Questions about Orthodox Chrisitanity and Catholicism answered by an Orthodox

[NoName55]

Can we get back to the original topic on this thread? whilst the discussions between Grenville and Doodlebug are fascinating, I don't see any connection between them and Catholicism and Greek/Russian Orthodoxy.

I bet it is scaring the living daylights out of pagans, kuffaar and other shayateen that Jews, Christian and Muslims may one day realise that they are all followers of Hazrat Ibrahim Alaisalam.

and it does no "good" to let people like Br. Granville speak, who could unite them by their talk.

demons want blood of man not his salvation.

 

[Sarada]

Originally Posted by Sarada
Can we get back to the original topic on this thread? whilst the discussions between Grenville and Doodlebug are fascinating, I don't see any connection between them and Catholicism and Greek/Russian Orthodoxy.

I bet it is scaring the living daylights out of pagans, kuffaar and other shayateen that Jews, Christian and Muslims may one day realise that they are all followers of Hazrat Ibrahim Alaisalam.

and it does no "good" to let people like Br. Granville speak, who could unite them by their talk.

demons want blood of man not his salvation.

Whatever you wish to call me, none of you is "scaring the living daylights out of" me.

I have witnessed more vitriol ( vitriol - abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will) against those of other faiths on this forum in one month, than I have in decades within the Canadian Hindu community.

If these are examples of your concept of civilised debate, they are laughable. :lol:

 

[north_malaysian]

Hi North:

You wrote:
There are two principal Christian Laws which are the same as for the Israelites:
1. The Lord is One, and we should love the Lord with all of our heart, mind, soul and strength.
2. We should love our neighbour as ourselves.

Now, most Christians will not acknowledge Mohammed as a Prophet, and they do not need to. The reason why they will not acknowledge Mohammed as a Prophet is through ignorance - they simply will not read the Qur'an, and they are not required to.

After reading the Qur'an and realizing that the contentious verses can be interpreted to be in harmony with the Bible and with recorded history, without damaging the integrity of the verses, I believe that Muslims who truly followed the Qur'an, and not Islamic tradition, are my brothers and sisters.

Michael, I'm sorry if my replies are off topic - I do not want to change the aim of your thread.

Regards,
Grenville

* Off Topic*
(Sorry for hijacking this thread:zip

Maybe you shoud start a new thread about this.

* Off Topic*

 

[Michael]

Sarada,

The foods prepared for Radonitsa are mainly folk customs. One of the foods also served at Radonitsa and often at pannikhida as well is koliva, which is boiled wheat.


Orthodox Christians consider koliva to be the symbolic of death and resurrection, according to the words of the Gospel:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a grain of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. (John 12:24)​

Wheat which is planted in the earth and rises in new life is symbolic of those beloved departed who have died in the hope of resurrection, in accordance with the words of St. Paul

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body....(I Corinthians 15:42-44)​

This symbolism has its highest expression in the Saints, whose blessed state in heaven have been manifested to the world. For this reason, koliva is blessed not only at memorials for the departed, but also in commemoration of saints.

The red Orthodox Easter eggs have a threefold significance. The red colour represents the blood of Christ, its shell his three-day entombment, and its breaking his Resurrection.

As for the other foods, I really don't know the significance. Like I said, they are folk customs, and I'm not Greek or Russian.

 

[Michael]

A few questions I do want to put to Michael --
Michael, you said you were raised Catholic, are waiting to be baptized in the Orthodox church, and are thinking of converting to Islam. It sounds like you are having trouble settling and are on some sort of spiritual search.

I wasn't brought up Roman Catholic - I was baptized in October 2005 as an adult. My parents didn't practice any religion - my father actually refused to let my mother have me baptized (in the Presbyterian church).

First, what may I ask, have you found lacking in (apparently both) Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity?

One of the main reasons that I left the Roman Catholic Church was the mutilation of the Mass. The Mass that the Catholic Church used for hundreds of years is quite different to the Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970. Pope Paul's Mass made the Mass closer to a Protestant service (which was his intention). While a few groups resisted and used only the old Mass (and some bishops permitted the old Mass to be celebrated once a month, as does our bishop) most of the Catholic world uses the New Mass, which often is devoid of much spirituality found in the traditional Mass. Where I live, a traditional Mass was only available twice a month, and so, I began to look into Orthodoxy. I got a book from the library about it, and reading it convinced me that the Orthodox Church is right and that the Catholic Church was wrong.

