www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Protestants who convert to BC vs Orthodox

[Bob, which of us owns a copy of the Code of Canons???]

Hahahaha! Good one! May I remind you that its the Code of Canons for the Eastern Catholic Churches. But in all honesty, you as well as everyone else in here that knows me, knows exactly why I bought it. It was to prove to myself you really aren't this sui juris independent church you claim to be. Which the book has already proven to me. And that I will use to quote from every time you try and convince me otherwise. Its my way of reminding you all that this is the real world we live in.

OrthoMan

Dear Orthoman:

I think I already commented on your purchase.
But StuartK had the right take: mischief!

djs

Rum Orthodox --

It seems to me that you didn't read my post very carefully. I made specific reference to NOT WANTING to be Catholic as I was considering conversion, and was trying desparately to find something to keep me out of the "clutches of the papacy."

Do you remember what it was that Jesus established by His death? He said "This is the New Covenant in my Blood" in the Upper Room. Salvation comes in the form of a covenantal relationship.

So far, I have seen NOTHING in any Orthodox writings which exegetes the covenant of God, giving thorough treatment and explanation of it. Why is this, when Jesus died to establish the covenant with God and man?

Of course, if one does not SPEAK or TEACH of the covenant, one cannot be expected to understand the five principles of covenantalism:

T = Transcendence of God (Based in and created by God)

H = Hierarchy (Covenants have heads. Covenantal relationships are based upon headship and our relationship to that headship)

E = Ethics (Covenants have ethical norms)

O = Oath/Sanction (We enter covenant relationships by oaths [circumcision/baptism] and if we break those oaths, we reap the consequences.)

S = Sucession (Covenants are generational and continuing, thus the handing down of apostolic offices)

Hebrews 8:5 tells us that the worship of God here on earth is a shadow of the real in Heaven. Moses was strictly enjoined to make the Tabernacle EXACTLY as he was shown. Why? Because that Tabernacle, and all that went on in it, would be a witness to the world around them of the true worship of the true God. Deviation was not acceptable. This is why I feel that when one compares the worship of Orthodoxy with the picture we have in the book of the Revelation, only Orthodoxy pictures that worship closely for the observing world.

But....there is a serious problem. There is but ONE divine Head of the covenant family in Heaven, the Lord Jesus Christ. There is one holy Mother, the Blessed Theotokos.

Where do we see this reality shown on earth? Is there one head in Protestantism or THOUSANDS!??! Do they even HAVE a mother here on earth?

Is there one head on earth, or many in Orthodoxy? And don't try to pull on me "Jesus is the Head of the Church". I know that, but HE is in Heaven, and therefore, there must be a covenant head here on earth to represent His divine rulership.

You see, Orthodoxy totally screws up the "body imagery" here on earth. And if you try to play the game "Jesus is our Head in Heaven" then you play right into the hands of Protestantism and their stupid "invisible church" they made up as part of their rebellion against the Church. You don't want to do THAT, do you?

The first covenant family on earth, Adam and Eve, have been restored in Jesus (divine covenantal Head) and Mary (the helpmeet - giver of life and nourishment). They are pictured by the Pope (earthly covenantal head) and the Church (helpmeet - giver of life and nourishment to the children).

Now despite your claims that I was/am brainwashed, the above is what I came up with on my own. Everything I see in the Bible is pictured in family structures, from the Trinity to the small and individual nuclear family. Holy Orthodoxy, for all its beauty of worship, is NOT a family in structure as is the Catholic Church. It is therefore an improper picture to the world of the divine family which we have all been born into and to which in Heaven we are journeying.

One other question comes to mind for me: suppose that sometime in this century, one of the patriarchs of Orthodoxy turns out to be a flamin' heretic? WHO is going to depose him? And don't say it couldn't happen. Remember Arianism, Nestorianism, Manicheanism, etc? ALL started with EASTERN BISHOPS!!!

Bad form, old chap.

So this is why I converted to communion with Rome, NOT because I cannot THINK for myself and come up with answers.

And ultimately, it is nice that when I am doing this thinking, I have 7 Eccumenical Councils which I can refer to which keep me from being led too far astray by "private interpretation". My thinking is in line with the Church and Her teachings. Therefore, I know I am safe.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

[I think I already commented on your purchase.
But StuartK had the right take: mischief!]

One could only come to that conclusion if one is already aware that its contents invalidate some of the claims being made here and elsewhere.

OrthoMan

Or perhaps, just taking a WILD guess, on the basis of your previous posts!

OrthoMan,

I edited my post on page 5. I performed a test at first to see if I could post my message up because I wasn't able to for a day. Anyways edited and directed at you and Rum Orthodox. If you'd like to take the time to read it mull it through your mind.


