I came across this message board. I found it interesting that these evangelicals are worried about our evangelizing. That means we must be making some headway...
http://p207.ezboard.com/fdiscussingreformationfrm11.showMessage?topicID=551.topic

Hi Pani Rose,

Thanks for the link.

I know of all these well known converts.

I do like that when I have heard Hahn and Howard on television, that they do not bash their roots.

I don't think that anyone should. Their religious roots are what formed them and brought them to where they are today.

Gilquist,(who I believe is now an Antiochian Orthodox priest) is apparently angry at his past, (according to one of the posts), and that makes me feel uncomfortable. I wonder if Orthodoxy made him feel that way, or is it a hang up of his own?

Love in Christ,
Alice

The discussion you sited is amazingly tempered. They are in error in several places but at least they are willing to look at their own weeknesses and even admit that most of them know less about Catholicism than they know about their own denomination. Perhaps there is hope for the future.

Dan L

Alice,

You're correct. Peter Gillquist is an Archpriest of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese and either was or still is Chairman of the Archdiocese's Department of Missions and Evangelism. My experience of reading him is that he is definitely of the fundamentalist Orthodox persuasion, much more so than is ordinarily seen among the Antiochians. I find myself wondering if he'll stay there or move, eventually, to a more conservative jurisdiction.

Like you, I decry anyone bashing their religious roots. It is one thing to understand that where you were is not where you should have been, but to deny that your upbringing there is a vital part of what made you the person you became is a bit disingenuous and hypocritical in my mind and doesn't lend itself to an evangelistic approach that will likely bring others to where you are.

Many years,

Neil

Hmmm, I read Gillquist's book "Becoming Orthodox" and I didn't get the feeling that he was bashing his roots. Perhaps that has happened elsewhere.

It was reading such people as Hahn and Howard and others that helped me become Catholic. And I feel the same way as they do: it is wrong to attack that tradition which you were brought up in and helped you realize so many Truths (such as the divinity of Christ and the importance of the Scriptures). You can lovingly point out their errors, but it shows a lack of charity to bash them. The vast majority of Protestants have never heard the fullness of Catholic teaching - they are following Christ in the best way that they know how. It is our duty (EVERY Catholic's!) to explain these Catholic Truths to them, and the Holy Spirit's to lead them to the Church.

I'm glad that Protestants are nervous about all the converts, however - must mean it's happening a lot.

I agree, it is wrong to be upset with your roots. I know myself being a convert, I was raised Southern Baptist, that when I converted the Church brought everything I had learned a young person to life. It was as though sitting through the Divine Liturgy that Scrpitures were jumping off the page and they were walking alive. They were no longer words on a page. So for me, I don't think I would appreciate the Church or my faith as much without what my parents gave me. It is definately with me, it is kind of like Jesus saying, "I did not come to do away with but to add too." That is what he did for me, but it is so much deeper and richer than my soul could ever imagine as a young person.

Pani Rose

As a child I saw protestant evangelicals as anti-intellectual or overly emotional in their worship practices. I preferred the asceticism of Rome, but left during the Vietnam era- an event that was ironically understood by an Antiochean priest I met on the road back to the Faith.

Evangelical protestants who become Orthodox can pose difficult situations. Ethnic Orthodox are sometimes suspicious of the motives of evangelicals or indifferent to them, and sometimes with just cause. I suppose the worst cases are ones like the Ben Lomond scandal within the Antiochean Church which the Rev. Gillquist would be familiar with. Other clergy and many laity migrated to several jurisdictions from that event, some to Rome.

Jurisdictions that were not even represented in America have begun congregations in response to the perceived needs of disenchanted evangelicals, converts, and others who wanted to switch jurisdictions rather than remain where they were, e.g. the Jerusalem Patriarchate. I see that as one of the down sides of this evangelical movement.

My wife and I were converts in an OCA parish. A merger with one such group occurred. When it became clear that clashes over liturgics could not be resolved peacefully, we concluded that we had taken a wrong turn somewhere, and returned to the Church of our youth, sadder but wiser. The difference has been one of christian love, understanding, and trust, triumphant over disagreements.

