s/o about Calvinism vs. Arminianism

[milovany]

What changes, according to you, the Catholic Church made, which wasn't in agreement with the Early Church's doctrines (not opinions)?

 

 

Well, not according to me, but according to the Orthodox Church I'm a part of. The list is partial, and isn't just doctrines, but practices too; it's made up of the specific things that led us to the EO church instead of the RC one. I'm only listing these because you asked -- I am not here to debate them publicly.

 

1. Papal supremacy and infallibility

2. Adding the filioque to the Nicene Creed ("and the Son")

3. Serving only bread, not both bread and wine, in the Eucharist

4. Crossing one's self from left to right

5. The immaculate conception of Mary

6. Purgatory

7. Original sin

8. Confirmation/chrismation and the Holy Eucharist being offered years after baptism, not at the same time as baptism.

[iwka]

Well, not according to me, but according to the Orthodox Church I'm a part of. The list is partial, and isn't just doctrines, but practices too; it's made up of the specific things that led us to the EO church instead of the RC one. I'm only listing these because you asked -- I am not here to debate them publicly.

 

1. Papal supremacy and infallibility

2. Adding the filioque to the Nicene Creed ("and the Son")

3. Serving only bread, not both bread and wine, in the Eucharist

4. Crossing one's self from left to right

5. The immaculate conception of Mary

6. Purgatory

7. Original sin

8. Confirmation/chrismation and the Holy Eucharist being offered years after baptism, not at the same time as baptism.

 

 

I should of asked: "which changes before Luther did the RCC did from the original Early Church...", because that's what we discussed. My bad.

 

Practices follow theology, so practices, or local traditions (particular churches) are not the issue for me.

 

two things:

ad1. but they (eastern churches) were "under" the pope through their bishops, from the beginning... I am aware of 300 years of debates before the actual schism happened

ad3. in different times and places it looked different, and there were reasons for it - we, for example, receive both on every Mass

ad4. what's the deal here?

ad8. it varies also, historically and now it depends on a diocese... my youngest will have Communion and Confirmation on the same date, and if we would have been in this diocese, they would have it together with their baptism, since we are reverts/converts

 

Don't Orthodox admit that Purgatory and Immaculate conception was widely believed pretty early on?

[milovany]

I should of asked: "which changes before Luther did the RCC did from the original Early Church...", because that's what we discussed. My bad.

 

Practices follow theology, so practices, or local traditions (particular churches) are not the issue for me.

 

two things:

ad1. but they (eastern churches) were "under" the pope through their bishops, from the beginning... I am aware of 300 years of debates before the actual schism happened.

This is the RC perspective. The Orthodox do not agree. The pope had a position of "first among equals" but was not supreme in authority. At councils it was one bishop = one vote -- including one vote for the Roman Bishop. Again, just stating a position, not going to go back and forth on it.

 

ad3. in different times and places it looked different, and there were reasons for it - we, for example, receive both on every Mass

Cool. Some charts I see say the lay people just receive a wafer, while the priest receives both bread and wine.

 

ad4. what's the deal here?

I have no idea. But it was the practice in both churches to cross from right to left until a few hundred years ago (I've seen this information on both RC and EO sites).

 

ad8. it varies also, historically and now it depends on a diocese... my youngest will have Communion and Confirmation on the same date, and if we would have been in this diocese, they would have it together with their baptism, since we are reverts/converts

In the Orthodox church, babies are baptized, chrismated and receive their first Eucharist all at the same time (or within a day or two usually if the baptism is not part of a Divine Liturgy); traditionally this is on the 40th day of life.

 

Don't Orthodox admit that Purgatory and Immaculate conception was widely believed pretty early on?

No.

. Edited January 3, 2011 by milovaný

[Ginevra]

Sorry I've had to leave this thread until now to respond back to some things; actually had to homeschool like I say I do! ;)

 

I'm sorry I can't quote each individual post because it's too many pages back, but I wanted to speak to a couple of different things:

 

Q. There's this idea in Calvinism that "Nobody deserves salvation, so isn't it merciful that God saves some, even one person?"

 

A. No! I really just don't *get* how someone can think this way at all. If God created humankind for His good pleasure, how absurd is it to then find us inherently revolting. That humankind would eventually "miss the mark," a.k.a sin, is a no-brainer. Adam and Eve would eat from the tree eventually, as any parent with an unwatched jar of candy and a 3-year-old knows. Even without benefit of omniscience, I know the kid will eventually snag the Skittles surreptitiously. Or his brother will and will tell him it's probably okay. God would clearly know humankind was bound to be sin-tainted; the mercy was in providing a way out. If that mercy were not available to all, then it is not merciful. Otherwise, that's like saying a woman who aborted 3 babies was merciful when she didn't abort the 4th.

 

Let's address this "we are all worthless" concept a minute.