Full Cheers,

Justin

Brother Ed,
Don't take this personal but I sense you are confused. Obviously, you do not know what is Orthodoxy. I can only encourage you to seek an Orthodox bishop for help and guidance if your desire is to learn. This forum with all of its argumentations will not help your soul. You bring with you protestant baggage which is not uncommon in the AmChurch. Good luck on your journey. See you at the top!

I agree with Altar Boy on something: as much as I didn't want to believe in the Papacy (though I do now) I couldn't force myself to believe it wasn't necessary and divinely instituted. I am Methodist, so it isn't Catholic bias. I think, frankly, some people can fool themselves out of the Papacy, but I cannot.

To whoever responded to my last post,

Yes, the pope is the Patriarch of the West, but he is also the Pope of the Catholic Church, East and West. If the Eastern Catholic Churches are "in communion with Rome" it would seem that Western Catholicism is "in communion with Rome" too. Frankly, I don't get how someone can be "Orthodox in communion with Rome" unless they mean orthodox by "right belief" in which case the phrase would be repititive anyway. It's like saying I'm "Methodist in comunion with Rome" except for the fact that I acknowledge the Papacy and every other Catholic doctrine that contradicts "my own" Methodist doctrines. YOU CAN'T BE Methodist in communion with Rome; neither can you be Anglican, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox "in communion with Rome". Sorry, my little 15 year old brain just doesn't grasp the concept I suppose.

Maximus,
You said
" Eastern Catholics are not under Rome any more so then I am under Rome we are to adhere to the Catholic message."

I believe this is a disillusional statement. Why don't you ask your bishops or better yet ask the Vatican? Whether you like it or not you have to face the reality that you are under Rome's jurisdiction. You are not free to roam as you please without her blessed consent. You are in denial with this sort of belief. You need to really study the history of the Melkite Church. Explain to me why Patriarch Gregory of Syria was not able to celebrate Pascha with the Orthodox when the Pope said it was okay and he reversed his decisions? Maybe someone else can help Maximus with this question. I feel sorry for Patriarch Gregory. The poor guy got jumped & beat up not long ago by Maronites.

Glory to Jesus Christ!


To hold the Papal office, one would be the Bishop of Rome, the Patriarch of the Latin Catholic Church and the Pope of the Catholic Church, so yes to be Pope on does have to be a Roman Rite Catholic. God Bless!

IC XC NIKA,
-Nik!
"that website guy"

Dear Christeen287,

Well spoken. It is a shame, but "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is derided by some as being contradictory! If it offends some Orthodox Christians, I am sorry. However, there is an important point that needs to be made. If they cannot accept the concept of being really Orthodox, and maintaining communion with the city and its bishop, I am sorry.

In fact, I find that the idea of being really "Orthodox" without the bishop of the Great City, Rome, is something difficult to grasp. I have the same difficulty accepting the concept of being really Orthodox, and not accepting communion with the city, and its bishop.

I have read for many years, on this forum, and on others, the arguments against the Papacy, and heard why no Eastern or Orthodox Christian can or should be in communion with Rome. I for one, remain totally unconvinced by such arguments. I have heard them so often, but I have not heard the Eastern Catholic position stated as clearly. I am not sure I am able, but I would like to say something about my own faith.

Ultimately, the crown of Orthodoxy is accepting the order Christ himself has given his Church, and embracing his plan for it. The plan of God for his Church cannot be accepted in its entirety, without the Imperial City, and its bishop. The Fathers knew it, the early Church understood it, and we cannot deny it and be at the same time "Orthodox" in the true sense of the word.

The Orthodox Churches (not in communion with Rome) have the fulness of the true faith and worship in all things except this, and this is their loss. This is the only essential quality that they lack in order to be considered fully "Church" in every sense. I pray earnestly for this reunion of all the Churches, but it cannot come at the expense of this essential quality of Christ's Church.

Is this hard to take? Will some of my Orthodox friends on this forum decry my position? Probably, yes. And I am sorry to put it so bluntly. But those who put the reverse case (often repeated in this forum), and argue that our Church is in error because we are in communion with the Imperial City, and the Pope of Rome, need to know that I think that the reverse is true. I speak so bluntly, because I fear that sometimes supporters of the union with Rome (like myself) who are also in love with the fulness of the patrimony of the Eastern Church (like myself), feel they need to apologize, or whisper about the Roman Communion. I am not ashamed of Rome, the Imperial City, or the Papacy.

I have just finished reading the journey of Dom Placide (Deseille) to Orthodoxy in the wonderful book "The Living Witness of the Holy Mountain". South Canaan, 1999. In it, his 'apologia' is most eloquent, and he speaks well for the argument rehearsed here so often for the claims of Orthodoxy and the rationale for abandoning the Roman Communion. (...though his arguement for a new baptism is totally unconvincing.)

I wish I were as eloquent in arguing the reverse, and I wish I could put into words why I feel that the Roman communion is a part of the nature of God's Church. But for those who see something essential in the office of the Bishop of Rome, the Imperial City, and the Papacy, this doctrine cannot be discarded. Arguments from tradition against the communion seem selective and sometimes contrived. Arguments made on the basis of the errors and excesses of Rome in the past centuries are interesting (I would agree with many of these observations and points), but we may point to other Patriarchates and chronicle a similar series of errors and misjudgements. We see in modern "World Orthodoxy" the end that such pontification ultimately obtains. For what hierarch is sufficiently perfect for some? The pilgrimage and search will be endless. Perfection and inerrancy are not qualities of the Papacy. They were never before, and are not now, arguments for severing the Church from this communion which is essential to its nature.

Christ himself is the only Lord, and he is the only Church leader I will follow, and he has founded a Church upon the Apostles. He has ordained an order and unfolded a plan. The Fathers understood this plan, and accepted it. The Imperial City, and its Bishop takes precedence and honor. Communion with him is a pledge of true Orthodoxy. Even if a single Pope or a series of Popes should make a mistake, I will not be in error for maintaining my communion. He (they) will give an account, and I will be blameless. If I divide myself from Rome, it is I who will have to give an account. That is a vision that would make me tremble with fear.

This is the mystery of the Church. The Church is God's gift, his plan, his sacrament for my salvation.

Elias

[YOU CAN'T BE Methodist in communion with Rome; neither can you be Anglican, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox "in communion with Rome". Sorry, my little 15 year old brain just doesn't grasp the concept I suppose.]

On the contrary, you 15 year old brain has a better grasp on this conce

Dear Rum,

You are absolutely right, and the Eastern Catholic Churches have been shamefully treated at times by Rome. In particular Roman officials simply do not understand the Eastern Churches, their theology, their history, or their sensitivities.

If the Roman communion were not so important, it would be insufferable. If injury and hurt were the criteria for such decisions, these Eastern Catholics should have left and broken communion long ago. To act from the passions, from pain, from misunderstanding would be all too easy. It would also be a deception of the evil one, who uses deceptions, lies, misunderstandings, pain and sin to accomplish his purposes. His purpose is only to divide the Church of God, silence its proclamation of the Gospel, and weaken its mission. From this the evil one's work is evident and his plans transparent.

We must not act from the passions, or decide an action on the basis of our suffering. We must never give the evil one an undeserved victory. The passions will deceive us, and right decisions must be founded on the truth, and on the will of God. Suffering only strengthens the true follower of Christ, and makes us stronger.

Elias

Dear In Christ,

Everyone here seems to approach this question from the Roman Catholic side: "the Eastern Catholics believe the Papacy is a gift from God. The Eastern Catholics believe communion with Rome is important," etc etc.

So I'd like to reverse the question:

1) What practical reason is communion with Rome important?

2) What practical things do Eastern Catholics have that Orthodox don't?

3) How can one insist theologically that communion with Rome is Christ's plan? Are Orthodox claims invalid? Wrong? How does "noncommunion" with Rome = a lack?

I read _The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church_ by Father John Meyendorff, _Being in Communion_ by Bishop John (Zizioulas), _Eucharist, Bishop, Church_ by Bishop John (Zizioulas), and more, and I was amazed at how RC apologists' claims that there is no Orthodox response to the Church Fathers's evidence, Matthew 16:18, etc, are ignorant and the result of bad scholarship!

Now if someone wants to give me the titles of some books that they think I should read supporting the Roman claims, I'll be happy to check them out.

In Christ,

anastasios

[Orthoman,Do I not understand why you have problems with the Papal title "Vicar of Christ"? It is curious because is seems rather ilogical from the Orthodox self relizing theological stance. I have to ask why it is the Bishops of the Orthodox Church claim to be able turn a peice of bread into the body of Christ? Wine into His blood? And absolve a person of their adultrious sin.]

Depends on what you mean by 'Vicar'.
I have a problem with the Pope claiming exclusive rights to the title of 'Vicar of Christ on Earth'. If by Vicar, you mean chief leader than I most certainly do have a problem with the Pope claiming that title for himself.
Why is a Vicar needed when Christ said, "I" am with you always to the end of the world." Christ doesn't act in one person but in the Church,His Body(Ecumenical Councils) "Where two or three are gathered together in My Name,there am I in their midst." This is why also, an Orthodox priest cannot serve a liturgy by himself as a priest.......including all the Mysteries where and when the Holy Spirit is invoked.It is done in the presence of the Church...even if only two or three "witnesses".