I don't want Orthodox union with Rome

[gurneyhalleck1]

Gay sex is evil, pure and simple. You and I can keep this tango going all week, but there's no point. Sodomy is evil. Gay intimacy is evil. Attempting to love another man in a romantic way is evil. Gay "marriage" is evil. Done. Fin. It's sinful and wrong. The Fathers say it. The Bible says it. The Church says it. The secular humanists say otherwise. I'm sticking with the Fathers. These kinds of arguments/debates are silly and a waste of key strokes.

I am not aware of any act that is made sinful, or not, based on the potential to engage is another act in the future with the intent of doing something else. It was my assumption that the sinfulness of an act depended on its nature and the intent at the time, not the nature and the potentiality of intent of a separate act at a later time.




I wasn't make an argument - I was trying to follow yours. What you said above would seem to fall in line with what you said. People in their 70s frequently engage in sex that is unnatural (aided by medications and personal products) and their is no potential for having children.



I am not seeing how you can say you can't make that comparison given what you initially said. The only difference is that heterosexually actively try to make it non-procreative.

 

[Wryetui]

I'm completely burned out on the "Our church is the TRUE church" banter. If it helps you in your faith to believe that your church is right and all others are wrong, then I suppose you must do what you must. The notion that one tradition is "correct" and the others "incorrect" is black and white thinking of the worst and most destructive kind. The Orthodox Church has its beauty, no doubt! But your efforts are well wasted on me. I was Orthodox for almost seven years and have read extensively of the Eastern (and Western) saints. The Spirit blows where it will. I am little interested in Christian tribalism or polemics. And "pure doctrine", I repeat, does not make a saint. A broken and contrite heart, on the other hand, does (and I'm quite certain perfect doctrine has little to do with this).

If our Church is the true Church, and this is supported by history, theology and etc, shouldn't we say it is?

the saints say otherwise.



and yet we disagree on what happens during the Eucharist.

Could you provide some saints talking about Rome? Can you tell me why we disagree at what happens during the eucharist? I'm a little curious about this since I didn't know it

 

[ArmyMatt]

Could you provide some saints talking about Rome?

Sts Mark of Ephesus, Alexis Toth, Nektarios of Aegina, Theophan the Recluse, Paisios of Mt Athos, etc

Can you tell me why we disagree at what happens during the eucharist?

pretty sure they say the bread and wine become the Body and Blood and cease to be bread and wine. the taste and appearance are "accidents." we don't define it as such, because that thinking comes from pagan Greek philosophy. transubstantiation is one of many terms used to describe the miracle, but not the only one and not as an explanation.

 

[~Anastasia~]

If our Church is the true Church, and this is supported by history, theology and etc, shouldn't we say it is?


Could you provide some saints talking about Rome? Can you tell me why we disagree at what happens during the eucharist? I'm a little curious about this since I didn't know it

I think we need to be careful on the "True Church" speech. Yes, of course I believe it. That's not the only reason, or even the main reason (because I didn't truly understand it at the time) that I chose the Orthodox Church, but it IS the reason I was willing to suspend my unsure-ness about a few things and keep investigating.

However, I can assure you of something. I spent a good bit of last weekend playing a minor "host" role at our Greek Festival - attended by about 30,000+ people. During the second half, I found myself in the Church, greeting folks who came in between tours and answering their questions, and so on. As it turns out, being a convert myself, I have a helpful perspective that many of them are interested in. And what I did NOT tell them is simply "we are the True Church". There are more than several denominations who believe that about themselves. And that's about the quickest way to get people to shut their ears to anything else you may have to say. Only when people ASKED about history, and where the Orthodox Church fit in, or why we were the way we are in relation to history, did I explain what might lead to that conclusion.

I actually "get" where I think Stevenhorr is coming from on that objection. It's not something I see in my parish - not at all - but the triumphalism is terrible in some places of "internet Orthodoxy". "WE are the One True Church and so we're better than you and that's that!" No one is drawn by such a prideful stance, and IMO, it's not the heart we should have.

I am SO thankful that the faith has been defended, handed down, and maintained. I'm eternally blessed to have been led to this treasury, and humbled that God has been so gracious to me. It's a beautiful, wonderful treasure, and I'm excited to share it with anyone who is interested. And it's a beautiful, wonderful treasure, worthy to be defended from all compromise and error that would come against it. But prideful? Why should I be prideful? I didn't invent the Church, didn't hand it down, wasn't martyred to water it. I just thank God that He led me here and is allowing me to be a part of it.

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

I know you're not supposed to argue in this thread, but I'm actually enjoying reading it. For arguing it's very civil.

Re: Why the gay issue is such a big deal. I think most people would be perfectly happy to ignore it. It's that gays refused to be ignored. One gay person can completely suck the oxygen out of a room. You could have a group of people sitting around talking about planting daisies on a hillside, and the gay person would be going, "WHAT ABOUT ME??!!"

