Why I'm Orthodox . . . and why others may want to be too.

[vanshan]

Ah well. In my personal consideration of what would be the "true church" that I could call home I had narrowed it down to Episcopal, Catholic and Orthodox. But if the claims of Orthodoxy are simply that they are not Catholic then it seems I can remove them from my list. That is simply not a good argument at all. I was actually very interested in the OP until it made claims about another church without ever giving any evidence regarding those claims, I had hoped to actually see a reason why I should consider the Orthodox church over others.

But that's just how I saw it. YMMV.

You are correct. My presentation was lacking much in the way of what we do believe (my post was more about the "political" divisions through history, showing that one broke from the other, not a mutual split), so let me encourage to study a couple doctrines of Orthodoxy, which have been preserved in the east, but lost in the west.

First, study the Orthodox view of the fall, or more specifically original sin. It is starkly different than any group in the west, I'm aware of. Also study our teaching on theosis, which is similar to the idea of sanctification, but give greater insight into the proper balance between salvation being a gift, not acheived through works, and the need for ascetic labors to purify our hearts and to continue to overcome sins affects on us. Christ redeemed us from sin and death, allowing us to be saved by faith, but what happens when we as His children continue sinning? When we sin we still harms ourselves, acting according to our corrupted condition, or simply falling short of the perfect god-likness we are created to have. It still hurts us, even though we are in Christ, so this is where ascetic labors, like Christ's example of fasting, are needed.

Here is a link about the Orthodox view of original sin:

www.stjohndc.org/russian/orthhtrdx/e_P07.htm

"'Original sin is the damage to human nature [caused] by sin, which makes it incapable of fulfilling God's plan, God's design for man as the crown of the creation of the whole visible world', writes Archbishop Nathaniel ("Discussions on Sacred Scripture and on Faith", Volume 1, page 96 [in Russian])."

Here is a link about theosis:

http://theosis.riewe.com/

"Salvation according to Orthodox theology is not a state of being but a state of becoming, a constant movement toward union with God (theosis) . . . "

And this talks about both doctrines:

www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hierotheos_difference.aspx

Basil

 

[stone]

Your arguments with each other have nothing to do with Christ.

 

[vanshan]

Your arguments with each other have nothing to do with Christ.

If neither has preserved the ancient faith without change, then you're correct, both groups would be heterodox, following their own innovations. If one has carefully preserved Christ's traditions, then it has everything to do with Christ. We all follow traditions, how far do yours date back? How long have people held services the way your group performs them? If we transplanted your entire church to the Holy Land the first few hundred years after Christ, would your church fit in with the worship and beliefs they held? What does your church have to do with Christ, if it's beliefs sprang up sometime after 1500 A.D.? I'm not saying they did, but what if?


Basil

 

[stone]

I've found that messianic judaism can be traced to y-shua, for obvious reasons, and it is written that the messhiah did keep the jewish holy days.


Jesus was a jew.

 

[NPH]

You are correct. My presentation was lacking much in the way of what we do believe (my post was more about the "political" divisions through history, showing that one broke from the other, not a mutual split), so let me encourage to study a couple doctrines of Orthodoxy, which have been preserved in the east, but lost in the west.

...

Ah, this is quite a bit more like what I was hoping to see from the thread title If it had been something along these lines and a personal testimony of what you found in Orthodoxy that appealed to you then this thread would likely not have gone so far astray.

I'll be sure to take a look at the material you linked later today, it's time for me to get busy with non-pc related things for a bit today

 

[Iollain]

If neither has preserved the ancient faith without change, then you're correct, both groups would be heterodox, following their own innovations. If one has carefully preserved Christ's traditions, then it has everything to do with Christ. We all follow traditions, how far do yours date back? How long have people held services the way your group performs them? If we transplanted your entire church to the Holy Land the first few hundred years after Christ, would your church fit in with the worship and beliefs they held? What does your church have to do with Christ, if it's beliefs sprang up sometime after 1500 A.D.? I'm not saying they did, but what if?


Basil

Since certain 'christians' killed anyone contrary to what they were teaching, your 1500 years claim is no good.

 

[Iollain]

What would have happened to Peter if he would have come back a few hundred years ago and told people to stop praying to saints, and start praying to God alone, and stop 'venerating' your statues and paintings? He would have been killed to no doubt.

 

[Iollain]

Maybe they should have just killed all of us and they could claim another 500 years

 

[tall73]

Although I at times have disagreed with Therese and she with me, it is not unreasonable to ask for evidence that clarifies the doctrinal differences, and the fact that these differences indicate that it was the Orthodox church that had the original faith.

