the VAST majority of the teachings and views of Eastern Orthodox but I part ways on the entire view of Mary as an intercessor and her being sinless. As 1 John declares, If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Be aware that you are posting in the Eastern Orthodox subforum. As such, your post is in violation of the rules for the community subforums. I haven't reported your post, but don't be surprised if somebody else does and it gets deleted. We have another subforum, St Justin Martyrs, where you can freely debate on where you disagree with the Orthodox faith. We have no fear of being challenged, only that the community subforums were established to provide safe havens for fellowship and people seeking clarification, and are not the appropriate place for such challenges. Please respect their purpose.

 

[The Liturgist]

I believe the saying among Protestants is "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials charity" ?

This allegedly originated with Blessed Augustine of Hippo*, who actually said something like “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in everything charity,” whose status as a saint is not universally recognized by all Eastern Orthodox, but who is usually venerated albeit to a lesser extent than St. John Cassian, whose theology of original sin is rather better.

And this statement, whoever wrote it, whether it came from St. Augustine or something else, has become a bit like John Wesley’s notorious “agree to disagree” remark, in that it has the effect of promoting the toleration of heterodoxy, even though that was not the intent. The danger becomes over what becomes suitable grounds for disagreement, that is to say, what is essential and what is not.

Speaking of which rather literally I did once meet a pastor from a mainline denomination who had decided he had qualms about the word “homoousios” in the Nicene creed.

*I refer to him as Blessed Augustine in this context out of respect for EO members holding either view, my precedent being the translation of certain Orthodox books which refer to St. Augustine as Blessed Augustine; if I recall Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky as translated by Fr. Seraphim Rose is one example.

 

[ArmyMatt]

whose status as a saint is not universally recognized by all Eastern Orthodox, but who is usually venerated albeit to a lesser extent than St. John Cassian, whose theology of original sin is rather better.

sorry, but what? both are venerated in the Orthodox Church. the 6th Council names St Augustine as a holy father of the Church.

 

[Not David]

This allegedly originated with Blessed Augustine of Hippo*, who actually said something like “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in everything charity,” whose status as a saint is not universally recognized by all Eastern Orthodox, but who is usually venerated albeit to a lesser extent than St. John Cassian, whose theology of original sin is rather better.

And this statement, whoever wrote it, whether it came from St. Augustine or something else, has become a bit like John Wesley’s notorious “agree to disagree” remark, in that it has the effect of promoting the toleration of heterodoxy, even though that was not the intent. The danger becomes over what becomes suitable grounds for disagreement, that is to say, what is essential and what is not.

Speaking of which rather literally I did once meet a pastor from a mainline denomination who had decided he had qualms about the word “homoousios” in the Nicene creed.

*I refer to him as Blessed Augustine in this context out of respect for EO members holding either view, my precedent being the translation of certain Orthodox books which refer to St. Augustine as Blessed Augustine; if I recall Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky as translated by Fr. Seraphim Rose is one example.

Blessed is another way of calling someone a saint.