Similarly when a Christian decides to give in to this temptation they always expect the other Christians in their life to suddenly change their position on this issue just because they decided to give in to temptation because gay people think they're the center of the universe. As far as I can tell at it's root homosexuality is primarily the sin of narcissism.

 

[dzheremi]

I dunno. I think anyone and everyone can be and is Mr. or Mrs. "what about me?" a lot of the time (me too), and I haven't noticed any of my gay friends sucking the oxygen out of a room, at least not any more than any other person. Granted, there are some people for whom that's seemingly the entirety of the identity they choose to present to the world, which is obnoxious and insufferable, yes, but the same can probably be said of many "saved" Evangelical types who seem to make a mockery of the faith by overplaying into that stereotype (where Jesus tells them what color tie to wear in the morning, and Father they just wanna... everything, etc).

I think if Christianity made a sin out of being annoying we'd all be in even worse shape than we already are. But the problem of seeking social acceptance isn't limited to that, and that really is a problem. It's like I always try to explain to my atheist/agnostic friends: You don't have a religion, and I do; we get along as well as we do because we don't demand involvement in each others' lives at such a level that we need approval of everyone we know or happen to meet in order to live however we want to. You don't expect me to live according to your conscience and I don't expect you to attend my church's 3+ hour liturgies just because that's part of how I choose to live. The trouble these days is not necessarily in the intersection of religion and public life, but in the aggressiveness of everyone involved to pull in everyone not involved. I suppose it's like they say how you can't stay neutral on a moving train...fine, but that doesn't mean you should have to approve of where it's headed if you don't. But that's not good enough for many people.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Among those I know personally who are same-sex attracted, none are actually like this. (The mother of one young man I know is indeed very in-your-face about it - as she is on many issues, and she is decidedly anti-Christian among these "pet issues" she preaches, but she is quite the exception.)

However, such people are rampant in the media and in the spotlight. I suppose because their convictions drive them to make themselves noticed. I don't know what to think about this phenomenon, except that they make up a small part of the population but who gather a very large following and are changing the very way society thinks, and not in a good way.

The whole idea of "you must agree with and celebrate all my actions or else that means you hate/fear me!" and the attempts to legislate against personal opinion/conviction are coming as a result.

I most certainly agree that those with same-sex attraction should NOT be ridiculed or bullied or discriminated against in regard to obtaining housing, material goods, and so on. I believe they deserve our compassion and understanding. What a difficult cross they bear!

But I refuse to celebrate it, affirm it as an equally valid expression of "family" in the sense of being instituted by God sacramentally, and so on. But that does NOT mean I either hate or fear them, nor do I condemn their sins as being worse than my own, and I indeed have my own sins to be concerned with. I have no business judging another's.

But somehow, public thought is turning. The problem I really see with that is that it's creeping into people's mindsets, and making them think not only is it true of SSA, but of everything. Christianity is fast becoming thought of as hateful and "the enemy" and the danger is that it spreads to be applied to any of our convictions. I see it in the offense people take when we consider any of our beliefs to be the uncompromiseable Truth. And I fear that trend will worsen, and even pit Christians against one another, as it appears to be doing even now.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Maybe if Catholicism implodes we'll get a massive exodus of faithful Catholics who have a strong moral foundation but need the theological richness and consistency and beauty of Orthodoxy? That would be good I guess.

Why assume that people disillusioned by the pope and an hypotetical outcome of this or another scheduled synod automatically will turn to Orthodoxy?

If the Holy See does something as stupid as permitting something that has been considered heresy since the establishment of the church I find it very likely to detonate a major schism in our church, why then should we choose Orthodoxy over the "in - schism" catholic church?

We do consider Orthodoxy to be in doctrinal error today, why would that change all because of heresy in parts of our own church I ask?

I shall not speak for others, but I myself find it a lot more likely that I'll follow those cardinals who oppose a hypotetical heretical doctrinal change than running to Orthodoxy...
If I thought the Orthodox Church to be the One church held above all others, free of errors, I would've been Chrismated already...

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Popes are infallible according to the false dogmas of the CC. If popes start teaching heresy, it just shows the false understanding of your church. The Filioque, papal claims, and other heresies added to the list of extremely poor,ahistorical understandings plus the horrendously awful liturgy the CC has were enough to open my eyes and find Christ's true Church. Perhaps it'll take lady priests and gay weddings and other wrong-headed stuff from the CC to give a wake-up call. Then people will realize the Orthodox Church's polity and 2,000 year consistency trumps a bunch of medieval innovating from some Western legalists.

This is the worst pope in decades, and the CC is a true mess....