From the original poster's point of view he was probably just asserting his understanding of the differences. But anytime those differences exclude someone from salvation it is necessary to substantiate why that claim is made.

Now, to the OP if you do not have a claim to infallability, what is it that makes your bishop's claims any better than those of the coptic church? If anything many of their bishops left during the fallout from Chalcedon. Wouldn't their bishops be the true ones? And don't they also claim succession, adherence to the original creed, etc?

Incidentally, I don't of course accept the infallability of the papacy under the pre-requisite conditions, but I still see it as a challenge to what you have put here. The eastern church does recognize some role of prominence in the church. How is that role to work? And can you legitimately override Jesus' installation of Peter if you think that the papacy fell away?

This was the part of Therese's argument that was particularly instructive. She quoted several authorities in the orthodox faith that said that their was no real eastern ecclesiology that explains it. And while that might be a simplification, I admit I haven't seen one.

I was struck as I read through the decisions of the councils that their were constant references to the papacy having a foremost position. Now true, most came from the pope's representatives who seemed a bit eager to promote the idea, but not all. And even then they were not corrected. So it would be good to define that role more. What was the role of the papacy according to the East?

Finally, for both parties, if the promise to lead into all truth was for all of the 12 (and as would be reckoned by the eastern and western church their successors), why are they not currently agreed on all truth? If God can override the bishop of Rome to make him infallible, whatever his intellectual assets etc., then why could He not also override the bishops to lead them into all truth?

These are just questions that have occurred to me as I have read through some of the history lately, as well as some of the threads here.

 

[stone]

What would have happened to Peter if he would have come back a few hundred years ago and told people to stop praying to saints, and start praying to God alone, and stop 'venerating' your statues and paintings? He would have been killed to no doubt.

Wow, that is so hillarious, and i think it is, probably because it is true. I can see it now.....

"What!? Who do you think you are St. Peter?"

" Well, actually yes i am."

"BLASPHEMY! off with his head!"

then later in heaven.....

"but they will not listen to me father"

hmmm... i think i see history repeating itself here. again

 

[Axion]

Since certain 'christians' killed anyone contrary to what they were teaching, your 1500 years claim is no good.

Nonsense.

The import of the "claim" is that a certain set of beliefs have always been taught. Those are the basic Apostolic beliefs shared by the Ancient Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

There is no evidence for the belief systems spread by Luther, Zwingli and Calvin at the reformation having always and everywhere (or even at any time and anywhere) been taught.

 

[Iollain]

Add a little here, add a lot there, kill them ones, silence that one, shake it up, add a little more.....what do ya got?

 

[stone]

I seem to recall a threat to Martin Luthers life.


I personally am not a fan of anyone who is rascist, regardless of who you think you are, but i recall his life was threatened by a church's leadership.

 

[Iollain]

I seem to recall a threat to Martin Luthers life.


I personally am not a fan of anyone who is rascist, regardless of who you think you are, but i recall his life was threatened by a church's leadership.

Well yeah!!

 

[geocajun]

"O most Blessed Virgin, you said in your Magnificat, ‘The Lord hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy; I too firmly believe that the reunion with the Eastern Dissenters will take place."
-- Saint Leopoldo of Castelnovo, Apostle of Unity and Reconciliation with the Eastern Orthodox

Suggested reading:
The Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue: Light and Shadows

By JAMES LIKOUDIS

 

[stone]

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20051107-122442-9775r.htm

oops, i forgot to leave the link

 

[stone]

I find it interesting to see that father has placed some of the worlds best security around this site, before it was even found. and now, the jews will learn more about christian early history before christians. lol ironic ey.

 

[vanshan]

Since certain 'christians' killed anyone contrary to what they were teaching, your 1500 years claim is no good.

Early heterodox believers were anathematized, or kicked out of the Church, not killed . . . maybe exiled. Most of those type of killings occurred after the Reformation by the Roman Catholic church, not in the ancient Church. In fact, the Orthodox Church was also victimized by the Roman church in the last crusade, and many of our sacred treasures stolen, later to show up at the Vatican. So, we share some of the same, justifiable, angst against the Roman Catholic Church.

Basil

 

[Iollain]

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20051107-122442-9775r.htm

oops, i forgot to leave the link

Thanks for the link, cool

 

[Isaiah 53]

I would like to publicly thank Therese for her posts and staunch defense of our Faith. You inspire me sister!

PAX CHRISTI