 

I am fine with "we are all unrighteous until redeemed," but not "we are all worthless." I do not think any human being is worthless, even to my limited and often judgemental mind. (Well, of course I want to say, "Maybe Scott Peterson and Joran VanderSloot, but I digress.) The God I worship can only be a God whose love for ALL humankind is so much more extensive and endlessly encompassing than my own. I had a little "mystical" experience once where I felt that I was experiencing a glimpse of what God's Love is like...if that was one tiny sliver of what Divine Love really is, then there is no room in my brain to accept a God who ****s people before they are even conceived. Love just isn't like that.

 

Kokotg said it well:

If it's seriously a character flaw to hope that grace is for everyone, then, well, okay.

 

:iagree:

 

Another thing I wanted to speak to is those of you (Heather said something like this, and also Erica) who talk about how God doesn't have to do things the way our tiny human mind thinks would be "right" or "good".

 

Someone - maybe it was Ravi Zacharious? - said once that our faith fails if it doesn't stand up to reason; that God does not want us to believe something irrational in the name of "faith". I believe that, too. We are able to judge what is good/bad, what is right/wrong, what is just/unjust. If we say we can't use that measure for God as well, then - what? By that definition, the PP is right who said it's as though God is the abusive husband! I have listened to a victim of abuse who does make those excuses, "He hasn't hurt me in over six months," or "He has a lot of very good qualities. As long as I don't do those things that trigger his anger, it's fine." That's how it sounds to me when people say that God doing apparently cruel things is just God's "ways higher than our ways." The Bible says that "Every good and perfect gift is from above and comes down from the Father." Are we unable to tell what is good and perfect? I do believe that God's ways are higher than my ways, but only because they are unimaginably good! Like that strange experience I had where I felt I glimpsed God's ever-reaching acceptance and love - it was Far, FAR, FARRRR better than my own version of love. It loved without exception; it accepted without reservation, it had compassion for the undeserving. Yes, I do believe God's ways are higher than mine, but not by being baffling because they appear to be unjust, cruel, unloving and wrong.

[JenniferB]

Let's address this "we are all worthless" concept a minute.

 

You might be interested in peeking in on this conversation about salvation from the Orthodox Christian perspective.

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=234392

[Ginevra]

I am reading a bit about Eastern Orthodoxy, which I am finding interesting and something I could possibly even love. I don't see any likelihood of changing churches, though.

[Aubrey]

I came to believe in predestination rather suddenly. Dh & I were having a conversation about something, & he quoted John 3:17, about JC coming to save the world, not to judge it. I was so gob-smacked, I had to go look it up--of course he came to judge it, yk?

 

I couldn't believe it was right there in print next to the verse we all learn about salvation, & it changed my whole image of God that night.

 

First, John 3:16 says that He wills that none should perish--I accept that. I also accept that his blood did the work of salvation for us. Therefore, I believe in universal salvation:

 

First, we are told to forgive unconditionally, limitlessly. Not *when* the other person repents, not IF they're sorry, not a limited number of times or for certain sins. We forgive. Period. How, then, can God, who is our example of Forgiveness forgive less? How can he require greater forgiveness of us, malicious people, than he himself offers? It is illogical.

 

Second, there's all the love stuff, of course. Sure, we can say that we have a "human understanding" of love, but if we are willing to reject our own understanding of love & goodness, in many ways, our whole faith is subject to break-down. How can we say that Andrea Yates was wrong? How can we say that Mother Theresa was good? We no longer have any plumbline for anything if we claim to be unable to understand the basics of love & goodness from a divine perspective.

 

Third, if God chooses some of us & not others, our faith can never be secure. First, there's no way of knowing if we're chosen or not. Second, there's no reason such an arbitrary God couldn't change his mind. You know, confound the wise & make the first last & all that. There's no security in this position, although I'll grant that security itself is a man-made idea. Still, I find it logical that there might be security in salvation. And personally, I'd rather throw my lot in w/ all of humanity than take a risk on betraying them to be treated "special."

 

(Don't take this as criticism; this is how my rebellious streak shows up. When a cousin lost her toddler & mine lived, for NO REASON, I was the only one shouting up to heaven WHY ME??? for a blessing. So if there's election according to Calvin, I'd be likely to choose hell just to spite the plan, because the plan would make me that mad. Based on that, though, I assume that if there's Calvinistic election, I'm not chosen. Why choose someone who'd reject you? And if the whole point is that the capacity to reject God demonstrates lack of election, well then, there you go. I'm not chosen.)

 

Finally, I don't see Jesus' death as a blank check that has to be accepted or endorsed. Even requiring us to believe/accept makes his gift not really free--the cost is faith, humility, etc. Even that faith, imo, is a gift from God & therefore, it hardly seems fair to judge those who don't believe. So instead, I see it more like a credit card debt. Let's say you owe 10M--some amt you can never pay. Jesus pays the co. They close your acct.