Why assume that people disillusioned by the pope and an hypotetical outcome of this or another scheduled synod automatically will turn to Orthodoxy?

If the Holy See does something as stupid as permitting something that has been considered heresy since the establishment of the church I find it very likely to detonate a major schism in our church, why then should we choose Orthodoxy over the "in - schism" catholic church?

We do consider Orthodoxy to be in doctrinal error today, why would that change all because of heresy in parts of our own church I ask?

I shall not speak for others, but I myself find it a lot more likely that I'll follow those cardinals who oppose a hypotetical heretical doctrinal change than running to Orthodoxy...
If I thought the Orthodox Church to be the One church held above all others, free of errors, I would've been Chrismated already...

 

[Lukaris]

You have stated your devotion to Christian faith as well as any Christian should. Obviously we do not agree on crucial points but we recognize the sense of holy tradition on which we both stand & there are aspects we share that are indisputable. I think we are mutually concerned in the future of the RCC and I pray that both of our churches actually inadvertently compete to evangelize as many non Christians as possible.

reply to post # 68 (quote option failed for me).

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

You have stated your devotion to Christian faith as well as any Christian should. Obviously we do not agree on crucial points but we recognize the sense of holy tradition on which we both stand & there are aspects we share that are indisputable. I think we are mutually concerned in the future of the RCC and I pray that both of our churches actually inadvertently compete to evangelize as many non Christians as possible.

reply to post # 68 (quote option failed for me).

We do
God bless you brother.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

To come in here and question my journey and mock me for it and enter an Orthodox sub forum preaching your religion where it's not welcome is beneath you, child of.

***STAFF EDIT, REMOVED THE QUOTED POST***

 

[Anhelyna]

Child of Mary - your lack of charity is astonishing !

Please be careful how you , a visitor, post here. Do not abuse the legendary hospitality of my TAW brethren

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

To come in here and question my journey and mock me for it and enter an Orthodox sub forum preaching your religion where it's not welcome is beneath you, child of.

I didnt mean to mock you, if it came across as mockery please accecpt my humble apology I both respect and admire you as a true brother in Christ so my intentions wasnt bad.

I just tried to point out to you how your onesided discription of the catholic church sounded a bit harsh seen how it has been a home to you in the past.

I didnt say anything derogatory about your past which I truely praise God has turned to be a blessing for you after going through a hard time.

Again please accept my apology as I didnt mean anthing mean by it.

Child of Mary - your lack of charity is astonishing !

Please be careful how you , a visitor, post here. Do not abuse the legendary hospitality of my TAW brethren

Right on time as always Anhelyna, thanks for interfering and judging me without hearing my intentions with my post.
Much appreciated, thanks.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

I removed the part that offended you Gurney, hope you dont hold a grudge against me.
God bless.

 

[stray bullet]

Popes are infallible according to the false dogmas of the CC. If popes start teaching heresy, it just shows the false understanding of your church. The Filioque, papal claims, and other heresies added to the list of extremely poor,ahistorical understandings plus the horrendously awful liturgy the CC has were enough to open my eyes and find Christ's true Church. Perhaps it'll take lady priests and gay weddings and other wrong-headed stuff from the CC to give a wake-up call. Then people will realize the Orthodox Church's polity and 2,000 year consistency trumps a bunch of medieval innovating from some Western legalists.

This is the worst pope in decades, and the CC is a true mess....

None of those things will happen.

What is the truth? What of the Patriarchs of Istanbul that served the Muslim Caesar?

 

[Tallguy88]

ADMIN HAT ON

A small cleanup took place. Please try to remain charitable and keep in mind safe haven rules.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What is the truth? What of the Patriarchs of Istanbul that served the Muslim Caesar?

What of them?

 

[Lukaris]

What of them?

Exactly, 500 years of rendering unto God what is to God and rendering unto Caesar as our Lord said to. Centuries of oppression until the Greek Orthodox Christian community was eliminated in 1955.

 

[dzheremi]

Muslim Sultan, Roman Pope...what's one foreign ruler to take orders from versus another...

The Muslims came with an order from their god or its false prophet representing what they said was his order to set up their religion over ours, and put us into millets where we could have some internal government and very limited opportunity provided we paid the tribute that their religion demands for the sudden privilege of living on land that had been occupied by various kinds of Christians (primarily Syriac Orthodox, Armenians, Greeks, and Nestorians) since before their religion or its prophet ever existed.

The Latins came with an order from their God or one claiming to be His vicar representing what they said was His order to set up their church over ours, and put us into 'sui juris' churches where we could have some internal government and very limited opportunity provided that we paid the tribute that their ecclesiology demands for the sudden privilege of belonging to Rome-aligned churches carved out of preexisting churches that had occupied the same lands and spiritually fed the same people since before the Latins' church or Pope ever existed.

...نفس شي