[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / cafechan / leftpol / monarchy / radcorp / strek / sw / toil ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Christchan is back up after maintenance! The flood errors should now be resolved. Thank you to everyone who submitted a bug report!

File: 2f76576557bff77⋯.jpg (93.75 KB, 601x508, 601:508, imfine.jpg)

a52780 No.592013

AAAAAAGH

Why are we such a tiny minority in this country? (US) Why do I have to explain everything about my "Eastern/Greek Orthodox religion" to pretty much everybody, including my own family? Why didn't I just get my Catholic confirmation instead of getting chrismated at a church that no matter how much I explain it, it's still foreign to my (lapsed Catholic) family members? How can I be the light in their lives that could help and inspire them to live a life in Christ if they see my faith as some obscure hobby of sorts?

Why would Jesus allow his one true church to be so ethnically divided along with an ugly jurisdictional mess? Why would Jesus allow his one true church to come to no agreement about calendars and that whole toll house thing? Why would Jesus allow his one true church to be so pisspoor at evangelizing?

I don't care about the filioque, but I'm growing increasingly disappointed that we don't have a unifying Pope figure who happens to be the direct successor to the Prince of the apostles on top of a generally richer theological/philosophical tradition as the Catholics do. also tfw no single orthoqts of reasonable age

Orthobros, what should keep me Orthodox instead of Catholic? Catholics, how badly do I need to convert?

The main things preventing me from converting is that despite their varying ranges of confusion, my family still felt very proud of me when they saw me chrismated just last month and I fear that if I have to convert back to Rome, I can't even imagine what kind of feelings they would have at my confirmation. More importantly, I already have Orthodox godparents now and they already love me as godparents should. God knows how they would feel.

I just don't know, man. Help a brother out.

a7510f No.592015

File: 499afd5024c781f⋯.jpg (67.28 KB, 469x500, 469:500, 499afd5024c781f2443f38aa15….jpg)

As someone who has been just researching this rationally,

>Being influenced by the drama of people around you

>Being influenced by your own opinions on how the religion should go

Not going to go anywhere.

On the other hand

>who happens to be the direct successor to the Prince of the apostles

If you believe the Pope is actually successor to Saint Peter why don't you become Catholic already?


a52780 No.592018

>>592015

Well I also believe that the other patriarchs are direct apostolic successors, too. I've just been under the impression as an Orthodox Christian that the Bishop of Rome, though in schism, was "first among equals" or something like that. I'm just not sure.


e797aa No.592019

>>592013

Dude, for the love of God, don't worship statues. Also, don't think God will send a Pope.

>also tfw no single orthoqts of reasonable age

You don't need to get an Orthodox gf, as long as she's Christian she's good to go. My gf is Protestant (Baptist), while I'm a very-Orthodox-leaning Protestant.


a52780 No.592020

>>592019

>I'm a very-Orthodox-leaning Protestant.

care to elaborate?


a7510f No.592021

File: 036936c288ca244⋯.jpg (37.8 KB, 241x325, 241:325, mw84996.jpg)

>>592019

Here we go.

>You don't need to get an Orthodox gf

*According to baptists


783e9a No.592023

>>592013

I personally think the Orthodox faith is the strongest we've got right next to Catholicism and the baptist church.

However I must agree that it is quite a small church in the US.


e797aa No.592026

>>592020

Sure

I've read about Luther, and tbh his reformist ideals were far different from what the current Protestant movement says. Early Protestants actually tried to link to the East Church, but their successors thought "Why do we have to 'worship' Mary" and here we are.

>>592021

Come on I'm just trying to help this poor guy's faith


968251 No.592028

File: e6a8cb7eb4c3a58⋯.gif (1.12 MB, 720x404, 180:101, 1510985259706.gif)

>>592013

>picking a religion to please others and socialize more

kek

this is why my friend became Bahai, literally cause the social circle it opened up for him and picking up Bahai chicks


825b9e No.592029

>>592026

>Early Protestants actually tried to link to the East Church, but their successors thought "Why do we have to 'worship' Mary" and here we are.