Nowadays I am cautious around evangelicals of all kinds, because time and again I have found them to be too strong in charisma and emotion, and not very concerned with discernment or objectivity. I prefer not to trust in emotions, but rely on periods of careful discernment, guided by God's Grace. Otherwise, I would be too ill at ease spiritually. There should be room for both in the Church, ascetics and evangelicals, provided they are willing to work together. After all, the Church itself is not exclusively one way or the other.

So this modern evangelism is not always a good thing, depending on what is done with it. It has caused an awakening for some, and great pain for others. My wife and I have found common ground with Rome, however, and hope all can come to deeper discernment spiritually over time. We are all in this together after all, regardless of where our strengths lie.

WOW Rose, that was awesome!

I am inspired

I wonder how many of these people on that website , if they really seek to study Catholicism, from a Catholic (Scriptural, Historical, Patristic) aspect will end up embracing the faith?
For me it is a given. Having swam the Tiber years before it became fashionable to do so.
Stephanos I

Rose,

Beautifully stated.

Jim,

I agree, although I'm unsure whether you are referring to the dozen or so US parishes and the monastery that belong to the Holy GO Patriachate of Jerusalem in North & South America or to the (Nasrani) Patriarchate of Jerusalem , an ecclesia vagante in the truest tradition of the faux "Orthodox" and "Catholic" entities that seem pervasive, particularly west of the Mississippi. The latter are particularly bothersome, often having their roots in that same rush to fill a void, but doing so with theology that is either particularly vague or particularly outrageous to the religious traditions that they purportedly espouse.

Many years,

Neil

Stephanos I wrote:
For me it is a given. Having swam the Tiber years before it became fashionable to do so.

Ok give, tell us your conversion story please.
Bless you for your service to the body of Christ.

Pani Rose

I disagree that Fr. Peter shows any "anger" all. He's quite a pleasant and charitable man, and his story in "Becoming Orthodox" relfects that.

Clearly, they are confusing him with Frank Schaefer, who tends to come off as a bit "angry," but again, I think it's more sour grapes from the Evangelicals. He was the same way when he was a Protestant. He was extremely critical of modern Evangelicalism, as was his father, who was a famous Evangelical philosopher.

Priest Thomas

Dear Father Thomas,

Bless!

Thank you Father for clarifying an untruth about a brother Orthodox and priest, Father Gilquist.

Forgive me for assuming that what I read was truth when it was infact probably hearsay.

Actually, you are probably correct in the assumption that these posters were confusing Fr. Gilquist and Frank Schaeffer. I have heard (personally said to me), from a priest involved in an Orthodox interjurisdictional group, that Frank Schaeffer can be a 'turn off' in the way he bashes his past religious affiliation...

...which makes me wonder why not celebrate what is good and positive in one's life-- and uplift and praise WITHOUT having to put down anything else. Anger is never a virtue.

Perhaps it is a personal quirk of mine, but I really don't think that those who bash others put themselves (or their particular faith tradition--in this instance) in in a positive and respectful light. Infact, sometimes, just the opposite of what is hoped for is actually accomplished.

Just some general thoughts off the cuff which are not intended for anyone in particular.

Kissing your right hand,
Humbly,
Alice

Alice,
That is not necessarily true. Chirst had a righteous indignation (anger) at the sellers and money changers in the temple.
Anger can be a virtue. How you use your anger is another matter.
Stephanos I

The scriptures say, "Be angry, but sin not," (Eph 4:26) meaning, anger can be justifiable *IF* it is not out of selfishness, but rather out of some injustice or other such situation. However, I would never counsel someone to "be angry," since I would suspect that even the greatest saints would not show anger unless it was completely justified and with a complete lack of selfishness. That is, to be angry with the same "anger" as God has over, say, sin or injustice. Maybe we could call it, "holy anger"?

Priest Thomas

Thank you both for your council and input, Father Thomas and Father Stephanos!

So, I guess the angry red face in the instant graemelins ( ) is okay to use if we are feeling righteous indignation, but not hurting anyone in the process!

Maybe the administrator can arrange for the angry red face to be called 'holy anger' instead of 'mad'!! Indeed, Father Thomas, that sounds MUCH better!

