- Aug 4, 2013
- 4,999
- 2,485
- 75
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
I made mention of my desire to convert to Orthodoxy. I got some feedback from a friend on Facebook, who accused me, in a nice way, of acting like a Protestant in "picking and choosing" which doctrines and things to like about the Roman Catholic faith.
This is my reply. Would you, my dear Orthodox friends, please check my statements for doctrinal accuracy? Thank you.
Here is a short list of the things I have serious problems with, David.
1. Not giving children the Eucharist until they reach a supposed "age of reason." Ridiculous. And breaks the shadow/type found in the Old Covenant with the Jews.
2. The system of "merit" and indulgences. Purely based on a Roman mindset and legal understanding of salvation.
3. Use of "dead bread" and cold water in the Eucharist. In the East, we are celebrating our union with Christ in the Eucharist, therefore, the bread must have leaven in it to represent the living Christ. As leaven is "alive," so is Christ alive. Dead bread breaks the symbolism. At the consecration in the East, the priest adds a small amount of warm water, again symbolizing a warm body of a living Christ.
3. Superstitious belief in certain prayers that if you repeat them all your life, you are guaranteed heaven. This sounds very much like the idea of "making a decision for Jaaaaayzyz" once in your life and you are guaranteed heaven. This is bound up in the whole Roman mentality of salvation as a legal transaction rather than a journey in to holiness. Salvation is medicinal, not legal. It is not about paying off some legal debt to God. It is about becoming gods, as St. Athanasius said: "God became man so that man might become god." To do so, a radical change in our very ontology is required, and the idea that you pray a certain number of prayers on five consecutive Saturdays and BINGO! you are set for heaven short-circuits this whole process of ontological change.
4. Baptism by sprinkling. Again, ridiculous! Does not symbolize our death, burial, and resurrection in Christ and is a total break with what the Early Church taught.
5. The Immaculate Conception. Causes serious anthropological and soteriological problems. If Mary was immaculately conceived, then She is not a pattern and inspiration for us because She could not sin. If She is like us and by Her own free-will choice, aided by grace, She chose not to sin, then She is our Exemplar.
Also, if Mary was conceived in such a manner, then why not do this for all men and women born so as to guarantee their salvation?
This whole idea comes from Augustine's very dark view of mankind as "totally depraved" (Calvin brought this out from Augustine's writings) and therefore corrupt from the womb, infected with the guilt and sin of Adam. Utter doctrinal crappola.
6. Papal Infallibility. Never taught by the Early Fathers. While the Orthodox honor the Holy Father as the "First among equals," this doctrine was not ratified by an ecummenical council. The last I looked in Church history, all major doctrinal pronouncements and changes came from the Church meeting as a whole to pronounced truth. This is in line with what the Scriptures state, that the CHURCH (and NO SINGLE MAN) is the "pillar and ground of truth."
It is also interesting to step back and see that whenever you have a heresy cropping up in the world, it is a single man's thoughts that have become that heresy. The Church meeting AS A WHOLE - as the Body of Christ - the protection against heresy.
7. Manichaeism and Jansenism. Specifically, the idea that the priesthood MUST be unmarried. While I have no problem with those whom our Lord calls to the celibate life, to say that only celibate men can be priests is not only a break with the past, the things I read about it appear to have to do with the idea that sex is somehow sinful and dirty and therefore married priests cannot be holy.
It also denies that the real reason had more to do with priest's widows inheritances in the 13th century than it did with any other reason.
Let's understand something. I am far from a holy person. But I can read, I can study, and I can put 2+2 together. When I converted, I wanted to worship like they did in the beginning. That is what many Evangelicals I spoke with were looking for. I made a mistake becoming Catholic. Orthodoxy has held together the doctrines of the Apostles. Romanism has added things over the centuries, starting with Augustine.
Finally, forgive me if you take this as a personal attack. I do not mean it that way. There are many fine, fine people in the Roman Catholic Church, and I am sure that a great number are more holy and love the Lord far better than I ever will. I am just having a real wrestling with my conscience right now because of the things I just posted.