As for what I find lacking in Orthodoxy - I didn't find anything lacking in it until I talked to Muslims at Islam Awareness Week (I had previously considered becoming Muslim a couple of years ago but had pulled out, and since then had read lots of anti-Islamic material) I began to read about Islam, and it occured to me that this might be the truth. The Trinity seems sort of illogical to me, as does the divinity of Christ, when there are verses that state that Christ was just a man. I especially like the fact that in Islam, you can have your sins forgiven by repentance, prayers and saying 100 times "Subhan Allahi wa Bihamdihi". In Orthodox Christianity, in order to have your sins forgiven you must go to a priest, confess your sins to God in the priest's presence before an Icon (holy picture) of Jesus Christ, and then have the priest pray the prayer of absolution over you. Also, converts to Orthodoxy must wait a certain amount of time before being baptized. The priest will decide when you want to be baptized. In Islam, you can convert whenever you want. My Orthodox friend in Canada told me that your prayers aren't as powerful until you're baptized. Why, then, is the Church and the priest depriving you of the full benefit of prayer?

Also, if I understood you right you were raised Catholic, so I would assume that you were probably baptized as an infant. Is this true? And if so, why does the Orthodox church expect for you to be baptized again? Do they not recognize Catholic baptism as being valid?

As I explained above, I was baptized as an infant.

Some modernist Orthodox churches accept Catholic baptism as being valid, but this runs contrary to Orthodox tradition. The word "baptizein" in Greek means "to immerse". Orthodox baptize by full immersion in water three times. Catholics usually baptize by pouring water over the person's head. How is pouring water over someone's head an "immersion"? It isn't. Plus the Orthodox Church says that there are no Sacraments (holy mysteries, of which baptism is one) outside of the Orthodox Church, and that the Roman Catholics do not have a valid priesthood.

You can read my full story on my blog.

But this isn't the purpose of this thread. This thread is to answer questions that people have about Catholicism or Orthodox Christianity.

 

[Grace Seeker]

As for what I find lacking in Orthodoxy.... I especially like the fact that in Islam, you can have your sins forgiven by repentance, prayers and saying 100 times "Subhan Allahi wa Bihamdihi". In Orthodox Christianity, in order to have your sins forgiven you must go to a priest, confess your sins to God in the priest's presence before an Icon (holy picture) of Jesus Christ, and then have the priest pray the prayer of absolution over you. Also, converts to Orthodoxy must wait a certain amount of time before being baptized. The priest will decide when you want to be baptized. In Islam, you can convert whenever you want. My Orthodox friend in Canada told me that your prayers aren't as powerful until you're baptized. Why, then, is the Church and the priest depriving you of the full benefit of prayer?

There are of course many Christians who believe that they can go directly to God without the mediation of a priest because Christ is our intercessor. They then ask for forgivenss simply by confessiing their sins, repenting of them, and ask for the Holy Spirit to help keep them from returning to them. Would the Orthodox church, as you have experienced it, claim that such repentance was not a true form of repentance.

Also, my understanding was that all forms of Christianity viewed grace as something that was God's gift to humanity, not something that could be earned by doing the right thing or saying the right words. In suggesting that one could gain forgiveness by saying 100 times "Subhan Allahi wa Bihamdihi" are you saying that you don't agree with the Christian concept of grace or are you saying that you think this fits within the Orthodox view?

Some modernist Orthodox churches accept Catholic baptism as being valid, but this runs contrary to Orthodox tradition. The word "baptizein" in Greek means "to immerse". Orthodox baptize by full immersion in water three times. Catholics usually baptize by pouring water over the person's head. How is pouring water over someone's head an "immersion"? It isn't.

It might then surprise you to learn that the word baptizo[/b] was used for washing things that were merely dipped in water and not necessarily fully immersed. How might this information change your understanding of baptism?

I'm not saying the immersion is wrong, but would this other information perhaps lend credence to other forms of baptism? For instance, the earliest drawings of baptisms show that often a shell was used to dip water from a river or lake which was then poured over the baptized individual's head.

Plus the Orthodox Church says that there are no Sacraments (holy mysteries, of which baptism is one) outside of the Orthodox Church, and that the Roman Catholics do not have a valid priesthood.

I know that there is quite a bit of bad blood between the Orthodox and the Catholic churches in history. But you had earlier said: "Catholics believe that the Pope is the head of the entire Church, the Orthodox believe that all Bishops are equal and that no Bishop has any power outside of his own jurisdiction." How can the Orthodox see all bishops as being equal and yet not recognize the validity of the Catholic priests who are ordained by their bishops? These two things seem to be in disagreement with each other. Are you sure that you properly understand the Orthodox view on this?