Asking for both your blessings,
Alice

I had a priest tell me once it was OK to me angry, that in that case it was righteous anger. The reason being there was a woman, may her memory be eternal+, that I was trying to help, she was a recluse and I had taken her to the store, as we did once a week. However, during this time I was pregnant with my second child, I had taken the woman to the grocery store and could not get her to leave. I was getting really sick, actually I ended up having my daughter that day. It got to the point I was going to give her money for a taxi, but she didn't want a taxi to take her home, so she left. I felt really bad for getting upset with her, but then later on that night I understood why.

So I can see where that type of anger can come into play.

Pani Rose

I have not visited the site mentioned above, but I once did hear Father Peter speak about four years ago and he was very edifying and serene in that talk. Also, he has been battling cancer of some kind, so we should try to be understanding of whatever small foibles there might be.

A blessed Christmas to all,
Woody

Dear Alice et al:

You're probably right about that. I wouldn't really know.

What I do know is that Scott Hahn HAS bashed Eastern Orthodoxy. (See the passage quoted at the bottom of this message.)

I don't have any problem with Thomas Howard.

-Peter.


"So I started looking into Orthodoxy. I met with Peter Gillquist, an evangelical convert to Antiochian Orthodoxy, to hear why he chose Orthodoxy over Rome. His reasons reinforced my sense that Protestantism was wrong; but I also thought that his defense of Orthodoxy over Catholicism was unsatisfying and superficial. Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.
"Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century."

-Rome Sweet Home, pg. 61

Dear Peter B:

I don't know but the quoted portion of his conversion book just recalls the reasons why he chose to swim the Tiber instead of crossing the Bosphorus.

Dr. Scott Hahn is not BASHING Eastern Orthodoxy in this instance and I have not heard nor read that he is.

At any rate, are his observations, or most of them, not factually true?

Amado

I can understand why some would believe that Hahn is "bashing" Orthodoxy. I remember reading that passage in his book, and I was taken aback when I read it. Since I am Latin (but a Slav - the wife is Latina!) I will not comment on agreeing or disagreeing with Hahn's words. I only pray that we forgive each other's sins and realize what we have that unites us.

I believe what you meant to say is that you HAD not heard it. Clearly you HAVE heard it (from me).

I would prefer not to dignify that question with an answer.

Dear Peter B:



Prior to your post, I would like to know the other person(s) (of note) who has/have said Dr. Hahn is bashing Eastern Orthodoxy in that cited portion of his book?




Thank you. But is this an ex cathedra statement?




Sorry, your Highness, your humble servant will now keep his mouth shut!

Amado

I think the term "bashing" has become a little over-used these days. Dr. Hahn wasn't "bashing" anything, he was just stating his reasons for not joining the Orthodox Church. Where is the "bashing"???

Dear Christine/Theist Gal,

I agree with you. As an Orthodox I see no bashing in what Mr. Hahn has said. He respectfully stated his opinion. I take no offense.

Infact, I would go even further to say that I wish that many Orthodox would state THEIR opinions about the Roman Catholic church as respectfully as he did about mine.

Humbly in Christ, who is LOVE and CHARITY and our unity,
Alice

Politeness is charity, charity is love, and love is God....Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, of blessed memory.

Dear Father Thomas,

I beg to differ with you about saints anger. If I recall correctly, I was told in my youth, a story about two Irish saints. One was insisting he was on water, as he threw fish at the other, who was insisting it was land, and threw back rocks.

Please Bless,

Zenovia

"I agree with you. As an Orthodox I see no bashing in what Mr. Hahn has said. He respectfully stated his opinion. I take no offense.

Infact, I would go even further to say that I wish that many Orthodox would state THEIR opinions about the Roman Catholic church as respectfully as he did about mine."
-------------------------------------------------

Dear Alice,

I couldn't agree with you more.

Zenovia

I’ll admit that “bashing” can be interpreted different ways. But in any case, Dr. Hahn’s attitude toward Orthodoxy is extremely unfortunate. (I say this as a Steubenville alum who was once a big fan of his.)

Perhaps it would help if I specify which statements I found offensive (I should have done this in the first place):

Amadeus et al, since we're discussing anti-Orthodox polemics, perhaps we should round the discussion out by considering what anti-Catholic polemics have to say about the matter. To that end, I suggest reading

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_carltonrome.aspx

What you'll find there is the epilogue of Clark Carlton's book "The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know about the Orthodox Church." This book, incidentally, was reviewed (along with two other polemical books) in the Touchstone article Paths & Polemics by William J. Tighe. Concerning the epilogue Tighe says:

(The Touchstone article can also be found online:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-07-033-b )


God bless,
Peter.

P.S. To ward off any angry replies, let me state for the record that I am NOT siding with Carlton against Hahn.

I read some ofthe quotes from Carlton's book.

Calling Rome "Protestantism repackaged in sacramental garb” reminds me of the many Orthodox who used to come on this board and pick fights.

Carlton is the East's version of SSPX. You want to call him justified - have at it. I think he's a fanatic.
I have read enough about Fr. Schaeffer to know that HE dismisses Rome as being nothing more than another backwater fundamentalist revival bunch.

Oh, and by the way - my wife's father saw the sun change at Fatima. He was not the victim of a demonic delusion. Carlton has taken his hate for Rome and repackaged it in sacramental garb.

Carlton has as much value for me as the SSPX who call the Orthodox schismatics.

Dear JW,

How BLESSED your father-in-law was. I hope that this blessing, this apparition of our Lady, directly from God's Kingdom remained with him.

Our Lady has spoken to the faithful of both the East and the West...That is why I pray to her for unity, because SHE is the hope of our hearts for the estranged brethren of her Son's Body, to dwell in peace, love and harmony.

Most Holy Lady, Mother of our God, touch the hearts of the faithful who honor you and lead us to unity in your Son. Amen.

In HIS name,
Alice

Alice,

It did stay with him all his life. My cuñado, who died 16 years before I met my wife (he was age 81), grew up on a small Portugese island off the coast of Morocco, 500 miles from Fatima. I was told that each time he saw a TV program that featured Maria, he not only watched intently, but often a tear came to his eye. (It used to be that in Colombia at that time, there was a lot more religious programming than there is now.)

May the Holy Theotokos keep you close to her Immaculate Heart always, Alice.

jw,

I agree. I hope no one will think (from what I've said earlier) that I consider Hahn worse than Carlton.

I also want to clarify that, while I’m not opposed to having a discussion about Carlton if you want one, that wasn’t my intention when I brought him up.

Peter,

To change my orginal post, I think Hahn was harsh on Orthodoxy when he wrote about it. I just didn't say so, as it is not my place to comment on Orthodoxy, being a Latin Catholic. Hahn's background was a church that thought ti could pull everything out of Scripture and allowed for development and innovation (?) if one wants to call it that.

Frank Scheaffer bothers me. Nobody can deny the sins committed by those in the name of the Church of Rome against the East - or the abuses that have occurred through the centuries, but, really - "Protestantism in Sacramental Garb"? Scheaffer didn't write it but I´ll bet he agrees with it.

We are all sinners. Nobody knows for sure who God listens to and we won't know until we get to heaven (I hope).

One more note on Hahn - several months ago, he was on Marcus Grodi's Monday night program "The Journey Home" discussing his swim across the Tiber. The very last call of the evening came from a gentleman from Northeast Pennsylvania who identified himself as a Byzantine Catholic. He asked Hahn's opinion of the East. Hahn said he was "blown away" at the beauty of the Divine Liturgy he attended in Toronto, Ohio (near FUS) and was looking to convert to the East, but "his wife drew the line".

Kinda like mine.

I'm basing my response on the text quoted above.

That quote does not strike me as "bashing Orthodoxy." That seems like a man explaining, matter-of-factly, why he chose not to further investigate Orthodoxy.

