Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Well, I guess the question at hand is whether the Papacy was instituted by God via Divine Revelation, or whether it's an innovation. To say the Pope is an absolute supreme authority puts him mighty close to God for our comfort.

No, I'm interested in learning and trying to figure out if I'm missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing it. The legal and metaphysical frameworks and means of dealing with Faith just weren't around pre-Schism. Neither was the Supreme, Universal, Infallible jurisdiction of the Papacy. It's not out of rebellion that it's disliked by the Orthodox, but because it breaks down the conciliar tradition of solving problems of Faith.

I'd like to talk with someone who understands the Orthodox mindset, but who could illuminate how and why Roman Catholicism is just so much clearer and more consistent. Tradition-wise, you guys are about the only ones who have an almost-Orthodox appreciation for the connection between Tradition and Faith.

I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.

My apologies if that rubs a bunch of people the wrong way... it's good to get stuff out there in the open for discussion IMHO.

I'm not sure what you are looking to accomplish here on CathInfo, Nick.  You aren't going to find converts to Eastern Orthodoxy if that's what you're looking for.  Perhaps Catholic Answers would be a more profitable fishing ground.  Most folks here don't have an Eastern "Orthodox" view point or way of thinking.  CathInfo is a hardcore ROMAN CATHOLIC site.  We are Western Roman Catholic to the core. Your posts seem very proselytizing towards traditional Roman Catholics to the Eastern Orthodox religion.  I'm definitely not sure if that'll fly here either.  Not many (if any) even go to an Eastern Catholic parish (what you may call "Uniate). Please listen to Bishop Sanborn's sermon which I posted earlier on another thread in "Crisis in the Church".  

I guess I'm trying to have a discussion on Faith with people who aren't relativists. Then, I'd like to either confirm that Orthodoxy is the True Faith, or through discussion realize where I'm off. Like I said, Sede-Vacantism is a hard sell for me since it seems kind of sectarian.

To press the "Western Roman Catholic" point hard seems to me to idolize one's religion, without getting to the core of who's done the better job of passing on the Faith. Isn't this the purpose of the Christian Church?

I'll give Bishop Sanborn's sermon a listen...

Quote from: Kreuzritter1945

Quote from: Emitte Lucem Tuam

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Well, I guess the question at hand is whether the Papacy was instituted by God via Divine Revelation, or whether it's an innovation. To say the Pope is an absolute supreme authority puts him mighty close to God for our comfort.

No, I'm interested in learning and trying to figure out if I'm missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing it. The legal and metaphysical frameworks and means of dealing with Faith just weren't around pre-Schism. Neither was the Supreme, Universal, Infallible jurisdiction of the Papacy. It's not out of rebellion that it's disliked by the Orthodox, but because it breaks down the conciliar tradition of solving problems of Faith.

I'd like to talk with someone who understands the Orthodox mindset, but who could illuminate how and why Roman Catholicism is just so much clearer and more consistent. Tradition-wise, you guys are about the only ones who have an almost-Orthodox appreciation for the connection between Tradition and Faith.

I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.

My apologies if that rubs a bunch of people the wrong way... it's good to get stuff out there in the open for discussion IMHO.

I'm not sure what you are looking to accomplish here on CathInfo, Nick.  You aren't going to find converts to Eastern Orthodoxy if that's what you're looking for.  Perhaps Catholic Answers would be a more profitable fishing ground.  Most folks here don't have an Eastern "Orthodox" view point or way of thinking.  CathInfo is a hardcore ROMAN CATHOLIC site.  We are Western Roman Catholic to the core. Your posts seem very proselytizing towards traditional Roman Catholics to the Eastern Orthodox religion.  I'm definitely not sure if that'll fly here either.  Not many (if any) even go to an Eastern Catholic parish (what you may call "Uniate). Please listen to Bishop Sanborn's sermon which I posted earlier on another thread in "Crisis in the Church".  

Your church denies original sin, denies the papacy, accepts contraception or is in communion with those who do, allow divorce and re-marriage even though Christ condemned it, and denies the filioque.

The Roman Catholic Church seems to be thinking and acting on a horizontal, worldly level, while the Orthodox seem to be on the vertical plain. We meet in a small area, but for the most time we're talking past each other. The issues themselves are always open to discussion, since the teaching is based around what's the best "fit" with the Faith passed on. Disagreements abound, but that's ok, and always has been! :)

in other words, eastern Protestantism.
also, this mystical gobblygook EOers love to spout is a lot of cover.
Some conciliarists and neo-trads used to oohh and aaahh over this stuff, not anymore, I think. Too shallow.

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Quote from: Kreuzritter1945

Quote from: Emitte Lucem Tuam

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Well, I guess the question at hand is whether the Papacy was instituted by God via Divine Revelation, or whether it's an innovation. To say the Pope is an absolute supreme authority puts him mighty close to God for our comfort.

No, I'm interested in learning and trying to figure out if I'm missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing it. The legal and metaphysical frameworks and means of dealing with Faith just weren't around pre-Schism. Neither was the Supreme, Universal, Infallible jurisdiction of the Papacy. It's not out of rebellion that it's disliked by the Orthodox, but because it breaks down the conciliar tradition of solving problems of Faith.

I'd like to talk with someone who understands the Orthodox mindset, but who could illuminate how and why Roman Catholicism is just so much clearer and more consistent. Tradition-wise, you guys are about the only ones who have an almost-Orthodox appreciation for the connection between Tradition and Faith.

I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.

My apologies if that rubs a bunch of people the wrong way... it's good to get stuff out there in the open for discussion IMHO.

I'm not sure what you are looking to accomplish here on CathInfo, Nick.  You aren't going to find converts to Eastern Orthodoxy if that's what you're looking for.  Perhaps Catholic Answers would be a more profitable fishing ground.  Most folks here don't have an Eastern "Orthodox" view point or way of thinking.  CathInfo is a hardcore ROMAN CATHOLIC site.  We are Western Roman Catholic to the core. Your posts seem very proselytizing towards traditional Roman Catholics to the Eastern Orthodox religion.  I'm definitely not sure if that'll fly here either.  Not many (if any) even go to an Eastern Catholic parish (what you may call "Uniate). Please listen to Bishop Sanborn's sermon which I posted earlier on another thread in "Crisis in the Church".  

Your church denies original sin, denies the papacy, accepts contraception or is in communion with those who do, allow divorce and re-marriage even though Christ condemned it, and denies the filioque.

The Roman Catholic Church seems to be thinking and acting on a horizontal, worldly level, while the Orthodox seem to be on the vertical plain. We meet in a small area, but for the most time we're talking past each other. The issues themselves are always open to discussion, since the teaching is based around what's the best "fit" with the Faith passed on. Disagreements abound, but that's ok, and always has been! :)

in other words, eastern Protestantism.
also, this mystical gobblygook EOers love to spout is a lot of cover.
Some conciliarists and neo-trads used to oohh and aaahh over this stuff, not anymore, I think. Too shallow.

No, the Protestants are all yours and have nothing much to do with the Orthodox. They used the Western, scholastic mindset to divide the Faith to a greater and greater extent. The consequence is that not many people in the West are very sure anymore Who it is that they worship or connect with in prayer.

The mystery for you is why this kind of division isn't on the Orthodox side.

And yeah, I may be wrong, but I'm still suspicious. Time will tell.

It has been pretty crap at proselytising though hasn't it?

Pretty much the entire rest of the world was proselytised after the schism by the Roman Catholic Church.

I would find it difficult to believe that the Orthodox Church was correct and yet God allowed the false and heretical Roman Church to convert the Americas, Africa and SE Asia.  A thousand years is a heck of a long time to let the false religion flourish while the real one hardly grows except in the countries it was already in.