You can also read more here.
Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time | St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary
This is my reply. Would you, my dear Orthodox friends, please check my statements for doctrinal accuracy? Thank you.
Here is a short list of the things I have serious problems with, David.
1. Not giving children the Eucharist until they reach a supposed "age of reason." Ridiculous. And breaks the shadow/type found in the Old Covenant with the Jews.
2. The system of "merit" and indulgences. Purely based on a Roman mindset and legal understanding of salvation.
3. Use of "dead bread" and cold water in the Eucharist. In the East, we are celebrating our union with Christ in the Eucharist, therefore, the bread must have leaven in it to represent the living Christ. As leaven is "alive," so is Christ alive. Dead bread breaks the symbolism. At the consecration in the East, the priest adds a small amount of warm water, again symbolizing a warm body of a living Christ.
3. Superstitious belief in certain prayers that if you repeat them all your life, you are guaranteed heaven. This sounds very much like the idea of "making a decision for Jaaaaayzyz" once in your life and you are guaranteed heaven. This is bound up in the whole Roman mentality of salvation as a legal transaction rather than a journey in to holiness. Salvation is medicinal, not legal. It is not about paying off some legal debt to God. It is about becoming gods, as St. Athanasius said: "God became man so that man might become god." To do so, a radical change in our very ontology is required, and the idea that you pray a certain number of prayers on five consecutive Saturdays and BINGO! you are set for heaven short-circuits this whole process of ontological change.
4. Baptism by sprinkling. Again, ridiculous! Does not symbolize our death, burial, and resurrection in Christ and is a total break with what the Early Church taught.
5. The Immaculate Conception. Causes serious anthropological and soteriological problems. If Mary was immaculately conceived, then She is not a pattern and inspiration for us because She could not sin. If She is like us and by Her own free-will choice, aided by grace, She chose not to sin, then She is our Exemplar.
Also, if Mary was conceived in such a manner, then why not do this for all men and women born so as to guarantee their salvation?
This whole idea comes from Augustine's very dark view of mankind as "totally depraved" (Calvin brought this out from Augustine's writings) and therefore corrupt from the womb, infected with the guilt and sin of Adam. Utter doctrinal crappola.
6. Papal Infallibility. Never taught by the Early Fathers. While the Orthodox honor the Holy Father as the "First among equals," this doctrine was not ratified by an ecummenical council. The last I looked in Church history, all major doctrinal pronouncements and changes came from the Church meeting as a whole to pronounced truth. This is in line with what the Scriptures state, that the CHURCH (and NO SINGLE MAN) is the "pillar and ground of truth."
It is also interesting to step back and see that whenever you have a heresy cropping up in the world, it is a single man's thoughts that have become that heresy. The Church meeting AS A WHOLE - as the Body of Christ - the protection against heresy.
7. Manichaeism and Jansenism. Specifically, the idea that the priesthood MUST be unmarried. While I have no problem with those whom our Lord calls to the celibate life, to say that only celibate men can be priests is not only a break with the past, the things I read about it appear to have to do with the idea that sex is somehow sinful and dirty and therefore married priests cannot be holy.
It also denies that the real reason had more to do with priest's widows inheritances in the 13th century than it did with any other reason.
Let's understand something. I am far from a holy person. But I can read, I can study, and I can put 2+2 together. When I converted, I wanted to worship like they did in the beginning. That is what many Evangelicals I spoke with were looking for. I made a mistake becoming Catholic. Orthodoxy has held together the doctrines of the Apostles. Romanism has added things over the centuries, starting with Augustine.
Finally, forgive me if you take this as a personal attack. I do not mean it that way. There are many fine, fine people in the Roman Catholic Church, and I am sure that a great number are more holy and love the Lord far better than I ever will. I am just having a real wrestling with my conscience right now because of the things I just posted.
You can also read more here.
Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time | St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary
