Question around someone converting to orthodoxy...

[ArmyMatt]

Why would I do that? I would like to see some material substance to the claims. One thing that seems to have substance is that the brother who spoke of his son can only expect to be refused by the church he may join. He knew that the moment he did his own research. Unless of course he also enters into the five fold liturgical process of entering into full salvation. What then if he reaches Marriage and seeing that he is already married to the woman who gave birth to his son - he then realises that she is also rejected and cannot then enter into a full fellowship with his own wife? Is that really what Christ requires? So the priest absolves them and all is well. Nonsense.

what are you talking about?

 

[ArmyMatt]

You should have been a Calvinist. You have a belly for it.

thanks, but no.

 

[HTacianas]

Why would I do that? I would like to see some material substance to the claims. One thing that seems to have substance is that the brother who spoke of his son can only expect to be refused by the church he may join. He knew that the moment he did his own research. Unless of course he also enters into the five fold liturgical process of entering into full salvation. What then if he reaches Marriage and seeing that he is already married to the woman who gave birth to his son - he then realises that she is also rejected and cannot then enter into a full fellowship with his own wife? Is that really what Christ requires? So the priest absolves them and all is well. Nonsense.

I honestly have no idea what you mean by all of that. But as far as a priest absolving someone of something, Jesus said to his apostles:

Jhn 20:23 “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

 

[rhomphaeam]

what are you talking about?

I wasn't talking to you - regardless as to what I was taking about. But I understand - you want a fight and unless I fall into a religious spirit I will be questioned and deemed incompetent. As to the refusal to become a Calvinist - then of course you would have to receive the reformation also. Seems unlikely you do have a belly after all. Shalom.

 

[rhomphaeam]

I honestly have no idea what you mean by all of that. But as far as a priest absolving someone of something, Jesus said to his apostles:

Jhn 20:23 “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Just read your brother's comments. It's all there. I have just paraphrased the claims.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I wasn't talking to you - regardless as to what I was taking about. But I understand - you want a fight and unless I fall into a religious spirit I will be questioned and deemed incompetent. As to the refusal to become a Calvinist - then of course you would have to receive the reformation also. Seems unlikely you do have a belly after all. Shalom.

I don't want to fight, but when the non-Orthodox come here and spout nonsense, I am just not going to let that sit. no one said you were incompetent, just that you really don't know what you're talking about.

and I know I would have to receive the reformation as well. it's what I was before converting to Orthodoxy.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hello, and welcome to CF and to TAW.

(Yes, because it’s in the debate section, you may see a lot of posts from others outside of Orthodoxy who generally don’t understand what they are talking about - I hope this doesn’t add to your pain btw as they don’t address your concerns.)


The Church is not looking to tear families apart, no. The dynamics are always different, and always considered. Often if it is part of a nuclear family, the priest will urge those wanting to convert to take more time, so as not to cause divisions in the family.

Often when the family sees the effect living the faith in the way that we are given tools through Orthodoxy to live it - results in such a transformation in the person that they more easily begin to understand.

Yes, there are nominal ones born into families that maybe they don’t pursue the faith. That doesn’t diminish what it can be though.

When priests counsel newcomers about visiting other kinds of fellowships, the reasons matter. If that person misses something about the old fellowship and just wants to straddle two worlds, it’s usually a bad idea. However, if it’s a matter of keeping family connections, the priest can advise differently. Everything is tailored to the best good of the salvation of each person (and sometimes by extension others’ lives they touch). The rules are there for a reason, but realize they were often codified many many centuries ago when “another fellowship” might have referred to an officially condemned heresy. There were no evangelical Protestants then. So it may well not be true that he would never go to Church with you.

When I converted, my husband was Protestant (still is) and he wouldn’t come to the Orthodox Church and didn’t want to go to his without me. My priest advised at that time for me to alternate and go with him half the time. That was probably a very unusual situation but in our case it was what the priest thought best.

As for prayers - we can’t really pray prayers that go against what we believe, so sometimes the prayers others pray are a problem. In cases like that, I pray with them, but silently pray my own beliefs. In some cases we do share - the Lord’s Prayer is prayed by almost all Christians, isn’t it? Or what if he prayed - there is no reason you can’t join in HIS prayers.

All of this is guided by a priest and may depend on the particular circumstance. But I think you are looking at ancient canons? They should not be lightly set aside by us, certainly. But it has always been the case that wisdom and love are used in the interpretation and application of those canons.

I hope some of this helps a little. I can understand your distress, certainly. But it isn’t as bleak as you are probably understanding it to be.

God be with you.

I know this is the debate section, but I wasn't sure how my post would be responded to elsewhere (Cause it is bring typed with considerable anguish, I apologize it is a rant in pain)
I have an 18 year old son, who has become interested in Orthodoxy.
(He has promised to work through scripture and the early church documents with me)
My family are evangelical protestants.

Do I have it correct that if he commits to Orthodoxy it would mean:
He cannot take communion with his family.
He cannot attend a church service with his family, except for weddings and funerals
He cannot pray with us (we have had a 5 min together nearly ever night since the boys were infants).
So that the next time we will be in church together would when I'm dead, and only then begrudgingly.
Of course I have the hope that we both (with the grace of God) be together in heaven.

I get the need from your perspective to defend truth, however it is said of God "that your kindness leads to repentance".

All the Orthodox that I have meant in person are so nominal and uncommitted to being a disciple of Jesus, it is largely just a cultural things they do once or twice a year. So my son could pray with utterly luke warm, apathetic orthodox people but has to effectively spiritual shun his own family.

This seems on par with the JW's and the Plymouth Exclusive Brethren.

I believe the separation of his body (the church) from each other causes great sorrow for Jesus, and I for one would wish that we could live out the ones of Ephesian 4. But if my son joins Orthodoxy, I will get some idea of what being a "man of sorrows" means, cause at the moment I cannot feel that a day would pass but the sorrow of the separation would not hurt.

Now I get you will say it is for vital truths, and of course despite that I ascribe to both Nicaea/Chalcedon, baptism as a saving sacrament, even the theotokos, unless I choose to "enthnicize" to your ethnically drenched churches, the separation with my son must but be maintained. Given your churches cut communion over if Estonia could have its own church, and now over if Ukraine having its own church, to rank outsider I'm just not that it is anything to do with the love of Jesus.

I apologize if this is an uncharitable rant, we all need the mercy and love of God. I'm just not sure tearing families apart is the best way to live Jesus message out to the world but these are your churches. I can only hope that the LORD hastens his return to minimize the pain we cause another.

 

[rhomphaeam]

Jhn 20:23 “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

You do realise that given the context of what I said about the sacramental process, your using this scripture to answer my point about the absolution of priests - even though you didn't seem to understand it - your present claim would have it that the priest could just absolve the sinful wife who refused the sacramental process of full salvation. If he didn't - according to your brother who's zeal has equipped him to correct others - then the husband could not enter into prayers with his own wife?

 

[rhomphaeam]

(Yes, because it’s in the debate section, you may see a lot of posts from others outside of Orthodoxy who generally don’t understand what they are talking about - I hope this doesn’t add to your pain btw as they don’t address your concerns.)

I believe that you will find that those of us who are outside of Orthodoxy to use your term did in fact address the heart of his concerns. I rather doubt that the author of the OP didn't know precisely what the implications of his sons potential to Orthodoxy were. He stated them quite clearly. His distress was as a father and not as an Evangelical.

 

[ArmyMatt]

You do realise that given the context of what I said about the sacramental process, your using this scripture to answer my point about the absolution of priests - even though you didn't seem to understand it - your present claim would have it that the priest could just absolve the sinful wife who refused the sacramental process of full salvation. If he didn't - according to your brother who's zeal has equipped him to correct others - then the husband could not enter into prayers with his own wife?

that's not how it works at all. and I say this as a priest.

 

[rhomphaeam]

that's not how it works at all. and I say this as a priest.

Your being a priest has no meaning to me. So whatever you say you would be better to say it as a Christian.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Your being a priest has no meaning to me. So whatever you say you would be better to say it as a Christian.

well, as someone who has given absolution, I can say you're wrong in your point a couple of posts above.

 

[rhomphaeam]

to your questions:

correct, he cannot take communion outside of Orthodoxy.
correct, he can't deny going to the Liturgy (although, exceptions can be made for special occasions. this is something for him to work out with his priest).
he shouldn't participate in the prayers, but he still can be with you as you pray. but again, this is something between him and his priest.

Lord have mercy.

So when you posted this to the author of the OP you were posting as a priest. And you were posting to a man or else his wife who's questions were transparently clear. Now I post what is an inferential meaning to another poster who's citations confirm what you yourself said when answering an Evangelical Christian - absolution. I don't receive Orthodoxy because I don't receive sacramental salvation as a true basis for knowing or else being in Christ. But that is irrelevant isn't it? This is not about me. It's about the relationship between a father, his wife and their son. Anyone who sets that into a permissive absolution will be held to account.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So when you posted this to the author of the OP you were posting as a priest. And you were posting to a man or else his wife who's questions were transparently clear. Now I post what is an inferential meaning to another poster who's citations confirm what you yourself said when answering an Evangelical Christian - absolution. I don't receive Orthodoxy because I don't receive sacramental salvation as a true basis for knowing or else being in Christ. But that is irrelevant isn't it? This is not about me. It's about the relationship between a father, his wife and their son. Anyone who sets that into a permissive absolution will be held to account.

right, and you did it with a lot of historical errors. and now you are misrepresenting how absolution works in the Orthodox Church.

my post to him was about his son. my post to you was because you needlessly inserted yourself on our subforum, and you misrepresented our history and now our theology.

 

[rhomphaeam]

right, and you did it with a lot of historical errors. and now you are misrepresenting how absolution works in the Orthodox Church.

my post to him was about his son. my post to you was because you needlessly inserted yourself on our subforum, and you misrepresented our history and now our theology.

Needlessly? Nothing is needless in a Christian forum. You concluded your comment with "Lord have mercy." How so when a priest can determine what is wisdom as to whether a son can pray with his own father? As to absolution - that formal canonical precept is carried in the heart of a child who has taken his entrance into the jurisprudent framework that lies at the heart of all religious systems - regardless as to whether they are utterly bankrupt of else centrally true. The centrality is Christ according to the apostolic creed and the scriptures according to learned men or teachers and the witness of the Holy Spirit.

The issue is a father, his wife and there 18 year old son.

A lot of historical errors? I only cited one implicit historical fact and ran it to its eventual conclusion. Or didn't you know that Islam has murdered over 100 million Christians in the East beginning after the first Caliph took his office and it is still happening today in a smaller measure. It can scarcely matter what a persons perception of anyones history is when we are concerned for a father, his wife and their son.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Needlessly? Nothing is needless in a Christian forum. You concluded your comment with "Lord have mercy." How so when a priest can determine what is wisdom as to whether a son can pray with his own father? As to absolution - that formal canonical precept is carried in the heart of a child who has taken his entrance into the jurisprudent framework that lies at the heart of all religious systems - regardless as to whether they are utterly bankrupt of else centrally true. The centrality is Christ according to the apostolic creed and the scriptures according to learned men or teachers and the witness of the Holy Spirit.

The issue is a father, his wife and there 18 year old son.