Read more Reformed theologians


a7510f No.592034

>>592026

If you want you can try to fully convince him to convert to Protestantism, but until he's protestant there's no reason he should be adopting Baptist beliefs.

Its Orthodox dogma you can only marry within the Orthodox church after conversion.


e797aa No.592035

>>592034

But that's why I've said girlfriend and not wife

OP can pretty much convert her into orthodoxy before he marries her


a52780 No.592036

>>592028

I want, above all else, to stay with the church that preaches the truth. I'm just not confident which church is true and I therefore don't want to make any major decisions until I find out.


dad9bc No.592042

>>592013

You do not join a Church to please your family; my father came from an hardcore Communist family and married a very religious woman out of love and she slowly brought him to God.

If you want your faith to make you feel good here and now on earth, you made a huge mistake.

I'm Catholic, but I suggest you read more on your Church:I'm sure you'll find the help to revive your faith.


f23431 No.592050

>also tfw no single orthoqts of reasonable age

no comment


114a6e No.592051

>>592013

Catholic false flag attack.


25a26c No.592052

>Chrismated last month

>Already wants out

You made a mistake. You don't get Baptized/Chrismated if you're not sure you're going to stay.

It sounds like you're more interested in Roman Catholicism.

>>592036

These two books might clarify your views:

"The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy"

"The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate"

both by Edward Siecienski.

Also, you already made a major decision last month, silly.

Take your concerns to your priest and ask him if you can have a time out until you've built a more solid perspective.

But I really strongly suggest the two books above.


52a74d No.592053

>>592013

There are a few of us on the discord server who had to eat serious crow when we realized we had to be Catholic. You talk so much trash about the Church, then when you realize there it is, you gotta crawl back. It's a humbling experience.

Don't worry about your family. It will show strength that you aren't afraid to admit you were wrong.

>How badly do I need to convert?

What do you want us to say? At this point, it sounds like *you* want to come back and you are looking for excuses. You don't need any, just come back.

>>592052

I need to read those because someone produced church father quotes and said he got them out of one of those books, the only problem is those quotes were totally fabricated. So heads up, they might not be good books (I need to investigate myself, but just from that interaction, I suspect not).


9f91f1 No.592059

>>592013

Its an usual spiritual battle after you convert. It happens to anyone who is new. It will fade off after some time.


014c5c No.592060

>>592013

>Why didn't I just get my Catholic confirmation instead of getting chrismated

why do you believe in anything?

>Why are we such a tiny minority in this country?

>Why would Jesus allow his one true church to be so ethnically divided along with an ugly jurisdictional mess? Why would Jesus allow his one true church to come to no agreement about calendars and that whole toll house thing? Why would Jesus allow his one true church to be so pisspoor at evangelizing?

>richer theological/philosophical tradition as the Catholics do. also tfw no single orthoqts of reasonable age

These things are secondary or even distractions you cannot ascertain the truth from such things


25a26c No.592064

>>592053

What are the fabricated quotes? I have the books under my hand.


761c96 No.592086

File: d6c3e8ff881e46b⋯.jpg (6.41 MB, 800x9500, 8:95, MiracleoftheSunFatima.jpg)

OP raises a good point among many bad ones. Why are Orthodox 10% of Christians while Catholics are responsible for 90% of Christians. Why don't the Orthodox evangelize or if they do why doesn't it yield fruits? Why do Catholics get so many Saints and so many miracles that are extremely documented while Orthodox get a few that are shady? Either all catholic saints after the schism are under prelest and Fatima is a demonic apparition or the Catholic church is the church of Christ. You can't just start being lukewarm and say, well it doesn't matter anyway we're brothers in Christ right? Catholic and Orthodox is the same! How can you think rebelling from the authority of God// or disregarding God and seizing much of His authority as nothing and that we are the same? If Fatima is an apparition of Mary then the Catholic church is the church of Christ, if it's demonic then it's the Orthodox probably. Because our lady promised the conversion of Russia, some people claim that means they will go back to Orthodoxy, but how dishonest is that. You don't convert to a schismatic church, what kind of nonsense is that. If our lady says Russia will be converted it obviously means that she will be converted to the bride of Christ. Religious indifference is condemned in Catholicism so how could our lady be religiously indifferent?