I share some of those reasons. There is a lot in Orthodoxy that I love and respect; and overall, I think it is a good branch of Christianity. But, it isn’t perfect. (No part of the Church is.) And personally, I don't like how the Orthodox are organized only up to the national level. Not only does that produce a mess of overlapping jurisdictions in a multi-ethnic society like America. It also means (in my opinion) a certain lack of effectiveness internationally; and it also means (in my opinion) a certain lack of independence from the state within a nation. My sense is that the governments of nations which are historically Orthodox tend to regard the Church hierarchy as a kind of department of the government (the department of religious affairs?), and that can lead to the government having too large of a role in governing the Church. As for myself, I like the Church to be united around the world, and effective, and independent from any government. To me, that "catholicity" is a very real expression of the Eucharist; and it is one of the main reasons I am a Catholic.

However, I disagree with some of Pr. Hahn’s remarks, too.

I disagree with Professor Hahn’s support of the filioque -- for reasons that have been abundantly discussed already.

I especially disagree with Pr. Hahn's remark that Orthodox theology is "stagnant." I have heard and read others make that remark, and I find it illuminating of what they think theology is. It seems that they think theology is philosophical understanding of God. In that sense, in my opinion, it seems true that Orthodoxy has been "stagnant" since roughly the seventh ecumenical council and the writings of the iconophiles. On the other hand, it seems that the Orthodox themselves do not understand theology as only (or mostly) philosophical understanding. Instead, the Orthodox and the Eastern Rites seem to understand "theology" as mystical experience of God. In that sense, Orthodoxy has not been "stagnant." On the contrary, Orthodoxy and all of the Eastern branches of the Church have been vibrant and dynamic: from the Desert Fathers, through St. John Climacus, through the iconophiles, through the hesychasts and St. Gregory Palamas, down to the Eastern Christian saints of this day -- and potentially all who attend Divine Liturgy piously.

Orthodox theology is mystical theology. It is, first, the unabashed, unapologetic, sober, and direct experience of God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. It is, second, the comments and remarks of the saints about how to do so. And, third, it is the work of people to do so: liturgically, sacramentally, and in the mundane moments of our lives. In short, Orthodox theology is theosis: as a fact and as a process and as a goal, and not as a nice idea to think about. And, frankly, that is why I am so interested in the Eastern Rites of the Church.

--John

Hahn is a professor and no more human than anyone else on this forum.

I am weary of him and his opinions, either way, will have no impact on my beliefs.

Well, I like him. I don't agree that he "bashed" Orthodoxy in any way. And he has had a positive impact on my beliefs.

So you may want to disregard my posts in the future.

Disregarding begins...... now! :p

Ukrainiancatholic, you probably have the best way of looking at it.

Personally, I used to keep Hahn on a pedestal. Then, when I read and reflected on his Orthodox critique, I experience a big let-down. I was even a bit scandalized, you might say, that someone so far above the rest of us (as I considered him at the time) could say such offensive things.

On the other hand, if it had been let's say Marcus Grodi who had said those things about Orthodoxy, I would have been equally disapproving of them but wouldn't really have been surprised by them.

Peter,
Jesus said some very very offensive things.
You have read them haven't you?
Stephanos I
(0ne who comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable.)

I really appreciated John's (Harmon) remarks on the tired Latin accusation of stagnancy of Orthodox theology. If you don't mind, John, I copied your words and would like to keep them to quote in the future.

I would say in response to your respectful comments on why you prefer Catholicism to Orthodoxy that in many ways Catholicism can be viewed as very divided as well. It has a lot to do with our perception. I know of many Catholics who consider most Masses in this country as invalid because so many priests do not believe in the "real presence." There are those who won't be caught dead at a "Novus Ordo" Mass. There are many divisions of faith within Catholicism: Priests and theologians denying the divinity of Christ, issues over abortion, women demanding Ordination, etc.

Not only this, but a century or so ago, Catholics in this country were also very divided over ethnicity. In one small area there would be an Italian parish, a polish parish and an Irish parish. As Orthodox in this country become more American, our divisions will heal as well.

In many ways, the Orthodox with all of their jurisdictional squabbles are much more united in what really matters: faith. This has been my personal experience of over 10 years of being a Catholic and why these jurisdictional issues didn't stop me from becoming Orthodox. Again, it has a lot to do with our perception.

Dear Brethren,

On the question of converts, first of all allow me to say that I was a HUGE follower of Scott Hahn in my formitive years following my conversion to Latin Catholicism. I have numerous taped sets of his lectures. I've attended some of his conferences and even had the honor to meet him a couple of times. I still have a deep respect for him.

