A Note for Evangelicals Considering Rome

Orthodox Christian Information Center ^ | 1997 | Clark Carlton

[jecIIny]

Long article which I found interesting. Note the quotes in the article appear to be indicated with foot noted numbers rather then quotation marks which can be a bit confusing. Comments anyone?

[Walkenfree]

"Comments anyone"?
Yes, Somebody please push Control,Alt,Delete; My brain froze.

[markomalley]

An interesting read, but, as with most Orthodox postings, it goes at great pains to stress anti-Catholicism rather than to forward a positive message of what actually characterizes Orthodox spirituality. Why would I want to be an Antiochan Orthodox, as opposed to a Maronite Catholic, for example...

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Here you will find the guidance you need for the healing and salvation of your soul.

So your soul is saved via the orthodox church?

[jo kus]

The development of doctrine is the excuse used by Roman Catholics to justify every change in doctrine from the Filioque to papal infallibility. .

A tired cliche. Have these Orthodox forgotten the various Councils from the first millenium? Wasn't THAT ALSO development of doctrine? The problem, for them, is that the Church is legitimate ONLY if they are involved in it. Any future development after the Schism, naturally, COULDN'T possibly be valid - although schism had been part of the Church even before the Eastern Churches separated. I imagine that the Coptics make the same argument that the Orthodox make, only set back 500 years further into the past.

Regards

[sassbox]

Yet another sad anti-Catholic polemic. It's ironic that the author takes such pains to show how Catholics misunderstand Orthodoxy but then makes several ignorant pronouncements that show he similarly misunderstands Catholicism. No one who is even mildly educated in Catholic theology could say that a person who converts from Presbyterianism to Catholicism hasn't changed anything. What a ludicrous statement - it shows an insulting ignorance of both Catholicism and Protestantism.

I thought this article would present reasons why a Protestant should consider Orthodoxy. There is nothing in this article, however, that I could imagine would move the heart of a Protestant towards the East. Instead of presenting the positive aspects of Orthodoxy, it is more a bitter, sniping, and misinformed attack on Catholicism. How is that supposed to encourage Protestants to convert to Orthodoxy?

[xzins]

Any protestant who considers "conversion" to Catholicism must blatantly ignore some serious issues. After reading a few of Scott Hahn's books, it is evident to me that he, too, ignored these things.....merely glossing over them.

First, the immaculate conception. It is pure theological fabrication with no apparent justification other than wishful thinking.

Second, papal primacy. This is a construct, a religious anointing of an ancient political hierarchy with which early churches interacted.

[sanormal]

"In other words, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are but two sides of the same coin. They may present different faces, but the underlying substance is the same."

The author seems to be content with destroying paper tigers rather than addressing fundamental issues.

His assessment that the reason Protestants consider Rome is that they are really "Crypto-Papists" is hilarious. He obviously did some real digging for that gem. Thanks for the hearty laugh this morning. I needed it.

[Campion]

It is pure theological fabrication with no apparent justification other than wishful thinking.

Really, I think it's up to y'all to explain why you think Jesus, who (you presumably agree) kept the commandment "Honor thy father and thy mother" perfectly, perfectly honored his mother by creating her spiritually dead, enslaved by sin, and in bondage to the devil.

Do you think you would be honoring your mother by creating her that way? Do you think being in the state of spiritual death honors anyone, or makes anyone "more human"?

Also, you might study up on the word kecharitomene, which is how the Archangel Gabriel addresses the Blessed Mother -- he uses that word as though it were her given name. Jerome translates it gratia plena, "full of grace". It is, IIRC, the past participle of charitoo, to grace, and means that Mary was already "completely graced" at some point in the past.

[xzins]

As I said, it is wishful thinking.

Many might want it to be so, but there's no justification for it in either the old or new testaments.

It simply isn't there.