OP, you made a mistake by being Chrismated while not knowing if it was the truth or not, if you end up in the Catholic Church make sure you know it's the truth before receiving sacraments.


f00ce0 No.592100

>>592053

Aquinas used fabricated quotes to support Papal supremacy


7b1306 No.592115

File: 4d015d880e8233a⋯.jpg (194.17 KB, 800x1286, 400:643, _20171215_173555_(1).JPG)

>>592100

>fabricated quotes

You make it sound like he fabricated them himself. Please be clearer. It's a problem throughout our faith's history that false or misattributed documents were in circulation. Aquinas' "Contra Errores Graecorum" uses some ill-sourced documents, but apparently the same arguments could have been made using legitimate ones.

This is beside the fact that one could argue pretty conclusively in favor of the Papacy using scripture alone.

>>592013

Take your time and seriously consider it. We would love to have you with us. I will pray for you.


c8f40b No.592137

File: d6b4154e11c92b7⋯.jpg (106.18 KB, 843x843, 1:1, 1503503455001.jpg)

>>592115

>Simon Magnus

Magus

>This is beside the fact that one could argue pretty conclusively in favor of the Papacy using scripture alone.

Sure, we Orthodox have always believed that the Roman Church (while it was orthodox of course) was the most venerable and honorable one among equals. And that the cathedra of Rome is primus inter pares. There is no question about that. The problem is that we have a dogma the only a Church Council can have valid decisions on dogmatic and ethic teachings on the Church. If the Pope was enough to proclaim dogmas then why even have councils? Your picture mentioned the Council of Jerusalem that Peter led, well if Peter was enough to represent the whole Church why even meet other Apostles? It is the question of authority. Did Peter have an authority over other apostles? Did the first Popes have it over other bishops? He might have had the moral high ground but not the power.


4eb272 No.592144

>>592100

OK, then source them, and prove Aquinas could not use other documents to prove them. Aquinas is a Saint, not Christ. He is fallible.

>>592137

Silly argument. Why have a President? Why even have leaders? With no spear-head, Catholicism would turn into any other Protestant or secular organization, with nobody to corral the Church when in times of critical need.

The function of the Pope promotes unity, even when the Pope himself may promote disunity.


64e9c4 No.592147

>>592013

>Catholics, how badly do I need to convert?

Like your salvation depends on it?

Schism is a mortal sin and separates one from the church without which there is no salvation.

You wouldn't need to be reconfirmed as Eastern confirmations are valid. All you have to do is go to confession and repent your schism.

As to those other things, well this applies to anything you believe to be true, sometimes you have to accept that you will lose people or suck up the embarrassment. Jesus did call us to deny ourselves and carry are cross daily.


64e9c4 No.592148

>>592020

It means he likes the Eastern Church for rejecting the Roman Church


52a74d No.592150

File: 25be2be117513f6⋯.jpg (107.1 KB, 601x600, 601:600, 21b96b8a50d6378965d2d94c5c….jpg)

>>592147

I call this the error of "pope as micromanager". The argument is basically "If someone is in charge, why have anyone else?

Well, if God is all powerful, why does He mediate through angels? Why doesn't He just do it all Himself? Ruminate on that.

Leadership is there for the people it serves. A title for the pope is "Servant of the servants of God". There are multiple levels for why you have a pope, but the most primary one is a pope can only be a leader if there is something to lead. This idea that the popes existence somehow negates the episcopate is nonsense. Rather, the Pope only exist because of the episcopate. Without a leader, you would be lost in a sea of confusion. Everyone asserting their own opinions, debating each other with no recourse to settle disputes. There would be no way to really know where the real body is as people eventually separate from each other, scatter from one another. There would be no doctrinal unity. This bishop would say one thing, another will say something else. The only ways to justify something like that would be to claim that they disagree only on unimportant issues. But then you've destroyed the sanctity of the faith. You've relegated so much of it to being extraneous, you are fundamentally arguing it is "unimportant". Why is so much of the God given faith "unimportant"? Well because you have no leader!

This should be scary if an issue is in dispute among this leaderless group is among the path of darkness. Say, birth control. Something which can place a weight upon your soul to drag you to hell. It would be best to have someone who can say with authority that it is wrong. Thankfully Christ left us with a leader so we can know this.

Every level of the Church, earthly and divine, has hierarchy. This is not a pattern that arbitrarily ends with the episcopate. But rather comes to it's fullest realization there, with the episcopate being an icon of the apostles. Like the apostles, there is a head, from which the keys were given first so they may be given to others. From one comes unity, so there may be no occasion for schism or dispute.

To bring us full circle to the start, we have a leader so that we can have a One group. A group without a leader is not a group, but a mob. A mob is not one, but many individuals. Christ left us a Church that is One.

>["Men and brethren," etc.] Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He did not say, 'We are sufficient.' So far was he beyond all vain-glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. But well might these things be done in this fashion, through the noble spirit of the man, and because prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed. This neither made the elected to become elated, for it was to dangers that they were called, nor those not elected to make a grievance of it, as if they were disgraced. But things are not done in this fashion now; nay, quite the contrary.— For observe, they were an hundred and twenty, and he asks for one out of the whole body: with good right, as having been put in charge of them: for to him had Christ said, "And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren." Luke 22:32

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210103.htm


52a74d No.592151


7b1306 No.592157

File: ba0320e29c26471⋯.jpg (233.23 KB, 768x970, 384:485, _20170704_102326.JPG)

>>592137

>If the Pope was enough to proclaim dogmas then why even have councils?

Because differing perspectives and experiences allow for informed decision-making.

>Your picture mentioned the Council of Jerusalem that Peter led, well if Peter was enough to represent the whole Church why even meet other Apostles?

Because the apostles represent the foundation of the church. They are as important, but in order to function as a united whole, there must be a single person to finalize any agreement which cannot otherwise be reached.

>Did Peter have an authority over other apostles?

Certainly, but having authority doesn't mean you have to exercise it all the time.

>Did the first Popes have it over other bishops?

Yes, Peter's authority is not exempt from apostolic succession.

<Simon Magnus

I know, I know. I didn't type the stupid thing myself. It kills me.


c8f40b No.592160

File: 423fc797ae92642⋯.jpg (423.42 KB, 1934x1938, 967:969, 15056434090270.jpg)

>>592150

Your arguments are valid but the questions of authority should NOT belong to the sphere of dogmatic teachings but to the matter of canonical law. In the early Church there was no canonical law. The canonical law and the system of church administration have been created by human minds, of course they are or should be based on biblical basics but still, they are a human creation. To keep it briefly, the question on how the Church should be governed, who has the infallibility: the Pope of Rome or an Ecumenical council represented of all the bishops is not a dogmatic question. But you, Catholics, have made it a dogmatic question.

So it turns out, the for me, an Orthodox anon in order to be in communion with you, a Catholic anon, I have to be in communion with the Pope of Rome and in order to do that I have to BELIEVE that he has the ultimate AUTHORITY over the Church.

Look. As a Christians all our fundamental believes or dogmas are traditionally collected in the Credo or the Symbol of Faith or Nicene-Constantinople Creed. Those are dogmas that we have to believe to be called Christians. There is no mentioning of the Pope and his authority. Yes, there is "We believe in […] In one holy catholic and apostolic Church…" but Pope is not mentioned. So it is a question of consensus how we should be governed.


761c96 No.592170

>>592115

no Isaiah 22:22 next to mt 16:19

>And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

>And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.


8c8292 No.592186

>>592170

I see your Isaiah 22:22 and I counter with my Revelation 3:7

(or just read the church fathers really instead of repeating arguments from catholic forum boards)


f00ce0 No.592191

>>592186

When you tell a Catholic to read the fathers, all he hears is Augustine, Aquinas, and Anselm.


6ade15 No.592193

Since we're on the subject of Catholic vs. Orthodox, can I become Orthodox and still agree with most of Aquinas' writings?


8c8292 No.592197

>>592191

Not necessarily.

It's just funny that I keep seeing the Isaiah 22 argument when it seems to come from people on message boards thinking they are geniuses and have noticed something nobody had seen before.

Another funny one is Revelation 22:1.

>>592193

You might want to check out the book "Orthodox Readings of Aquinas."

There was a brief period of Byzantine Thomism, but nowadays the Orthodox are allergic to Aquinas more often than not, although that would principally be because of the Latin captivity.

I see nothing wrong with Aquinas besides his defense of things that we disagree with, like the filioque, but you may want to bring this question to a priest, he'll give you a more authoritative answer than anyone here can.


c77e39 No.592206

>>592086

>Catholics are responsible for 90% of Christians

That's 50% actually:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/dec/23/84-percent-world-population-has-faith-third-are-ch/

https://www.livescience.com/27244-the-world-s-catholic-population-infographic.html

>Why do Catholics get so many Saints and so many miracles that are extremely documented while Orthodox get a few that are shady?

Because Catholicism hasn't had it's share of fake bleeding statues? Continuing on that note:

>Fatima is a demonic apparition

Considering the over the top Mariolotry and emotionalism the Apparition and others before and after pushed for (i.e. Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary) among other heresies, and never even directly identifying herself as the Mother of God: yes, that's exactly what the Fatima Apparition and other "Marion" Apparitions are:

http://www.orthodox.org/Fatima.pdf

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/marian_apparitions.aspx

>Equally doubtful would be any suggestion of replacing "Christ our God, long-suffering, all-merciful, all-compassionate, Who loves the righteous and has mercy on sinners," with a distant, impersonal figure of wrath, bent on punishment and vengeance.

>The apparition of La Salette said, "I can no longer hold back the heavy arm of my Son;" the apparition of Fatima: "… already He is deeply offended." At San Damiano, 1961, 'The Eternal Father is tired, very tired…. He has freed the Demon, who is working havoc. " At Oliveto Citra, Italy, in 1985, again we hear, "I can no longer hold back the righteous arm of my Son."

>The sayings echo the unbalanced but very popular teachings of some of the Latin saints and preachers of the past, whereby Christ's Kingdom of justice was opposed to Mary's Kingdom of Mercy. "If God is angry with a sinner, Mary takes him under her protection, she withholds the avenging arm of her Son and saves him" (Alphonsus Liguari). "She is the sure refuge of sinners and criminals from the rigour of the wrath and vengeance of Jesus Christ;" she "binds the power of Jesus Christ to prevent the evil He would do to the guilty" (Jean-Jacques Olier).

>Absurdities from La Salette speak for themselves, with the apparition claiming that she had given the people six days for work and reserved the seventh for herself

Seriously?

>>592013

OP, there was a time when proper Christianity was almost hopelessly outnumbered by those who subscribed to the Arian heresy. When it comes to the truth, numbers don't matter.


761c96 No.592283

why do the orthodox on this board have so much animosity towards catholics?

>>592186

> And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia, write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth:

Alright, I'll try to understand what you meant.

So Christ has the Key of the house of David. The key of the house of David opens the gate of the earthly Jerusalem. so you are implying Christ has the key to open earthly Jerusalem.

That doesn't make sense so it's not it.

So the key of the house of David in Rev 3:7 is the key of the kingdom of heaven, and it says David because it's referencing the type of Isa 22:22

so Christ has the keys of the kingdom of heaven, is this correct?

Then Christ with the keys of the kingdom of heaven never gave them to St. Peter because He still has them in heaven.

this sounds like what you are trying to say but makes no sense, so I will continue. it makes no sense because no one argues that God can't forgive anymore because he delegated authority to the apostles to forgive sins.

So Christ has the keys of the kingdom of heaven and we know he gave them to St. Peter in mt 16:19. when David gave the keys to his prime minister, did he lose his authority as king? no, it was delegated authority and the king retained all of his authority. He had the keys of the House of David even though he gave them to his prime minister, because we know he took them back and then gave them to another prime minister.

So Christ and Saint Peter have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with Christ fulfilling the type of the King David and St. Peter fulfilling the type of the Prime Minister of King David as seen in Isa 22:22, Mt 16:19 and rev 3:7.


52a74d No.592299

>>592160

>There is no mentioning of the Pope and his authority,

It doesn't speak anything of the Eucharist or of the real presence. It doesn't speak of the episcopate at all actually. It doesn't speak of liturgies.

>Look. As a Christians all our fundamental believes or dogmas are traditionally collected in the Credo or the Symbol of Faith or Nicene-Constantinople Creed.

Is this some sort of sola nicea? I've never really seen that before.

>So it is a question of consensus

This has never been the case. The only thing like this is an invention by the separated eastern churches because they needed to figure out how to justify changes in teaching that they had no control over. The first time I see anything like this was a writing in 1850 in response to the Pope asking why they reject Florence. I really can't find anything older than that. And then this sort of "democracy of the laity" idea spread rapidly.


eff39e No.592314

File: 791bf57ea23fedd⋯.png (153.06 KB, 945x745, 189:149, Church History.png)

Come home, Orthoman.


8265a8 No.592319

File: 27d46b3f45613e4⋯.jpg (57.91 KB, 320x545, 64:109, jfSy2RMV0d0gbn19X96gXWRqfB….jpg)

File: ce81d43d818198d⋯.png (346.44 KB, 500x499, 500:499, Screenshot 2018-01-21 at 7….png)

>>592314

Baptist history is so fascinating


c8f40b No.592327

File: 8be0a58ad3d76da⋯.jpg (76.26 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1510419185001.jpg)

>>592299

>Is this some sort of sola nicea? I've never really seen that before.

Seriously? That is literally why Filioque is such a great deal. The unilateral revision of the Nicene-Constantinople Creed by the Pope is what is considered to be the formal reason that led to the Great Schism.

>It doesn't speak anything of the Eucharist or of the real presence. It doesn't speak of the episcopate at all actually. It doesn't speak of liturgies.

That's true. But why would it? The Creed's purpose is do distinguish between Christianity and heresy. I.e. you have to be a Trinitarian, a Christocentric etc. But your Catholic teaching is that a believer who believes in all of the above but is not in communion with the Pope still does not belong to the One True Church. In other words, for you Catholics the canonical and administrative position of the Pope is as important as, let's say, Trinity.

>This has never been the case.

This has always been the case in the East. How do you imagine a papacy during the first three centuries of the persecutions? The bishop of Rome may haven't even known that a new episcopacy had been established earlier somewhere in modern day Georgia or in Armenia. Imagine a papal legate come to Antioch and say "You guys need to follow Pope's will or you're heretics!" in the 9th century. The patriarchy of Antioch has been self governed since apostles Peter and Paul have established it. And now they have to recognize the Pope's not only spiritual dictate but an administrative one based on Pope's interpretation of the New Testament. Forgive me, I might be emotional, but the fact is that the Pope have never had the power over the Eastern Churches since day one. And that is history. So you have either admit that it is possible to be in communion with Pope without kissing his shoe or that all the Orthodox believers have always been heretics.


d79173 No.592349

>>592314

reminds me of that jewish sect that heard john the baptist and thought they had to be baptized everyday


d79173 No.592350

"AND THE SON" was first added by the Latin Third Council of Toledo, Spain, in 589 AD. This fateful formula was not officially adopted by Old Rome until the year 1014—over 600 years after the Council of Constantinople.


9ffabf No.598619

>More importantly, I already have Orthodox godparents now and they already love me as godparents should. God knows how they would feel.

Do it for them. Your parents don't care as much as they do. Just pray that we can one day mend the East-West schism.


183402 No.598648

File: 728762fc52ed2ec⋯.jpg (61.75 KB, 604x450, 302:225, Horse.jpg)

Many of your problems are being caused by a warped viewpoint. You're only a month in and beset by doubt – I strongly encourage you to avoid acting on impulse and calm down.

>Why are we such a tiny minority in this country? (US) Why do I have to explain everything about my "Eastern/Greek Orthodox religion" to pretty much everybody, including my own family?

The USA is a traditionally Protestant country; you know this. Basic principles of Catholicism are foreign to most Christians in US, let alone the principles of Orthodoxy. This is a problem with your perspective – be grateful you're not converting in a predominantly atheist nation like Japan. Consider how much harder they must have it with those close to them.

Why didn't I just get my Catholic confirmation instead of getting chrismated at a church that no matter how much I explain it, it's still foreign to my (lapsed Catholic) family members? How can I be the light in their lives that could help and inspire them to live a life in Christ if they see my faith as some obscure hobby of sorts?

This is entirely their problem. Christ commands us to consider our faith above all else, even our family. If they can't understand why you wound up in the Orthodox Church (or even worse, belittle it because they don't understand it, despite your explanations) that's not your fault and outside your control.

>Why would Jesus allow his one true church to be so ethnically divided along with an ugly jurisdictional mess?

This is a silly question; you're not seeing the forest for the trees and getting caught up in the visuals. In spite of our human weakness, despite the heresy of ethnophyletism, the Orthodox Church holds true to the One True Faith and maintains Apostolic Tradition in its absolute fullness. God gives us the greatest miracle in the Liturgy, which we all share. We're bound by our common partaking of Christ's Body and Blood; the rest is fluff.

>Why would Jesus allow his one true church to come to no agreement about calendars and that whole toll house thing?

If you were living in ~800 AD, you could just as easily ask why Iconoclasm was dividing the Church and reason that God has abandoned us because of it. In comparison to past heresies, each of these issues are minor. The Church is dealing with them at the Church's pace – decades or centuries to complete resolution. Like all heresies, they will be (and are) resolved in time.

Why would Jesus allow his one true church to be so pisspoor at evangelizing?

This is a human weakness caused by ethnophyletic issues, and the modern world changing at such a quick clip that the Church is having a hard time keeping up. It's something that we're addressing; considering evangelizing problems a blight from God rather than the Lord's call to action is again a problem with your perspective.

>I don't care about the filioque,

This is a failure of your catechesis. Is it the most important thing in the world? By all means, no. But it's a significant doctrinal deviation and you need to understand why you should care about it, even if only in passing.

>but I'm growing increasingly disappointed that we don't have a unifying Pope figure who happens to be the direct successor to the Prince of the apostles

Catechesis. We use the Council system for an extremely important reason. Naturally, they're not as effective as having a man give all the orders, but have a long conversation with your priest or deacon about Councils in Church history and Holy Tradition.

>on top of a generally richer theological/philosophical tradition as the Catholics do.

Catechesis. Ask your priest or deacon about the failure of Scholastic theology. Catholic tradition looks rich, and I don't deny there is a great amount of wisdom in some areas of Catholic theology – however, approaching God from a philosophical viewpoint is necessarily reductive and unnatural in practice.

>tfw no single orthoqts of reasonable age

Do not let your crotch guide your faith.

>The main things preventing me from converting is that despite their varying ranges of confusion, my family still felt very proud of me when they saw me chrismated just last month and I fear that if I have to convert back to Rome, I can't even imagine what kind of feelings they would have at my confirmation.

You made it. You joined the Church, and now satan has set every doubt in your heart to win you back. Surprisingly enough, he didn't enjoy being spit on.

>More importantly, I already have Orthodox godparents now and they already love me as godparents should. God knows how they would feel.

Rely on them in this situation. Ask them what to do, talk to them about your concerns. The Church is a single body. If you cut yourself off from it, you will not survive.


dad9bc No.598698

I’m Catholic and I cannot stand these false flag threads…


ef93f2 No.598742

>>592013

>Why do I have to explain everything about my "Eastern/Greek Orthodox religion" to pretty much everybody, including my own family?

So you don't want to evangelize ? The one true Church is the Catholic Church, my friend. The Easterners lost this privilege when they broke Communion (several times). Only those that are Byzantine and oriental Catholic have the privilege to call themselves part of the one true Church. That's the sad but true reality.

It is not Christ who divided the Church, it were power hungry patriarchs from the East that wanted to turn their level of influence in some kind of godkinghood, similar to what we know about Xerxes I. (the real guy, not the homo from the 300 movie).

Your problem seems more that you aren't really (willing) doing the Lord's will. Although we say and highly urge everyone to come to the Catholic Church, there is nothing wrong with being a faithful and pious ortho. If you are member of the orthodox Church and you are baptized, chrismated and initiated there, why would you throw that away ? The first thing I urge you to do is to humble yourself. You seem to have some kind of "plan" for yourself. Forget that. Second of all, I want you to pray the Rosary - and if you don't want to, because it's "muh catholic", then pray the rule of St. Seraphim of Sarov (i.e. the rule of Theotokos). And discern what God wants for you. This is the most important part, because I guarantee you that if you come to the Catholic Church now - despite it being the right decision from a theological standpoint - you would have the exact same problems. It would even become worse, because contrary to orthodoxy, Catholics are under constant fire (especially in America) and slander, and you seem to value what overs say and think way more (at least at the moment) than anything else.

To conclude: Stop to have an agenda. Stop aligning your faith with what others say and think. Do what God wants. If you don't know what that is, engage in deep prayer and contemplation regularly and ask for guidance. Ideally join the Catholic Church, but if you don't, at least humble yourself and stop making it important to you how others see you. All other objections rely exactly on this. Your Godparents are there for a reason. They are there to guide you in times of trouble. This is true for all churches, even those that are not Catholic.


20ed0a No.598786

>>598648

>meme heresy of ethnophyletism

Stopped reading here


20ed0a No.598788

>>598786

Fr. Hopko on phyletism:

>When the Bulgarians really made a massive official movement, so to speak, to have their own Church in independence from Constantinople, they went into a schism, which was done around 1872, around the time that they had this permission to have their own Church organization. And here comes a very interesting fact, for Orthodox structure and governance in the Church, that’s still very much a powerful presence in our Church life to this day, and that is: when the Bulgarians officially insisted that they should govern themselves and choose their own bishops from among their own people, Constantinople accused them of heresy. And that heresy was called “phyletism”. The claim was that it is anti-Orthodox and anti-Christian, any action of establishing a separate Church administration on the basis of nationality. And this was officially condemned by the Patriarchs—all of whom were Greeks—of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, in 1872, as the heresy of “phyletism”, meaning nationality as the basis for separate Church structures. That is so ironic, because that’s exactly what finally triumphed, and what Constantinople now supports very clearly, especially in the so-called diaspora—the New World, United States, Canada—that there should be Orthodox jurisdictions here just literally based on nationality. The Greeks have theirs, the Bulgarians have theirs, and of course the Serbians—we’ll get to them—and Romanians will have theirs, the Russians will have theirs—you can see the hypocrisy of this particular act. The Greek bishops wanted to maintain Greek control over an area where the mass of population was not Greek, and when that population said ‘we would like to have our own Church structures and choose our bishops’, they said it’s heresy to think so because the Church is above nationalism. They use that argument that the Church is above nationalism to keep their own national bishops—Hellenic Greek bishops—in those particular areas. Excuse me, but I believe that’s just about the height of hypocrisy that you can come to. And it’s still used to this day, when it’s convenient, so to speak.


761c96 No.599654

>>598742

>, there is nothing wrong with being a faithful and pious ortho.

Hold up, did you just commit the error of religious indifferentism?




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / cafechan / leftpol / monarchy / radcorp / strek / sw / toil ]