 

But maybe you don't like Jesus, don't believe in him, want to pay your own debts, whatever. You call the cc co, & you demand that they return his $. You didn't authorize him to pay your acct. They say, sorry, ma'am, the acct has been paid in full. There's nothing we can do.

 

The matter is now between you & JC, because there IS NO cc debt. Like it or not, it's paid.

 

The debt of sin was owed to God & paid to God. We're not in that equation--at. all.

 

The God I worship is not one who I must mysteriously accept his judgment but the one whose grace & mercy are mysterious. Salvation for ALL *is* beyond my human understanding. *That* confounds my human sense of "justice" --which is often little more than vengeance in Sunday clothes. (Again, this is ME. Y'all are probably nicer.)

[mommaduck]

Not trying to enter the discussion here, except to note that within the Catholic Church there are Eastern Rites whose theology and spirituality would be more familiar to an Orthodox than to a Catholic. They are in full communion with Rome, but use the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, baptize/chrismate/receive the Eucharist at the same time as infants, have similar understandings of purification of souls after death, etc. I say this only because the discussions about EO v RC usually center around the Latin Rite, which is the dominant rite and what most Catholics belong to, but the Eastern Catholics are no less Catholic. In fact, if a Russian Orthodox were to attend a Russian Catholic or Ukranian Catholic liturgy, they would feel quite at home.

 

Also, some of the Eastern Churches came back into communion with Rome fairly early on, while others (like the Russian Catholics) only in the 20th century.

You can't use the Eastern Rites as a comparative or draw on EO. EO still sees them as schismatic.

[8circles]

I came to believe in predestination rather suddenly. Dh & I were having a conversation about something, & he quoted John 3:17, about JC coming to save the world, not to judge it. I was so gob-smacked, I had to go look it up--of course he came to judge it, yk?

 

I couldn't believe it was right there in print next to the verse we all learn about salvation, & it changed my whole image of God that night.

 

First, John 3:16 says that He wills that none should perish--I accept that. I also accept that his blood did the work of salvation for us. Therefore, I believe in universal salvation:

 

First, we are told to forgive unconditionally, limitlessly. Not *when* the other person repents, not IF they're sorry, not a limited number of times or for certain sins. We forgive. Period. How, then, can God, who is our example of Forgiveness forgive less? How can he require greater forgiveness of us, malicious people, than he himself offers? It is illogical.

 

Second, there's all the love stuff, of course. Sure, we can say that we have a "human understanding" of love, but if we are willing to reject our own understanding of love & goodness, in many ways, our whole faith is subject to break-down. How can we say that Andrea Yates was wrong? How can we say that Mother Theresa was good? We no longer have any plumbline for anything if we claim to be unable to understand the basics of love & goodness from a divine perspective.

 

Third, if God chooses some of us & not others, our faith can never be secure. First, there's no way of knowing if we're chosen or not. Second, there's no reason such an arbitrary God couldn't change his mind. You know, confound the wise & make the first last & all that. There's no security in this position, although I'll grant that security itself is a man-made idea. Still, I find it logical that there might be security in salvation. And personally, I'd rather throw my lot in w/ all of humanity than take a risk on betraying them to be treated "special."

 

(Don't take this as criticism; this is how my rebellious streak shows up. When a cousin lost her toddler & mine lived, for NO REASON, I was the only one shouting up to heaven WHY ME??? for a blessing. So if there's election according to Calvin, I'd be likely to choose hell just to spite the plan, because the plan would make me that mad. Based on that, though, I assume that if there's Calvinistic election, I'm not chosen. Why choose someone who'd reject you? And if the whole point is that the capacity to reject God demonstrates lack of election, well then, there you go. I'm not chosen.)

 

Finally, I don't see Jesus' death as a blank check that has to be accepted or endorsed. Even requiring us to believe/accept makes his gift not really free--the cost is faith, humility, etc. Even that faith, imo, is a gift from God & therefore, it hardly seems fair to judge those who don't believe. So instead, I see it more like a credit card debt. Let's say you owe 10M--some amt you can never pay. Jesus pays the co. They close your acct.

 

But maybe you don't like Jesus, don't believe in him, want to pay your own debts, whatever. You call the cc co, & you demand that they return his $. You didn't authorize him to pay your acct. They say, sorry, ma'am, the acct has been paid in full. There's nothing we can do.

 

The matter is now between you & JC, because there IS NO cc debt. Like it or not, it's paid.

 

The debt of sin was owed to God & paid to God. We're not in that equation--at. all.

 

The God I worship is not one who I must mysteriously accept his judgment but the one whose grace & mercy are mysterious. Salvation for ALL *is* beyond my human understanding. *That* confounds my human sense of "justice" --which is often little more than vengeance in Sunday clothes. (Again, this is ME. Y'all are probably nicer.)