 

[Michael]

There are of course many Christians who believe that they can go directly to God without the mediation of a priest because Christ is our intercessor. They then ask for forgivenss simply by confessiing their sins, repenting of them, and ask for the Holy Spirit to help keep them from returning to them. Would the Orthodox church, as you have experienced it, claim that such repentance was not a true form of repentance.

Sincere repentance to God for your sins in prayer is a true form of repentance, but it cannot absolve sin. To be absolved from your sins you must go to a priest, confess your sins to God in the priest's presence, and have the priest pray the prayer of absolution over you.

Also, my understanding was that all forms of Christianity viewed grace as something that was God's gift to humanity, not something that could be earned by doing the right thing or saying the right words. In suggesting that one could gain forgiveness by saying 100 times "Subhan Allahi wa Bihamdihi" are you saying that you don't agree with the Christian concept of grace or are you saying that you think this fits within the Orthodox view?

Orthodox do believe that grace is a free gift. But read the post above. Sins cannot be absolved except through the prayer of absolution said by a priest. Of course you should always ask God's forgivness for your sins.

It might then surprise you to learn that the word baptizo[/b] was used for washing things that were merely dipped in water and not necessarily fully immersed. How might this information change your understanding of baptism?

I study ancient Greek at university. The Orthodox Church, however, has existed since the time of the Apostles, and it has always practiced baptism by thrice immersion, except where this would be impossible.

I know that there is quite a bit of bad blood between the Orthodox and the Catholic churches in history. But you had earlier said: "Catholics believe that the Pope is the head of the entire Church, the Orthodox believe that all Bishops are equal and that no Bishop has any power outside of his own jurisdiction." How can the Orthodox see all bishops as being equal and yet not recognize the validity of the Catholic priests who are ordained by their bishops? These two things seem to be in disagreement with each other. Are you sure that you properly understand the Orthodox view on this?

The Orthodox Church sees the Catholic Church as schismatic since the Great Schism which culminated in 1054 A.D. The Catholic Bishops, therefore, are not part of the Church, they have no apostolic succession, and any sacraments they perform are not valid, including the Sacrament of Holy Orders (ordaining priests). Therefore, any priests ordained by Catholic bishops since the schism have not been priests at all, and their sacraments are not valid.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Sincere repentance to God for your sins in prayer is a true form of repentance, but it cannot absolve sin. To be absolved from your sins you must go to a priest, confess your sins to God in the priest's presence, and have the priest pray the prayer of absolution over you.

How then does the Orthodox church understand 1 John 1:9 -- "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." Is it the opinion of the church that unless a priest is present, that such confession to God is not valid? If so, does that not limit God? If not, then how could it be that such confession which results in the forgiveness of sins and purification from all unrighteousness would some leave sins unabsolved?

Orthodox do believe that grace is a free gift. But read the post above. Sins cannot be absolved except through the prayer of absolution said by a priest. Of course you should always ask God's forgivness for your sins.

You might be able to guess from my questions, that I don't believe that understanding to be correct. Rather, I believe what you said earlier in this thread: "The Bible states that there is one mediator between man and God - Jesus Christ." For that reason, I don't think I need a priest (Catholic or Orthodox) to hear my confession. Not that there is something wrong in confessing to one another as well, but I don't need to do so formally in order for God to grant me his grace. And his grace is all the absolution I need.

But how about you? One of the reasons you gave for expressing an interest in Islam was because "[you] especially like the fact that in Islam, you can have your sins forgiven by repentance, prayers and saying 100 times "Subhan Allahi wa Bihamdihi"." Is it that you disagree with Orthodox (and for that matter Catholic) theology regarding the role of the priest vs. God in imputing grace? Or is it that you want a sort of works righteousness whereby you can do certain prescribed acts in order to obtain God's favor?

I study ancient Greek at university. The Orthodox Church, however, has existed since the time of the Apostles, and it has always practiced baptism by thrice immersion, except where this would be impossible.

Very good. I really enjoyed my Greek studies. Since you're studying it, then you were probably already aware of what I shared about the common usages of baptizo.

Yes, I am awarethat the Orthodox church has practiced baptism by immersion for many years, but I don't think that any of us can really say that it has always been practiced that way unless we were always present. Of course, I do appreciate the symbolism imbuded in the sacrament when performed by immersion. It is my preferred mode as well. I just don't think it is the only mode ordained as acceptable. Truly, one must make sense out of first century drawings which show baptizm being done by pouring water on the head from a shell. And why would the sign of a scallop shell with water dripping from it have been used as a symbol to communicate baptism if baptisms were never done by that means?

The Orthodox Church sees the Catholic Church as schismatic since the Great Schism which culminated in 1054 A.D. The Catholic Bishops, therefore, are not part of the Church, they have no apostolic succession, and any sacraments they perform are not valid, including the Sacrament of Holy Orders (ordaining priests). Therefore, any priests ordained by Catholic bishops since the schism have not been priests at all, and their sacraments are not valid.

And yet, there are conversations between the Orthodox and the Catholic churches to perhaps heal this schism. How would the Orthodox do that. Would they have all of the Catholic priests "re-ordained"? From an Orthodox point of view, as you expressed it, not even the Pope is a valid priest. And I am confused how then it would be that the Orthodox would say, as you did earlier, that "all Bishops are equal". Or are the Orthodox saying that the Pope today is not in fact a true bishop of the Church any longer?

 

[Michael]

How then does the Orthodox church understand 1 John 1:9 -- "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." Is it the opinion of the church that unless a priest is present, that such confession to God is not valid? If so, does that not limit God? If not, then how could it be that such confession which results in the forgiveness of sins and purification from all unrighteousness would some leave sins unabsolved?

The Orthodox teaching is that we are bound by the sacraments, but God is not. God admitted the Good Thief to Paradise without baptism, because it was physically impossible for him to receive it. If we cannot get to a priest for confession, and we sincerely repent of our sins and ask God's forgivness, then He will forgive us, provided we have the intention to confess at the next possible opportunity.

Or is it that you want a sort of works righteousness whereby you can do certain prescribed acts in order to obtain God's favor?

That seems about right.

Yes, I am awarethat the Orthodox church has practiced baptism by immersion for many years, but I don't think that any of us can really say that it has always been practiced that way unless we were always present. Of course, I do appreciate the symbolism imbuded in the sacrament when performed by immersion. It is my preferred mode as well. I just don't think it is the only mode ordained as acceptable. Truly, one must make sense out of first century drawings which show baptizm being done by pouring water on the head from a shell. And why would the sign of a scallop shell with water dripping from it have been used as a symbol to communicate baptism if baptisms were never done by that means?

Baptism by pouring is mentioned in the Didache (the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, considered for inclusion in the Bible), but only when immersion is not possible. In an area where large amounts of water were not possible, then pouring would have been used, hence the drawings.

And yet, there are conversations between the Orthodox and the Catholic churches to perhaps heal this schism. How would the Orthodox do that.

The schism will never be healed. No matter what some liberals say, there are far too many differences separating us to allow a reunification. We would never accept the Pope as the sole representative of Christ on earth, with the power to speak infallibly, and the Pope wouldn't give up that position. Plus, each side considers the other side to be in schism (and heresy) after 1054. Either 1) the Orthodox post-schism saints would have to be rejected and the Catholic saints retained, 2) the Catholic post-schism saints would have to be rejected and the Orthodox saints retained, or 3) All saints, both Catholic and Orthodox, after 1054, would have to be rejected. I can't see the Orthodox giving up St. Nektarios or St. Seraphim, and I can't see the Catholics giving up St. Francis of Assisi or St. Anthony of Padua.

And I am confused how then it would be that the Orthodox would say, as you did earlier, that "all Bishops are equal". Or are the Orthodox saying that the Pope today is not in fact a true bishop of the Church any longer?

All Orthodox Bishops are equal. No Orthodox Bishop has any power that other Bishops don't have. However, the Pope is not an Orthodox Bishop, since his church has been out of commuion with us for almost 1,000 years. The Roman Catholics have lost apostolic succession through schism. (Apostolic succession - the continuation of the Church through the Apostles appointing and consecrating successors to themselves. The successors are Bishops.)

 

[Grace Seeker]

originally posted by Grace Seeker
Or is it that you want a sort of works righteousness whereby you can do certain prescribed acts in order to obtain God's favor?

That seems about right.

Michael, I suppose that this is not about Orthodox or Catholic beliefs, but your own, and so maybe I'm going off topic. And if too personal, please forgive me, but you understand that this isn't the way God works.

We don't do certain things, say certain words, perform certain rituals and then tell God to bless it or to bless us. We seek God first, submit our will to him, and then live in his blessings. And when we fall short of what he wills for our lives, again it isn't about what mankind does to earn God's favor. The best we can hope for is to return to serving God again like we should have, and seek his forgiveness in faith and trust that he will grant it. I believe that those who have made a connection to God through Christ Jesus are assured of the forgiveness by the promises of God. As for others, I will not speculate one way or the other. I only hold out the hope that because God is indeed gracious that they may experience it as well, but no saying of a few rote words is going to guarantee that, it will be only, it can be only, an act of God's own choosing.