I have spent a lot of time in Russia, Georgia, Armenia, Greece and the orthodox Christians I met usually struck me as very undereducated about their faith.  Religion to them was more like a lucky horseshoe or talisman to make them healthy or wealthy.  It is rare to meet an Orthodox Christian in those countries who can have a basic conversation about theology or philosophy.

It has been pretty crap at proselytising though hasn't it?

Pretty much the entire rest of the world was proselytised after the schism by the Roman Catholic Church.

I would find it difficult to believe that the Orthodox Church was correct and yet God allowed the false and heretical Roman Church to convert the Americas, Africa and SE Asia.  A thousand years is a heck of a long time to let the false religion flourish while the real one hardly grows except in the countries it was already in.

I have spent a lot of time in Russia, Georgia, Armenia, Greece and the orthodox Christians I met usually struck me as very undereducated about their faith.  Religion to them was more like a lucky horseshoe or talisman to make them healthy or wealthy.  It is rare to meet an Orthodox Christian in those countries who can have a basic conversation about theology or philosophy.

Haha yup, you're right there. The Orthodox haven't done a very good job of proselytising. Mostly because when they haven't been actively persecuted, they've been too poor to do much. Also, the ethnic silos haven't helped.

Yes, this illustrates an aspect of the divide between us. If you think that philosophical or theological discourses are what's most important and shows strength of Faith, we'll talk past each other. 5 minutes of digging online will find plenty of Orthodox people more than able to discuss philosophy or theology.

Quote from: IllyricuмSacrum

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Quote from: Kreuzritter1945

Quote from: Emitte Lucem Tuam

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Well, I guess the question at hand is whether the Papacy was instituted by God via Divine Revelation, or whether it's an innovation. To say the Pope is an absolute supreme authority puts him mighty close to God for our comfort.

No, I'm interested in learning and trying to figure out if I'm missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing it. The legal and metaphysical frameworks and means of dealing with Faith just weren't around pre-Schism. Neither was the Supreme, Universal, Infallible jurisdiction of the Papacy. It's not out of rebellion that it's disliked by the Orthodox, but because it breaks down the conciliar tradition of solving problems of Faith.

I'd like to talk with someone who understands the Orthodox mindset, but who could illuminate how and why Roman Catholicism is just so much clearer and more consistent. Tradition-wise, you guys are about the only ones who have an almost-Orthodox appreciation for the connection between Tradition and Faith.

I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.

My apologies if that rubs a bunch of people the wrong way... it's good to get stuff out there in the open for discussion IMHO.

I'm not sure what you are looking to accomplish here on CathInfo, Nick.  You aren't going to find converts to Eastern Orthodoxy if that's what you're looking for.  Perhaps Catholic Answers would be a more profitable fishing ground.  Most folks here don't have an Eastern "Orthodox" view point or way of thinking.  CathInfo is a hardcore ROMAN CATHOLIC site.  We are Western Roman Catholic to the core. Your posts seem very proselytizing towards traditional Roman Catholics to the Eastern Orthodox religion.  I'm definitely not sure if that'll fly here either.  Not many (if any) even go to an Eastern Catholic parish (what you may call "Uniate). Please listen to Bishop Sanborn's sermon which I posted earlier on another thread in "Crisis in the Church".  

Your church denies original sin, denies the papacy, accepts contraception or is in communion with those who do, allow divorce and re-marriage even though Christ condemned it, and denies the filioque.

The Roman Catholic Church seems to be thinking and acting on a horizontal, worldly level, while the Orthodox seem to be on the vertical plain. We meet in a small area, but for the most time we're talking past each other. The issues themselves are always open to discussion, since the teaching is based around what's the best "fit" with the Faith passed on. Disagreements abound, but that's ok, and always has been! :)

in other words, eastern Protestantism.
also, this mystical gobblygook EOers love to spout is a lot of cover.
Some conciliarists and neo-trads used to oohh and aaahh over this stuff, not anymore, I think. Too shallow.