 

Aubrey - now I'm gobsmacked. This is the best description of universal salvation I've ever heard. Part of me wants to say "Aubrey - I believe!" - but I can't be so hasty. I'll be thinking about this for a while.

 

ETA: I'm still just stunned. I've never even considered universal salvation seriously before. You are apparently very convincing.

Edited January 4, 2011 by momoflaw

[kokotg]

This thread is really bringing the universalists out of the closet ;). Forme, it honestly is the logical endpoint of Calvinist thought. I was very surprised when I realized how easy it is to make a Biblical argument for universalism using many of the same thought processes Reformed folks use to make a case for predestination. Apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks this way...a quick google search turned up more than one Arminian website with ominous warnings that Calvinism leads to Universalism :lol:

[Georgiana Daniels]

You mean I'm not alone :D ??

 

Aubrey, you expressed it beautifully. I still have issues, but the Bible seems so clear. God IS sovereign, and He loves all of us. All.

[Heather in Neverland]

ominous warnings that Calvinism leads to Universalism :lol:

 

Yikes. thanks for the warning! :D

 

At any rate, my full intention was just to answer some questions about calvinism (and in many ways it was good for me as a practice in defending my faith...sharpening it...understanding it even more, etc.). I have no intention of trying to bring others over to the "dark side". :tongue_smilie: As I said before, Calvinism is the framework that helps me have a better personal understanding of God and the Bible. I do not believe it makes me a better christian than someone else.

 

As I have answered the basic questions the best I know how and it is now turning into a situation where I would be trying to convince you or "turn you"...I will bow out as that was never my purpose. I have every confidence that God will give each of us the understanding we need. Blessings on your journey. :grouphug:

[Ginevra]

Second, there's all the love stuff, of course. Sure, we can say that we have a "human understanding" of love, but if we are willing to reject our own understanding of love & goodness, in many ways, our whole faith is subject to break-down. How can we say that Andrea Yates was wrong? How can we say that Mother Theresa was good? We no longer have any plumbline for anything if we claim to be unable to understand the basics of love & goodness from a divine perspective.

 

Wow, Audrey, you said this so much better than I did and I was really trying. Darn. You up-quilled the Quill. :D

 

I wouldn't say I'm a universalist, but I'm way closer to that than I am to Calvinism. Interesting food for thought, though.

 

How, then, can God, who is our example of Forgiveness forgive less?

 

A very good point, to be sure.

[milovany]

 

Here is what I think is a fascinating article along these lines. It spells out the Orthodox view of ancestral sin (instead of the view more commonly held today, "original sin').

[kokotg]

Second, there's all the love stuff, of course. Sure, we can say that we have a "human understanding" of love, but if we are willing to reject our own understanding of love & goodness, in many ways, our whole faith is subject to break-down. How can we say that Andrea Yates was wrong? How can we say that Mother Theresa was good? We no longer have any plumbline for anything if we claim to be unable to understand the basics of love & goodness from a divine perspective.

 

 

:iagree:

 

I was really taken aback to read Heather's take on "God is love." I think of that statement as massively important because it IS (in my reading) so simple and so clear. I've always considered it a beautifully elegant way to help me understand God, and I've never even entertained the possibility that it could, in fact, be meant to make me rethink my definition of love. We understand love on some primal level from the moment we're born, and our understanding of it is reinforced in countless ways every day; God is the part that's harder to get. When John tells me that if I understand love I already understand God...well, that's kind of what won me over back when I was floating somewhere between belief and agnosticism.

[Ginevra]

I have no intention of trying to bring others over to the "dark side". As I said before, Calvinism is the framework that helps me have a better personal understanding of God and the Bible. I do not believe it makes me a better christian than someone else.

 

And I certainly don't think you have any horse in this race. I hope I'm not driving you off. I wanted to pick at this thought a little bit more, to try and figure out what I believe. I moved away from the faith for a while and I'm trying to re-assemble something that I can believe in from the pieces that are left. Hearing why people believe what they do is a good challenge for my brain. Thanks for the stir!

 

P.S. And to think you have all those hours after I go to bed to craft such good posts...all given up in humility. :D

[kokotg]

At any rate, my full intention was just to answer some questions about calvinism (and in many ways it was good for me as a practice in defending my faith...sharpening it...understanding it even more, etc.). I have no intention of trying to bring others over to the "dark side". :tongue_smilie: As I said before, Calvinism is the framework that helps me have a better personal understanding of God and the Bible. I do not believe it makes me a better christian than someone else.

 

As I have answered the basic questions the best I know how and it is now turning into a situation where I would be trying to convince you or "turn you"...I will bow out as that was never my purpose. I have every confidence that God will give each of us the understanding we need. Blessings on your journey. :grouphug:

 

I've enjoyed reading your thoughts, Heather, and I hope I didn't come across as too confrontational. I'm a believer in "in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity" before I'm a believer in any particular doctrine, but sometimes I get overexcited :). Calvinism fascinates me, and I'm always interested in hearing how modern Christians understand it.

[Aubrey]

:iagree:

 

I was really taken aback to read Heather's take on "God is love." I think of that statement as massively important because it IS (in my reading) so simple and so clear. I've always considered it a beautifully elegant way to help me understand God, and I've never even entertained the possibility that it could, in fact, be meant to make me rethink my definition of love. We understand love on some primal level from the moment we're born, and our understanding of it is reinforced in countless ways every day; God is the part that's harder to get. When John tells me that if I understand love I already understand God...well, that's kind of what won me over back when I was floating somewhere between belief and agnosticism.

 

Oh, Heather's explanation doesn't take me aback at all--it's what the churches I've *always* been in have taught. In fact, I wouldn't even tell anyone (but dh) what I believe irl. Dh can call me "heretic" in a fun-loving way; I doubt anyone else could. ;)

[Heather in Neverland]

I hope I'm not driving you off.

 

Oh no! Not at all! I just want to be careful that I am not overzealous in sharing what I believe. It is such a fine line and I have experienced those who share what they believe in love and with humility and those who pound you in the head with it. Those who were "rabid" in their beliefs REALLY put me off. It was the quiet, humble, yet confident explanations I received that brought me around. As I tend towards an "overzealous" personality in general :D I am just trying to be extra careful!

 

I truly enjoyed this conversation so thank you (all of you)!

[kokotg]

Oh, Heather's explanation doesn't take me aback at all--it's what the churches I've *always* been in have taught.

 

Wow, really? Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention in church growing up :lol:

[Georgiana Daniels]

In fact, I wouldn't even tell anyone (but dh) what I believe irl.

 

This is the part that saddens me--I feel the same. My former pastor went through this for years until he finally told people what he believes. He lost his church family, congregation, and many friends. Many in the Christian community ostracize him and his family now and it breaks my heart.

 

It's like a person can be Calvinist or an Arminian (still can't spell it right) or anything in between and no one questions their salvation, but someone who believes that eventually all people will be reconciled to God becomes an outcast.

 

That said, I wonder if that's more the reason why I can't fully "believe" or if my questions really are theological. Hmmm :confused: More thinking and praying, definitely.

[mommaduck]

This was not my purpose for posting.

 

I was not saying that the Eastern Rites are not in schism with the EO. I was, however, pointing out that discussing issues of theology that divide the RC and the EO is a lot more complicated than simply saying the RC cross themselves left to right or other such differences.

 

The fact remains that an Eastern Rite catechism resembles an Orthodox catechism more than a Latin Rite one. That's not to say that there are not major differences between the Eastern Rite and the EO, but they are somewhat more subtle than being able to point to a single theological point (aside from Papal supremacy).

 

I'm just a bit skeptical about how effective internet forum discussions about why the RC or the EO is wrong, when minds far more informed than mine reached opposite conclusions from each other. There's Vladimir Solovyev, who thought the Russian Church should be reunited with Rome, and then there's Jaroslav Pelikan who after writing his seminal work on the development of Christian doctrine converts to Orthodoxy. Again, the reason I made the comment about the Eastern Rites was to point out that the differences between the east and the west cannot be put down as a simple list, but are issues that scholars have grappled with since the Great Schism.

 

I know for me at least, it would be just as futile to determine who was right in the Schism and "chose" a church as it would be for me to interpret the Bible for myself outside of Church tradition.

Okay, got it. You are correct that there are greater things (some were listed). I mistook you due to another thread (on the same subject) going on elsewhere and the ER-RC being misused.

[justamouse]

The debt of sin was owed to God & paid to God. We're not in that equation--at. all.

 

The God I worship is not one who I must mysteriously accept his judgment but the one whose grace & mercy are mysterious. Salvation for ALL *is* beyond my human understanding. *That* confounds my human sense of "justice" --which is often little more than vengeance in Sunday clothes. (Again, this is ME. Y'all are probably nicer.)

 

You are AWESOME, you heretic, you. :D

[JenniferB]

Here is what I think is a fascinating article along these lines. It spells out the Orthodox view of ancestral sin (instead of the view more commonly held today, "original sin').

 

Thank you for linking this article. I LOVE this portion, "Salvation is a transformation from the tragic state of alienation and autonomy that ends in death into a state of communion with God and one another that ends in eternal life." The "tragic state of alienation and autonomy" sums up the feeling I've had for some time in my spiritual life. Communion with God is what I want! Let the transition begin and continue - God and anyone else who is willing help me!

Edited January 4, 2011 by JenniferB

[sbgrace]

Here is what I think is a fascinating article along these lines. It spells out the Orthodox view of ancestral sin (instead of the view more commonly held today, "original sin').

 

Thank you for this (and for your post upthread which is what I've been itching to say lately but felt unable to do adequately).

