www.byzcath.org

I don't think either generalization is true.

Alexis

LOL--this is so unfortunately, and dispicably true...I am very sad to say...in the Greek case, it has alot to do with their passion for church politics, and feeling that the Priest is their servant who should please their conscience rather than go with the conscience of the Church.

Alice, a minority cradle Orthodox who was never of that mindset

This isn't confined to Orthodox or Eastern circles. I defy a newly ordained Roman priest to go into a parish firmly in the grips of "doing its own thing" and not find substantial resistance and difficulty in trying to reign some parties in.

Over at Catholic Answers Forum I recently was embroiled in a debate over wether a woman should go through the trouble of retaining a canon lawywer to win her "right" to have her daugher were a type of first communion dress. I happen to disagree with the priest's (supposed) thinking on this matter as SHE presented it. (who can say that she is fairly representing what he had to say?!?!?!?) On the other hand, I think it is the HEIGHT of pedantic selfishness to embroil one's daughter in controversy with canon lawyers even if you are (in theory) holding the higher moral ground on this argument. But she persisted and garnered much cheerleading and support from third parties who had no vested interest in her daughter's spiritual welfare on this matter. "Get a canon lawyer and crucify the heterodox SOB!" seemed to win the day of popular sentiment.

Honestly, we claim to love and respect our priests and honor their sacramental state but the way we actually treat them (and mileage does not vary in Greece, Rome or Galicia on this one!) is pretty deplorable.

While the Greeks tend to have some small amount of upper hand given the trusteeship system which prevails in the US... (A system which widely reduces the preisthood to employees who serve as sacramental functionaries in the style of congregationalism) Well any number of Roman and Greek Catholics here in America would seek to litigate or protest their bishops into submission! ("Do what we say, Master!")

It is beyond sad, it is destructive. So take cold comfort Alice, it isn't just "you guys" we all do it.

(Everyone pray for everyone!)

- Simple

Alexis you confuse me! That is exactly what I was saying.
Stephanos I

I'm not so sure about that, if you mean a denomination or an earthy organization. After all, He certainly made a lot of people in cultures and nations around the world that aren't Christian and which likely never will be Christian. He also allows a lot of denominations within the Christian religion to claim that title. Yet, He is the loving Father of all.

So, that tells me that the "the Church" is a much more of a mystical entity --of communion with God, directly and with the neighbor-- than only membership in a given human organization.

Put another way: I saw saints when I was Catholic; and I saw saints now that I am Orthodox; and in both cases, that was because (as the saints themselves will testify first) of God's grace and love and mercy. And I saw sinners in each group too.

My conclusion: Someone discerning which church to join should consider which church most effectively leads them to receive and live in accordance with God's grace.

-- John

One must pray for discernment.

Years ago, I met a Baptist pastor here where I live, who had a flock of less than 50 people. He told me that his church was the faithful remnant and that all other people throughout the world would be damned. Within two years, his church building was sold.

Maybe they were raptured!

I guess so, there was not a trace, nor even a mention of where they had gone.

To all,

Thanks for the many replies and great conversation that has occurred since I posted 3 days ago. I will comment on a few things. Any misinterpretations or misapplications of what you have said are completely my fault.

AMM says �the church is as much a cultural association as it is anything else. People in Poland and Greece are not racking their brains with questions of true churches and conversion. They are what they are.� And then clarifies this statement by later saying �I think seekers and converts should be attuned to the cultural component and how may people simply won't share their concerns and assumptions.� I am a small town, middle American WASP. (Although I am trying to drop the P. The WAS part is more difficult to change.) I don�t think AMM would have me stay where I am, just because the prevalent culture surrounding me is Protestant, or just to have me cease racking my pea-brain, especially after I have had a taste and a glimpse of the Ancient, Apostolic Church. Perhaps he would just have me recognize the Providence of God in placing me where he has, and to approach things a bit more experientially. John and Markos and others, I believe, echo this more experiential approach.

Regarding the omission of the OO, as well as the Church of the East, this was entirely out of ignorance on my part. Now whether or not this ignorance is invincible or not, I really can�t say� Michael Thoma says �what about us - the Oriental Catholics) and our brothers - the Oriental Orthodox)? We didn't even get on the radar, let alone the game?!!� MT, you are absolutely right, you weren�t even on the screen. Looks like I need to expand my radar to a 100-mile circumference to get Chicago on the radar screen.

Memo cuts me up: �When 90% of you make it to Heaven, it would be interesting to see which parts make the cut.� I wonder, does this dissection take place in Purgatory? Or is this what happens to one along the way of the Tollbooths?

To some, I am Latin in my approach. To many, I am a gambler. I might as well just start smokin� and drinkin� too. I just hope I know when to hold em� and know when to fold em�!

Markos, thank you for the recommendations. I have read The Orthodox Way, and have re-read, and hope to re-reread, the chapter �God as Prayer.� The CCC I have read, but only as a reference. Reading is one thing, digesting is another. I have a long way to go to get to the digestion stage. I think I am just still chewing.

Fr. Stephanos enourages me to �investigate (the) claim of the Papacy and the necessity of communion with this Apostolic See.� No doubt, this is a critical matter. One that is not easily settled, and an issue where I have learned on this very forum a plethora of nuances heretofore unknown to me. This issue, I am not done with this one yet. I just pray that my ignorance on this one is truly invincible.

Later, Fr. Stephanos, states: ��There is ONE Lord ONE Faith One Baptism and ONE God and Father of all.� Just as there is ONE Church. (Now I am not saying that the Orthodox are not the Church) they most certainly are apart of the one holy catholic and apostolic faith.� This is an encouraging statement. If I sincerely, prayerfully follow the Holy Spirit�s lead, the best that my conscience can discern it, then I should be in the Church, whether Orthodox or Catholic. (Fr., it is not clear whether OO or the Church of the East are a part of this or not, by what you stated.) I look forward to following the new thread: What Actually Constitutes the Church?

Let me re-word a thought of my original post in a question. Knowing of course there will be no 100% agreement, is it right to say that, in general, the Catholic belief is that the Orthodox mysteries are �valid sacraments� and that they are a part of the Church, albeit �wounded�; and, in general, the Orthodox belief is that one cannot really say whether or not the Catholic sacraments are �valid� or if they are apart of the Church (while not saying it out loud, but believing that they probably aren�t on both accounts)? This was the thought that led to my, admittedly goofy, thought of a wager.

My journey is a very serious matter, one that I do not take lightly. My path to me is clear. It is a path of prayer. I will pray. I will visit parishes. I will pray. I will read. I will pray. I will think. I will pray. Whatever decision we make, there will some who will strongly agree and some who will strongly disagree. Whatever choice we make to be a part of a particular parish, with particular parishioners, in a particular jurisdiction, I hope that we will truly be a part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church: The Church. With confidence and trust in God, humbly, I believe that He will lead us to where he wants us to be. Whatever our decision is, it will not be a decision to reject something, but to embrace something. When we do enter into this embrace, I pray that we have the confidence and certitude that some of you have in regards to your own decision. However, I find Joe�s words both encouraging and sobering: �Ultimately though, you will find that you can never have 100% certitude so you will eventually have to make the decision that you think is best. Know too that it is possible to make a decision and then later to come to a new understanding that requires you to make another decision. This is what happened to me. God bless you and follow your conscience.�

I do ask all of the Church, both living and those still stuck here on earth, to pray for us to the Lord our God. Thanks to all who have begun to pray for us, and thanks for letting me know so.

Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


A pilgrim, and a sinner,
Dave

Greetings Dave...

May I offer for your consideration � my understanding of how Paul might feel on the subject of trying to pick the 'right' church. For I believe Paul has something to say about trying to pick one church over another. One set of doctrines as opposed to another set of doctrines.

In the very early church there existed diversity of beliefs and expression (for doctrines had not yet been defined by Councils as they would be later) yet also ... a unity. A diversity that did not disrupt unity.

of One must ask how this could be true??

With the later codification doctrines which are not specifically given in scripture or not specifically taught by the original Jesus or apostles - thus began true divisions. Creating the possibility (and the necessity) of the condition of ... 'us' vrs 'them'.

For example: The Trinity is not specifically taught by Jesus in the gospels. Christ does not say 'trinity' nor does He define it as three 'persons' yet one nature. The doctrine was developed much later after the death of the original apostles. With this later development of doctrine into codification ... there now comes into existence a standard ... by which to judge and measure the beliefs of individuals and groups.

Once defined as a standard ... this also creates Arianism and other heresy which were not heresy before the standard came into existence.

Do you see?

The creation of a standard ... automatically also creates division ... as well as unity. It is a two sided coin. It creates a unity within one group (we all believe the same thing) yet at the same time it also creates a division (they do not believe what we believe).

Having said that ... let us look at Paul in his letter to the Corinthians.

The scene is that the Corinthian church (which Paul founded) had fallen from its ordinal unity and was now going into divisions over doctrine. Paul writes in order to try and restore the original unity.