Secondly, I want to say that I think our sister Alice (who always seems much more prone to agree with our Latin brethren on this forum than with her own Orthodox) should consider a talk I heard by Scott Hahn on this very subject. In it Dr. Hahn stated that many converts to Catholicism initially become very bitter at their former Protestant roots. I remember this because -at the time- it was true of my own self and helped me to overcome it. So, please don't think this phenomenon is something unique to Orthodoxy. Actually many writers have written on the process converts go through and that bitterness is often one of the initial stages of growth we go through. The important thing is that we don't stay caught in the "bitterness" stage.

Thirdly, I want to comment on the reported "bashing" which goes on by many former Protestants to the ancient Churches. In reality, I am less surprised by the "bashing" than I am the flippant dismissiveness that many of these converts are guilty of. And this is how I see Dr. Hahn's words. There is no real depth there. Just like the comment I heard by the famous local convert to Catholicism, Al Kresta, the author of "Why Do Catholics Genuflect?" and one of the contributers to the first edition of "Surprised by Truth." When asked, he said the reason he didn't consider becoming Orthodox was that, he "didn't like baklava." "It was a very pragmatic decision at the time... Orthodoxy just seemed too ethnic." Such examples abound on both sides and in a way I'm flattered by them. Why? Because, to me, such superficial answers say something.

The decision between Protestantism and historic Orthodox and Catholic Chrisitanity is a relatively easy one. But the decision between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is a very difficult one. No wonder we hear so many accounts of those who move back and forth between the ancient Churches (as I myself am guilty of, having gone from being a Latin Catholic to an Armenian Catholic to an Armenian Orthodox). There are no easy answers. The reason there are no easy answers is because all of the ancient Churches are built solidly on the Tradition which was entrusted to them and have swerved very little from it. So, no wonder many give flippant, superficial answers (as Dr. Hahn did) why they preffered one part of the ancient apostolic catholic holy Church to another. There are no easy quick answers to such a question.

Of course this is a very differernt thing than those who spend lots of energy attacking and tearing down the other ancient Churches. This, I believe, results because that individual is very insecure in his decision and feels he must belittle and disqualify the other "contenders" to the true faith so that he can feel more secure in his decision.

This would explain why you seldom hear our Patriarchs speaking so vehemently about the other historic Churches. Most of them are secure in their faith and don't suffer from such silly insecurities.

Any way, these are just my insignificant observations.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. Ghazar Der Ghazarian
Looys Kreesdosee: http://www.geocities.com/derghazar

"Doxa to Theo panton eneken" (Glory be to God for all things) The last words of St. John Chrysostom before he fell asleep in the Lord; the result of his exile to Armenia and continual forced marches untill his physical exhaustion and death: a glorious proto-martyr for the Armenian Church

Ok having read through what various people had to say I am going to toss in my drachma's. Initally I didnt think I would end up saying anything on this thread but it seems to have veered closer and closer to issues that my experiences have educated me about.

First of all I think the idea that Orthodoxy has stagnated in theological terms is completely errenous. How is it people get this idea? Forget about mystical Theology everything else has developed since the Patristic age too, not as much as Latin Theology has but perhaps only because the conditions were different. Historically Latin Theology always developed in periods of heresy. Scholasticism's consolidation around Aquinas, for instance, was in response to a Latin brand of Averroism and incorrect ideas creeping into Europe thanks to Classical Greek and Arab philosophy.

The Latin Church much like the Greek was (daresay is) essentially inward looking. Everyone else in Mediaeval Western Europe was the same religion and so there was no need to tie up loose ends. This need only arose because of Protestantism, Luther catechism and Calvin's institutes and the clear presentation of those belief systems demanded the Catholic Church declare her position and present them in like manner. This is the start of 'Roman legalism' as both anti-ecumenical Protestants and Orthodox like to call it.

However, in spite of this fact and the fact that Protestantism really wasnt a worry for the Church of the Orient these developments in Latin Christendom did not go unnoticed. The 17th extrordinary synod of Jerusalem held by the Orthodox church to consolidate its own teaching in light of the Tridentine decrees also built on the Patristic understanding. There, just as at Trent, it was agreed there are 7 sacraments and terminology appeared i.e. 'metamorphasis' the Greek equivalent to 'transubstantiation'. However, even before this Greek Theology had not remained stagnant. It was veering away from mystical Theology with Gregory Palamas, which gave mystical theology important christological implications and Peter Moghila and the other Greek scholastics also worked to iron out ideas left found in the Fathers.

Not trying to sound snobbishly Oxonian and using the term for denotation not connotation. Anybody who maintains Greek Theology hasnt changed since the Patristic period is simply ignorant regardless of whether they are Latin or Greek. Numerous times bitter Latins or reformist traditionalist Greeks have tried to root out these so called 'developments'. But many have been set in stone by things like the aforementioned extraorinary Synod of Jerusalem 300 something years ago and thus are here to stay.

In addition, given that I am a revert of 3 years to Roman Catholicism I will now address Ghazar's comments about how converts feel. I felt bitterness towards Protestantism when I first converted, but for vastly different reasons. I was baptised Catholic as a baby and had the Holy Communion ceremony but that was it. My family are not Catholic (only my Mum is) and certainly not deeply religious. So I had free rein and I took it. Playing football or going to Church on Sunday morning wasnt really a dilemma for me, ya know? But as some people have (flatteringly) commented I have a bright intellect and a deep love of History and Philosophy. I became disenchanted by Catholicism--partly because nobody seemed to give me a good reason to be Catholic and partly because I thought it was an authoritarian religion--and gradually strayed further from it into philosophical specualtions. First I was something like a unitarian, I entertained certain Protestant ideas to give my conscience cause to break 'free' from the Roman yolk. Then I left that denied Jesus' divinity and went sorta New Age. God was emanationist/pantheist. I was in God and he was in me, no need for salvation or a Church. Gnosis through transcendental meditation was the answer....

...long story short I discovered that was nonsense.

So I began to pray and believe more in a personal God but which God was still up in the air. However, again to cut the story short. Christianity's claims won out. I was stunned by the brightness of intellect of Aquinas and the coherency of the Christian system against its ancient Jewish roots--which is something Islam does not have. In Islam, and I mean no disrespect, there is no concept of Covenantal sacrifice or sealing and though they accept Jesus is a prophet it seemed illogical to me that Jesus' own followers would've claimed he was something else and died because of it. Eye witness testimony outweighed non-contemporary sources etc.etc.

However, then there was the big question: Orthodoxy or Catholicism. One of my uncle's is Oriental Orthodox as I have mentioned elsewhere on site and my studies of the Church Fathers' in response to Luther and Calvin's claim to 'Augustine' and 'the Fathers' made me aware of the history of the Church. Thus I knew about the two strains of apostolic Christianity. I remain enchanted until this day with Eastern Christianity (hence my membership of this forum). But what I discovered in the course of my study shocked me--made me eat my words too--the institution of the Papacy was created by Christ himself and in faith and morals it was infallible. I dont wish to offend anybody, believe me, and nothing I say or dont say will help or hinder ecumenical relations. But I have yet to find within Patristic history anything that makes me think that my conclusion was/is errant. I'm not going to give an apologetic unless someone wants me to, I'm just stating a fact.

That clinched it...

...so why did I feel bitter against Protestants (and Orthodox to a lesser extent). Well I felt bitter against them not because I hated them, but because I hated the wasted years of my life. I had spent 5 years in captivity in Babylon away from my Blessed Lord and I was dumbfounded that anybody would want to steal the sacraments, the Eucharist, from anybody. They are liberation, they are life, and the Protestant doctrine that watered them down was like...I couldnt stomach it. So many of my generation are hooked on drugs, slicing their wrists, joining gangs, drowning in materialism, all because the world cant offer them more. God can, God has and its like Protestantism was the empty smokescreen blocking them from it--the other religions and philosophies even more.

As an aside this made me really HATE 'liberal' Catholic priests who gave anti-magisterial answers to valid questions posed by genuine seekers. I began to understand the mentality of how someone could in good conscience burn someone at the stake. Its the fear, the fear that b