 

I'm beginning to think my husband and I hold most closely to EO in our views which I'd probably describe as "early church" but there is no EO church in this area unfortunately. I find myself longing for like minded.

 

Anyway, it's wonderful to read in print so much that we've been discovering in communion with God. Thank you for sharing--it was truly exciting to read in a way I can't describe.

[iwka]

I know for me at least, it would be just as futile to determine who was right in the Schism and "chose" a church as it would be for me to interpret the Bible for myself outside of Church tradition.

 

It is called church consumerism: I choose the church that fits what I believe.

[milovany]

Thank you for this (and for your post upthread which is what I've been itching to say lately but felt unable to do adequately).

 

I'm beginning to think my husband and I hold most closely to EO in our views which I'd probably describe as "early church" but there is no EO church in this area unfortunately. I find myself longing for like minded.

 

Anyway, it's wonderful to read in print so much that we've been discovering in communion with God. Thank you for sharing--it was truly exciting to read in a way I can't describe.

 

Thank you kindly for your post. Just a side note: we attend a mission church that is not listed in any phone book or online directory; if someone searched for "orthodox church [our town]" they might not come up with anything. So is there any chance there *might* be something somewhat near you? What IS the closest? If you want to PM me your (approx.) location, I can see if I or any friends I have know if there's something near you. And if there's not, we can ask and pray for a mission church to open near you! :)

[Tea Time]

Thank you kindly for your post. Just a side note: we attend a mission church that is not listed in any phone book or online directory; if someone searched for "orthodox church [our town]" they might not come up with anything. So is there any chance there *might* be something somewhat near you? What IS the closest? If you want to PM me your (approx.) location, I can see if I or any friends I have know if there's something near you. And if there's not, we can ask and pray for a mission church to open near you! :)

 

We did not have one in my community. The nearest would have been 150 miles. Our Episcopal priest would have LOVED to start one, and some of us might have followed him at the time. He chose to stay in the Episcopal parish and keep his "job" until he could retire and become Orthodox. Being married, he did not want to be a "second class priest" in the RCC (his words), and there was a salary and a pension involved as well as children to consider. :glare: That, my friends, is why Catholic priests do not marry. Quite simply, it divides their loyalty and puts unfair pressure on their decisions.

 

I realized in that time period that, for lots of people, NOT being RC is more important than any other factor.

 

I began to realize that anti-Catholicism is deeply rooted in this culture. It is easy to convert people to Orthodoxy and other denominations because you can start with the premise that "we are not like the Catholics."

 

Isolationism in the faith because you feel Christians who are close to you "have it wrong" is troubling to me. I do not see that (worshiping alone) as an option in the current situation that most of us find ourselves. Thankfully, Catholics are perdy-near everywhere. Even struggling and dying in Iraq (see the recent news - 21 people killed going to Mass New Year's Even) and oppressed in China.

 

I am not saying that people who have chosen to be Orthodox do not have good reasons or sound concerns about the East/West Schism. I am saying that, it is a profound luxury to "choose" at all, and I think it can be for problematic reasons, too. I have seen it personally.

 

There were some interesting Bible readings at Mass this weekend on the topic of how to discern the faithful. Those that acknowledge Christ vs those that don't was pretty much all it said. I think we forget very easily with whom it is that we struggle. It is not one another but darkness itself. I was challenged to think about it anyway. I always am.

[mommaduck]

I began to realize that anti-Catholicism is deeply rooted in this culture. It is easy to convert people to Orthodoxy and other denominations because you can start with the premise that "we are not like the Catholics."

 

Isolationism in the faith because you feel Christians who are close to you "have it wrong" is troubling to me. I do not see that (worshiping alone) as an option in the current situation that most of us find ourselves. Thankfully, Catholics are perdy-near everywhere. Even struggling and dying in Iraq (see the recent news - 21 people killed going to Mass New Year's Even) and oppressed in China.

 

I am not saying that people who have chosen to be Orthodox do not have good reasons or sound concerns about the East/West Schism. I am saying that, it is a profound luxury to "choose" at all, and I think it can be for problematic reasons, too. I have seen it personally.

 

 

 

I'm going to give my *personal* reasons here. We were raised Baptists, went around the block with various churches, became hard core Reformed (of the more strict kind), and converted to Orthodoxy. My husband gave me the "choice" between Orthodoxy and the RCC. BTW, we have several friends that are RC and one is like a brother to my husband, brother in law to myself, and like an endeared uncle to our children. My husband would visit this "brother's" priest off and on throughout the years as he knew him as a child as well. So no "prejudicial" accusations, please...we've come farther than that. The only Orthodox convert we knew was my MIL, and she has been out of communion with the EO for years.