What Paul wants restored, is obviously the fellowship between the groups who are becoming divided over perceived differences of doctrine. But better stated (because codified doctrines had not yet come into existence) Paul is meaning beliefs. Differences in expression of belief (which apparently had been OK up to this point) were beginning to solidify into differing doctrines. In peoples minds � these beliefs were beginning to turn into the ... 'doctrine of Paul' as divided from the 'doctrine of Apollos' as differentiated from the 'doctrine of Cephas-Peter' ... and all are divided from or being compared to ... the 'doctrine of Christ'.

So we can see here that Paul believes that the mind of Christ ... is ... that which is held in agreement among them ... and not in any particular one set of beliefs of one group over another group. (�Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.�)

Certainty Paul is not appealing to them to force themselves to believe what they do not believe (a mindless submission to authority and a dishonest unity). But rather to only hold as the mind of Christ that which they do agree upon between them. That of which they do not agree is not counted as the mind of Christ.

This is further confirmed through Paul's concept of the composition of all churches being the 'body of Christ' ... which follows that the mind of Christ also exists as a composition of the mind of all churchs and not with any particular church.

Is one church the body of Christ and the other churches not?

Is Christ divided mind from body? So that his body is the unity of all churches but his mind only the division of one as opposed to others??

Paul calls himself an apostle ... and he calls Titus, Barnabas, and Apollos ... fellow apostles. And so in naming 'I belong to Paul, I belong to Apollos, I belong to Cephas, ... Paul is naming apostles who founded churches So it is clear here that what Paul was addressing was a threatening of division between apostolic churches. Now I would think that has some relationship to your current choice that you are trying to make � between apostolic churches.

What is further interesting about this .. is that Paul includes Peter (�I belong to Cehpas�) as one of the undesirable divisions. And that if Peter did actually hold a Primacy ... I would think that it would be preferred to 'belong to Peter' ... Yet the group that has aligned itself to Peter's doctrines is just as guilty as the rest.

From this I would understand that when picking any particular church among the sacramental apostolic churches � deciding by the criteria of trying to figure out which church has the 'right' doctrines - is not something Paul would recommend. Any doctrine which is outside of agreement between churches - is undesirable and seems not expressive of the mind of Christ which is found in agreement between churches.

The unity which Paul wants restored is expressed in these words ...


The word faithful here means ... not false but true. God does not need 'faith' in the sense of belief. God is honest. He is not false with anyone.

We are to also be faithful ... we are to have faith ... and when put into the context of not false but rather true � this means for us to be honesty. We are to be honest with ourselves and with God. And that means to know and to live by � what is in our hearts. Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no.

Know your own heart and live your own heart.

If you do not do that and you try to use your brain to figure out which church is 'right' ... than what you are doing is gambling your life on your own ability and intelligence. You are placing a bet - and you will not know if you won till the game is over.

I do hope this helps.

You must make your own choice - I do not advise anyone making your choice for you by claims of exclusiveness to Christ or that Christ has a preference between his apostolic churches.

Peace to you and to all churches.
-ray

Dave,

I'm (thankfully!) no one's spiritual father. But I think you're approaching this the right way.

I also believe your understanding in that quote is correct.

Markos

Rae, my friend, I would humbly suggest that Ariansim was wrong not because of a later created intellectual standard but because it was wrong. Jesus is true God as well as true man. Now, I know what you are trying to say, but I would suggest you ammend your expression of it. Doctrine doesn't change, nor is it added to; but our understanding of it does change over time and through the Church.

-- John

really?? it does not change?? I wish this were true but I do think that a pious myth.

(I knew the example of Arianism would not be a good example but it was what came to mind .. but I let it stand because I was not making a point about Arianism.)

My point is not a point of 'what is reality' ... but rather of how our human nature works.



If I take a test in school and pass in my test paper into the teacher ... please answer this question before the teacher checks and grades my paper against the standard...

Q: Are my answers right or wrong?
A: Neither.

The question can not yet be answered. The answer does not yet exist.

To the minds of everyone (including myself) my answers are in limbo ... they are accepted as neither right nor wrong ... before the standard is applied. Once the standard is applied ... my answers now become either right or wrong ... to the mind of anyone who abides by the standard. And it is possible that my answers (seen as wrong by the standards) may found to be actually right � later on.

Instead of Arianism (because I do not really know the history of it) let me use Coptic Christology.

Step 1) No one has any problems with Coptic Chritology.

Step 2) The Byzantine and Latin churches came together and create (by defining) the Trinity dogma (in nature and persons etc..). It is clear that this dogma did not exist � before it existed. It might have existed in someone's mind � but it did not exist as a standard of measure � before the Council in which it became a standard of measure.

Step 3) Once defined - the test was applied to the Coptic church and the test results were = Monophysite!!! and the Coptic's were excommunicated.

The Coptic church claims it is not Monphysite and never has been. But the excommunications are enforced and much is written (by the experts) on the facts ... which prove the heretical theology of the Copts ... as opposed to the correct theology of the Council.

Step 5) After centuries and a re-examination ... both the Orthodox and the Latin now come to believe that Coptic Christology is ... NOT ... Monphysite and probably never had been.

Step 6) The Coptic's are asked to condemn the prepositions of Monophysite doctrines � they do - and without one change to their own Christology the excommunication is lifted and erased.

Step 7) It comes to be found and admitted that Coptic Christology is ... essentially ... the original Christology of the early church � before the further developments (a definition) of the Byzantine and Latin churches was done in Council.

Conclusion: Right and wrong have flipped many times in this 'case'. And the final result (as of today) is that the only things that are 'wrong' is all the official reports and opinions written which had proved that Coptic Christology is Monophysite.

It appears that only God and the Coptic's knew the reality.

Now � do you see my point?

Before the definition � it was not possible to measure the Coptic Christology by the definition. After the definition it became possible and .. it also became possible to make a false judgment by applying a standard which � did not apply!!.


Another story ... when Western Christianity encountered Hindu and Buddhist religions � the Christian experts deemed these religions as pantheistic (believing in several gods). That these are pantheistic religions has been taught and believed here in Christendom ... for a long long time. However � what is at work here is the evil of 'experts'. That is someone who believes himself to have possession of the truth � which gives him the authority and means by which to judge others.

Be it Orthodox who judge the Roman Catholic church .. or Roman Catholics who judge the Orthodox church .. or be it Orthodox and Roman together ... who judge the Coptic church. Our possession of the Truth gives us the authority to judge others.

As it turns out (now that we know the East far better than we thought we did) the Hindu belief is One God (only one) who manifests himself in several theophanies. The same as Old testament Jewish beliefs upon which Christianity is built ... where one God is called by many names due to theophanies.

Neither is Buddhism pantheistic .. neither is Buddhism godless .. but it rather has not felt the same need that the West has felt .. to fill books with definitions and dogmas about what or who God is. These same books (in the West) by which we use as the standard ... to judge Buddhists with.

This ALL should humble us (I think you would agree).

I do believe that Jesus Christ is the full revelation of God to man � and I do believe that Jesus is (somehow) the Son of God he claimed to be - but � I do also believe that Christianity has often been misused ... and that we need great introspection.

We have misused doctrine and dogma against each other (church accusing church) and we have underused the fellowship that Paul speaks of as if it were the church itself.

Is fellowship the church?
Is dogma and doctrine the church?

And instead of applying Christianity to judge ourselves � we often use it to judge others by who are not Christians ... and while doing so we actually have had the sin of pride in thinking we are capable of judging others whom we really have very little intimate knowledge of and many times have gross misconceptions of.

We imagine that our Christianity makes us experts on judging others. And it apparently does not. Apparently it was only meant to be a measure by which we might judge ourselves � personally.

These are just thoughts. There is no real point here. I am not teaching anything. I am no one. I will not collapse by this introspection. But I might gain some humility.



-ray

Administrator's Note:

This posts that followed the above post have been split into a new thread at the request of some of the posters. The new thread is "From Miscommunication to Divorce" found also in this section. The replies to this thread should be on-topic according to the intent of the original post. Those following the above post should be posted on the newly created thread.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Hello Pilgrim Dave, very interesting topic, thought process, and conclusion you have presented.

I would say that based on your stated premises, your conclusion is 100 percent sound. It is your premises that I will take some issue with.

Your approach to the Catholic view of things, I would respectfully submit, is one that is inordinately tied to certain diplomatic nuances and deepings of Catholic thought as a result of the Second Vatican Council and its ecumenical aftermath. I don't think they can or should be held to apart from the fullness of Catholic thought on the subject, in spite of the fact that any number of Catholics and non-Catholics apparently have felt free to do so during the past 40 years.

I think a full accounting of the Catholic faith in this area would hold that those who are judged to know that Catholicism is the fullness of Christian revelatory truth and do not become or do not remain Catholic cannot be saved. Also, those who leave Catholicism or choose to remain outside of the Catholic Church put their salvation in jeopardy.

I think with this more complete and accurate basis, you would find that your conclusion then no longer holds.

Best,
Robster