[Campion]

This is pretty much the standard Orthodox anti-Catholic polemic. Anyone who builds their thesis around Khomiakov's argument that "Rome and Geneva are two sides of the same coin" isn't interested in really addressing real issues; they're interested in pigeonholing their opponents so they don't have to understand them.

[Campion]

As I said, it is wishful thinking.

Why don't you try addressing my arguments, instead of dismissing them?

[xzins]

An additional truth is that Hahn uses the absolute flimsiest justification for the assumption of Mary...the vision of the woman and dragon is revelation.

That, clearly a symbolic passage, has been used for many purposes. To build an entire doctrine of the assumption upon it is an endeavor that wouldn't be permitted on other theological issues. And Hahn knew it, because he even noted the scriptural flimsiness of the association.

[xzins]

I did.

I said it doesn't appear in the testaments.

I might suggest that Jesus wouldn't want his mother to want for anything so he made her wealthy right before he died....and even though he had the power to do so (Peter & the gold in the fish's mouth), for me to claim it as fact because he really would have cared "the best" for his mother would be fanciful on my part.

[armydoc]

Really, I think it's up to y'all to explain why you think Jesus, who (you presumably agree) kept the commandment "Honor thy father and thy mother" perfectly, perfectly honored his mother by creating her spiritually dead, enslaved by sin, and in bondage to the devil.

Your position would argue for a sinless Joseph as well, would it not?

[Campion]

That, clearly a symbolic passage, has been used for many purposes. To build an entire doctrine of the assumption upon it

Which isn't what the church does. We don't see any need to prooftext like you folks do; our faith isn't reverse-engineered from the Bible.

There's authority in tradition for the Assumption. There's authority in the practice and belief of the undivided Church prior to 1054. And finally there's this obvious problem that we know that the early church venerated Mary, and venerated relics of saints, but nobody venerates first class relics of Mary (a first-class relic is a part of a saint's body) because they don't exist. People have, or claim to have, the skull of John the Baptist, and the arm of St. Anne (Mary's mother), and the bones of the Magi, etc., but nobody claims to have the skull of Mary.

Having said all of that, the passage you're concerned with in Rev certainly refers to Mary as an individual just as it refers to Jesus as an individual. That does not mean that the woman does not have a corporate symbolic meaning as well.

[Campion]

Your position would argue for a sinless Joseph as well, would it not?

That's not an impossibility, of course, and something which would be a permissable pious opinion for Catholics.

However, Joseph was not Christ's father but his foster father, and it's not clear that the commandment would obligate Jesus in the same way.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

--our faith isn't reverse-engineered from the Bible.--

That deserves copying down. Make someone a good tag line.

[Campion]

I said it doesn't appear in the testaments.

Neither does the word "Trinity". You're setting up a hoop for Catholic doctrine to jump through that, applied consistently, would make you a JW.

I might suggest that Jesus wouldn't want his mother to want for anything so he made her wealthy right before he died....and even though he had the power to do so (Peter & the gold in the fish's mouth), for me to claim it as fact because he really would have cared "the best" for his mother would be fanciful on my part.

For you to draw an equivalence between spiritual life and material wealth is downright frightening. I think Jesus probably knew which one is more important, and the material wealth doesn't necessarily "honor" its recipient.

[Alex Murphy]

To begin with, the division of the Orthodox world into various, self-governing national Churches has more to do with the Western European phenomenon of nationalism and the subsequent interference of western powers (Great Britain, in particular) in the internal affairs of the Balkan nations than it does with the internal logic of Orthodoxy. While nationalism has been and remains a problem for Orthodoxy, it is in no way of the essence of Orthodoxy. Indeed, in 1872 the Orthodox Church formally condemned as a heresy the theory that the Church should be organized according to ethnic make-up rather than according to territorial dioceses (phyletism).

Interesting. First time I've ever seen this problem acknowledged within Orthodoxy (not that I'm terribly well read on the subject, mind you). It was addressed in 1872 and still remains a problem (and obviously was a large problem prior to 1872).