 

1. DH was leaning Orthodox and sprung it on me one day...two years after he had started secretly leaning that direction.

 

2. We had been studying the Early Church Fathers AND I'm a big history nut.

 

3. We were aware of the changes made by the Roman Patriarch. The Eastern Patriarchs had not made changes.

 

4. Still being puritanical (as I was being a passenger on this ride at the time of my conversion, but working my way there), I could deal with icons, but not statues (my one prejudice). There is also a theology behind icons and how they are written. Not just anyone may write them. Anyone can pop out a bunch of statues.

 

5. I was through with pounding every dead horse, which is a habit the Reformers brought out of the Roman Catholic Church with them. I tired of myself and others claiming to know and understand the mind of God. Orthodoxy does not do this. They accept that there are some things that we do not and are not supposed to fully understand. We are human. He is God. Some things will ALWAYS be a mystery to us (this is a belief that I was raised with, had rejected, but have always had niggling inside of me...now I know why).

 

6. They kept certain Traditions and didn't float back and forth on them. If you look at a timeline of celibacy in the RC, different Popes went back and forth...from allowing it, to dissolving legitimate marriages (and bastardising children of those marriages), to allowing them and providing for the families, back to punishing those that were married by selling the wives and children into slavery, to now having them again (but then there are the issues of are they being treated as "lesser" priests and why have no Eastern Rite churches in America been allowed by the Pope to have any married priests when it's allowed elsewhere, etc). The Orthodox kept to the same simple method used from the beginning. If you are married before Ordination, fine. But you may not be married after Ordination. Bishops must be unmarried or widowed (one Pope put away his wife in order to accept the Papal seat). Plain, simple, Traditional, makes good common sense and doesn't interfere with or break the sanctity of marriage. Married and celibate priests are considered equal...both bringing their particular strengths and weakness with them (and having a Presvytera can be a strength).

 

7. Like a lot of Reformed, there was the wavering on the logical conclusion of paedobaptism also equates to having paedocommunion. The Orthodox fall on that side.

 

8. When studying history and learning about the Great Schism, I could not help but to fall on the Orthodox side and view Rome as the Patriarch amoungst equals (first amoungst equals is view definitionally different by the West than by the East...and I agree with the East on it's definition) that walked away.

 

9. I feel that the Orthodox held a more balanced view of family, marriage, sex, etc. I can't fully explain this yet.

 

20. Ancestral Sin vs Original Sin...part of this relates to #9 as well. Again, I'm not ready to explain this yet.

 

 

All this to say that none of this meant as a criticism to my Catholic sisters on here, in fact one of you has seen me change and grow over the years and now laughs with me over some of the things I used to be pretty hardheaded about (and I love her for laughing with me and bearing with me when I've been a PITA elsewhere). I say this, because these were *my* thoughts. My husband gave me the choice only to seek my comfort and we both sought to not divide our families between churches (aka my staying Reformed while he went off into Orthodoxy). Yes, I agree, I had the LUXURY of choice. But I did not make that choice lightly or simply because of Protestant prejudice. There were many things at play and I chose to place much of it in God's hands when I chose Orthodoxy. I came, straight out told the Priest what I was and where I've stood (and pounded at online) for years on holy days, images, etc, and he still accepted me as I was. I sat back, listened, and let things fall into place from there. I came and saw. It was the first place where, even though I was in the minority (homeschooling, headcovering, skirtwearing) it wasn't an issue either direction...it's just NOT an issue, period, either for or against. I've never fit anyone's box, I've tried, I can't even with the best of efforts. Orthodoxy isn't about fitting into a mold (cultural, social, prescribed, whatever). It's about being and about the spiritual journey we are on and most importantly about worshiping the One that Created us and becoming like Him (as the Reformed would say: to Worship and Glorify Him Forever).

 

 

Anyhow, I know this rabbit trailed greatly, but I didn't want the term "luxury" to slip by as though converts casually make their decisions. I'm certain that converts to the Catholic Church would feel the same about their decision and their reasons. I'm certain they have investigated, thought things out, and may not even have fully understood or agreed with EVERYTHING before they converted (meaning for both of us, it wasn't about finding a Church that fit *our* mold, but rather finding what we believed was the Church as it should be, as it was meant to be, and as it's always been and then learning from that).

 

(ps 21 Orthodox were killed in a Church bombing in Egypt right before they could celebrate Epiphany, old calendar Christmas. I believe they still intend to celebrate in the midst of mourning)

Edited January 4, 2011 by mommaduck

[Tea Time]

Anyhow, I know this rabbit trailed greatly, but I didn't want the term "luxury" to slip by as though converts casually make their decisions. I'm certain that converts to the Catholic Church would feel the same about their decision and their reasons. I'm certain they have investigated, thought things out, and may not even have fully understood or agreed with EVERYTHING before they converted (meaning for both of us, it wasn't about finding a Church that fit *our* mold, but rather finding what we believed was the Church as it should be, as it was meant to be, and as it's always been and then learning from that).