A lot of historical errors? I only cited one implicit historical fact and ran it to its eventual conclusion. Or didn't you know that Islam has murdered over 100 million Christians in the East beginning after the first Caliph took his office and it is still happening today in a smaller measure. It can scarcely matter what a persons perception of anyones history is when we are concerned for a father, his wife and their son.

well, he asked the Orthodox subforum because his son is becoming Orthodox. you are not Orthodox.

two, priests don't create canons, but are called to enforce them pastorally.

and no, Islam wasn't the only historical thing you mentioned. and I never denied the abuses of the Church at their hands.

and while concern for a family is good, that doesn't give you good cause to say erroneous things about the Orthodox Church.

 

[rhomphaeam]

well, he asked the Orthodox subforum because his son is becoming Orthodox. you are not Orthodox.

two, priests don't create canons, but are called to enforce them pastorally.

and no, Islam wasn't the only historical thing you mentioned. and I never denied the abuses of the Church at their hands.

and while concern for a family is good, that doesn't give you good cause to say erroneous things about the Orthodox Church.

What I said regarding Eastern Orthodoxy was chiefly stated in present tense. The only historical precept in past tense was stated about divisions within the Eastern Churches that gave Islam its upper hand. I am an Islamic Scholar and I have involvement with brethren in the East including the Levant and so I know how they perceive their own history. Regardless as to denominational distinctions in the East - which even at the time of Muhammed exited - both in the Arabian Peninsula and Syria and the Levant more broadly - those kind of details were only meaningful when set into present tense. What I said was that it isn't possible to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy in the West - but that it could only be held true in the East. What I could have stated was that when a son of a father turns to Eastern Orthodoxy in the West and he is already in a true faith into Christ then any such supposed conversion cannot be a conversion at all because a man can only convert to Christ.

I also recognise that I stated that many of the Churches in the East [and I cited Russian, Greek and Syriac] had by now a greater measure of the Holy Spirit in their midst - and that was also present tense yet was predicated on a historical claim to divisions and the ravages of Islam.

I know what I said and what any spirit filled believer could discern from what was hidden. The only wilful element I made was that I cited the wrong date for the death of Muhammed. I simply wanted to see if anyone would correct me. Apparently not!

 

[ArmyMatt]

What I said regarding Eastern Orthodoxy was chiefly stated in present tense. The only historical precept in past tense was stated about divisions within the Eastern Churches that gave Islam its upper hand. I am an Islamic Scholar and I have involvement with brethren in the East including the Levant and so I know how they perceive their own history. Regardless as to denominational distinctions in the East - which even at the time of Muhammed exited - both in the Arabian Peninsula and Syria and the Levant more broadly - those kind of details were only meaningful when set into present tense. What I said was that it isn't possible to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy in the West - but that it could only be held true in the East. What I could have stated was that when a son of a father turns to Eastern Orthodoxy in the West and he is already in a true faith into Christ then any such supposed conversion cannot be a conversion at all because a man can only convert to Christ.

I also recognise that I stated that many of the Churches in the East [and I cited Russian, Greek and Syriac] had by now a greater measure of the Holy Spirit in their midst - and that was also present tense yet was predicated on a historical claim to divisions and the ravages of Islam.

I know what I said and what any spirit filled believer could discern from what was hidden. The only wilful element I made was that I cited the wrong date for the death of Muhammed. I simply wanted to see if anyone would correct me. Apparently not!

again, no. those of us who become Orthodox convert because Protestantism, Rome, and the non-Chalcedonians are all false.

and stating that the East now has a greater measure of the Spirit is also false.

 

[rhomphaeam]

again, no. those of us who become Orthodox convert because Protestantism, Rome, and the non-Chalcedonians are all false.

and stating that the East now has a greater measure of the Spirit is also false.

That may be - but at least the brother who posted into this forum now knows for sure what to expect when his son tenuously treads into Eastern Orthodoxy according to its western converts.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That may be - but at least the brother who posted into this forum now knows for sure what to expect when his son tenuously treads into Eastern Orthodoxy according to its wester converts.

he should when other Western Christians erroneously speak of Orthodoxy as if they know what they are talking about.