No, the Protestants are all yours and have nothing much to do with the Orthodox. They used the Western, scholastic mindset to divide the Faith to a greater and greater extent. The consequence is that not many people in the West are very sure anymore Who it is that they worship or connect with in prayer.

The mystery for you is why this kind of division isn't on the Orthodox side.

Actually, the prots are yours. Let me explain. Many schismatics boast of how the east freed itself from the clutches of western scholasticism and latin theology manuals.......and jumped right into the the clutches of Lutheran and even Calvinist theology. In my worship-all-things-eastern phase of life I was into Schmemann. I'll admit, even today I would have little problem recommending his seminal work "For the Life of the World" However, as I got into more off his stuff, and I educated myself more into the True Faith I detected something fishy in his works. I realized I was basically reading the works of an eastern protestant. Schmemann was of the school of post18th century central European protestant-inspired schismatic scholars who were for remolding the Nationalistic churches completely on the protestant model. Their view on the Liturgy, Sacraments, priesthood and the Hierarchal nature of the Church was entirely protestant. (Why do you think anti-pope Bergy wants to remodel the church on the schismatic "synodal" plan?) They were speaking of the Church in much the same  as the novus ordians speak of the-people-of-God bunk way. And that was in the 17 or 18 hundreds!!!

Another of Schmemann's seminal work was on the mass. It is still used as a textbook in some seminaries, I believe. It was evident that his view was Protestant to the core. I had to flip back and forth the book for several hours (after reading it once all the way through) to see if there were any mentions of the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. I found one throwaway line that confirmed it. Schmemann and his ilk had contempt for any devotions of the "peasants" whether in church or in private. They believe that church should only be opened for one Sunday liturgy a week. And that's it! So much for the Spiritual Life.

Oh, btw, if the prots are our "problem" than Judas was entirely Our Lord's.

Hello all!

I thought that it would be interesting to start this thread and see what happens. I'm a convert from Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy. I converted after a lengthy process of study, prayer, discussions with people on both sides, and at the end of it all attending an Orthodox Divine Liturgy.

From what I've found, the Orthodox have the most historically consistent track record of ecclesiology, doctrine/ teaching of Faith, and practice/ Liturgy (the place where one's Faith is formed). All the changes that resulted in the Great Schism, and further changes afterwards, were solidly on the side of Rome. These changes were built up on the basis of an altered conception of authority, that was not Catholic, in that it was not recognized (by the universal Church... including Christians outside the direct hierarchy of Rome) as part of the Faith passed on from Christ to the Apostles and onwards through time.

Essentially, the Roman Church has been building on sand for the past thousand-plus years. Given the "diversity" in Faith (notably in the Liturgy, but also between various movements within the Church) as well as new versions of the Church every few hundred years or so (keeping up with the times?) it's a house built on sand, currently in the process of collapse.

Since I don't want any future generations of my family to be damaged in Faith when someone tells them that the Novus Ordo (or whatever the new liturgical innovation happens to be) is perfectly fine, "just another tradition", leaving the Roman realm seems necessary.

The Orthodox have their own problems, but these don't seem to seriously impact Faith. Due to their conciliar structure that they've always had... it's easier to correct others for mistakes in Faith than in the hierarchical, authoritative Roman Catholic Church... they've best maintained the Apostolic Faith.

I'm not sure where this post will lead. My intent is less to convert people (that's the job of the Holy Spirit), but more to get all of this out there to a semi-sympathetic audience. Any discussion from here, I hope, will lead people towards Truth.

Hey Nick
in charity I must first tell you that you are on the road to hell as only true catholics will be saved, I went to one of your tribes forums and found they couldn't handle my truthful arguements...they had some differing opinions on basic truths so I  would like to know your answer to the following questions
 Is St Peter  the Rock in Matt 16..?
was St Peter the leader of the apostles?
was St Peter Bishop of Rome?


from your answers I'll know what direction to take the discussion in hopes to save your soul
In peace