 

(ps 21 Orthodox were killed in a Church bombing in Egypt right before they could celebrate Epiphany, old calendar Christmas. I believe they still intend to celebrate in the midst of mourning)

 

If you did not make your decision based on prejudices against the RCC, then I am not talking about someone like you.

 

I am not saying that people who have chosen to be Orthodox do not have good reasons or sound concerns about the East/West Schism.

 

I am just asking that people who look into these ancient Churches do search their hearts for the cultural mistrust that permeates our society regarding the RCC. My goodness, look at some of the comments you see on articles where the Pope speaks. These people care enough about what he says to read the article, but then what they write in the comments is so filled with vile hatred and prejudice that it actually makes me fearful for my RC children! Seriously! That is what concerns me, not someone like you or the lovely people who are sharing here. If you have not noticed such things, I am not surprised. I didn't either until I became Catholic. The term anti-Catholic, to me, just seemed yet another "victim" term, but it is no more so than the antisemitism which is also alive and well.

 

I think you mistook me here regarding luxury. I did not mean luxury to choose EO instead of RCC (I did not have that choice in my community per se, but I did have the luxury to an extent) or a luxury as in someone not thinking hard about the decision. I meant luxury to make any choice, as in the luxury we enjoy of freedom of religion. That freedom under-girds all other freedom, and I think we often take it for granted in general. Forgive the "lecturing" though. It is not probably a good idea (preaching to the choir, no doubt, here).

 

That is why I brought up the Coptic Church killings (My details were off because of another mass murder - no pun intended there - I had in mind that occurred back in November - 56 deaths, I can't even keep them straight!) and the terrible state oppression of RCC in China. There are plenty of Protestants suffering, too. My heart breaks for them all.

 

It is a luxury, IMO, to quibble over the authority of the Pope or the term "transubstantiation" or Predestination or such things when we all do so in the shadow of the deaths of our brothers and sisters. Maybe that is just me though.

 

I am glad you have peace in your decisions, and I love reading your and milovany's posts on this board. I am so glad for your presence and your wisdom. I have nothing negative to say about the EO. I just don't like listening to a barrage of criticism from all points of view toward the RCC, probably because of reading too many of those comments I mentioned (not good for me). But that is my failing, and I will recall it in Reconciliation this week.

[mommaduck]

I think you mistook me here regarding luxury. I did not mean luxury to choose EO instead of RCC (I did not have that choice in my community per se, but I did have the luxury to an extent) or a luxury as in someone not thinking hard about the decision. I meant luxury to make any choice, as in the luxury we enjoy of freedom of religion. That freedom under-girds all other freedom, and I think we often take it for granted in general. Forgive the "lecturing" though. It is not probably a good idea (preaching to the choir, no doubt, here).

 

It is a luxury, IMO, to quibble over the authority of the Pope or the term "transubstantiation" or Predestination or such things when we all do so in the shadow of the deaths of our brothers and sisters. Maybe that is just me though.

 

I am glad you have peace in your decisions, and I love reading your and milovany's posts on this board. I am so glad for your presence and your wisdom. I have nothing negative to say about the EO. I just don't like listening to a barrage of criticism from all points of view toward the RCC, probably because of reading too many of those comments I mentioned (not good for me). But that is my failing, and I will recall it in Reconciliation this week.

I agree about both the luxury and the barrage that happens against Catholics.

 

I'm a bit touchy, because I've been hearing the accusation of "converts choose Orthodoxy because of their Protestant bigotry against Catholicism" directed at myself and other converts lately. I've met many converts and a good number of people I knew in the Reformed churches have converted around the same time we did...and I know them enough that such an accusation is horrendously untrue. I'm sorry I mistook you; please forgive me.

[iwka]

I began to realize that anti-Catholicism is deeply rooted in this culture. It is easy to convert people to Orthodoxy and other denominations because you can start with the premise that "we are not like the Catholics."

 

I second US being anti-Catholic. Europe is anti-religion, but here... individualism has such deep roots that overpowers reason often... modernism that turned into post-modern MEism, pope-fobia an SolO Scriptura... such a mess:tongue_smilie: Everybody talks about their own experience like that validates anything.

[Tea Time]

I'm sorry I mistook you; please forgive me.

 

Nothing to forgive. Often times my comments are more general than to specific people on the thread, and that can be confusing. You and others here have obviously thought deeply about it, and I thank you for sharing your journey. Some people I know left me with some bitterness that I am still trying to work through, I guess, in regard to conversions. I'm working on it (with God's help).

[Tea Time]

I second US being anti-Catholic. Europe is anti-religion, but here... individualism has such deep roots that overpowers reason often... modernism that turned into post-modern MEism, pope-fobia an SolO Scriptura... such a mess:tongue_smilie: Everybody talks about their own experience like that validates anything.

 

What?! You mean it isn't all about ME ME ME? :lol: