Why Catholicism

[desertwoman]

and not Orthodox? I've been studying about Catholicism for about 2 years now and there are still things that I don't grasp or understand. During the course of the New Year, I've been talking to a real cool Coptic friend of mine and some of his reasons why he didn't choose to be Coptic Catholic and remained Coptic Orthodox.

Of course, they don't view the Pope as infallible, and they don't believe in the IC. They do believe that Mary is the Theotokos, but she was a human and not born sinless. If Mary was born sinless, then she could have been sufficient for our sins (which I do agree about). I do believe that she is special for she bore the Christ, but she was just a human being like the rest of us. Full of grace yes, but born sinless... no. Plus, they have qualms about these revelations coming forth afterwards, that these were not what the apostles preached at first. They all preached about Christ being present in the Eucharist, and that there are seven sacraments and so forth, but the others are seen as addition to tradition that all the apostles taught in the four corners of the earth.


What say ye?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i don't think the orthodox church gets the credit it deserves.

to me, even now to a degree, i always looked at them as some church way over there, separate from me and anything of matter. but as i give it more thought, i realize they coudl be just as right as the CC. it doesn't necessarily have to be where i am what's right.

isorta like i usta look at islam as a bunch of religois folk who did lots of rituals way over there with not muc hthought. now i give them a lot more attention. true, some of that is concern and bias as if they are violent etc, but i do consider them more now. like soemone who finally becomes assertive everyone now realizes they exist and takes them seriously.

the orthodox needs a media stint to get some more attention on them. they definitely should have a place at the table for consideration.

[desertwoman]

My friend gave me a link saying that alot of people are converting to the orthodox church. The one thing that turned me off about orthodox churches is the "racism." so to say, I went to a Greek Orthodox Church and asked some questions, and they just brushed me off. Its kinda like they didn't want me to join their church due to the fact that I'm not Greek. This has happened time and time again, and it makes me believe that some of the orthodox churches are they for ethnic reasons. I could be wrong, and hope that I am, but its really disheartening.

[url="http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-01-11-orthodox_x.htm"]conversion to Orthodox Churches[/url]

[Starets]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1177290' date='Jan 26 2007, 11:06 PM']
My friend gave me a link saying that alot of people are converting to the orthodox church. The one thing that turned me off about orthodox churches is the "racism." so to say, I went to a Greek Orthodox Church and asked some questions, and they just brushed me off. Its kinda like they didn't want me to join their church due to the fact that I'm not Greek. [/quote]

I like to call that attitude "denominationalism"

[Era Might]

The answer to your question would require a book. :

The basic (albeit not very satisfying) answer would be that we believe Catholicism to be true. I hate to have to recommend books, but it's hard to distill such a massive topic into a few paragraphs.

1. "The Russian Church and the Papacy" ([url="http://www.amazon.com/Russian-Church-Papacy-Vladimir-Soloviev/dp/1888992298"][u]LINK[/u][/url]) by Vladimir Soloviev. A look at the Papacy by a famous Eastern theologian.

2. "Mary and the Fathers of the Church" ([url="http://www.amazon.com/Mary-Fathers-Church-Blessed-Patristic/dp/0898706866/sr=1-1/qid=1169868596/ref=sr_1_1/002-2752740-8694427?ie=UTF8&s=books"][u]LINK[/u][/url]) by Luigi Gambero. Not specifically dealing with the Orthodox, but an excellent presentation of the major development of Mariology in the Fathers of the Church. It's written by a Catholic, but it is a fair and informative book. The Fathers are indispensable for evaluating Eastern and Western thought.

[desertwoman]

Hey Era. Thanks, and are you still converting to the other rite?

[Era Might]

Long way off, but we'll see what the future holds. Lot of discerning to do on that before doing anything drastic.

[desertwoman]

True that. When I'm studying more and more, it seems as if the west and east or at odds with the mind and the heart so to speak.

The west focus more on reason, and scholastics. The east focuses on the mysteries and the heart. One explanation given is about the Eucharist. The east does believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist, but they don't know and wont give you a definitive answer as to when it happens. Its a mystery, let it be a mystery. This is a religion of faith, use your heart.

I do appeal to that more so than the scholastic part, yet I don't find dementia appealing in any way.

[Era Might]

I hear you, although I think the East and West are somewhat caricatured by those differences. The West is not all definition and the East is not all mystery. The Greek Fathers could go all out theologically with the best of them. It was the the tiny difference between two GREEK words, after all, "homoousios" and "homoiousios", that led to such controversy at Nicaea. Mystery is important, but definition is as well. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Western Church was so successful with massive evangelization and basically built western civilization. The western model is very masculine, going out and initiating, grappling with ideas, answering questions, whereas the East may flourish more when it has already been received in a certain area.

[cmotherofpirl]

Both sides of the coin are indispensable to the Church

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1177257' date='Jan 26 2007, 10:45 PM']
They do believe that Mary is the Theotokos, but she was a human and not born sinless. If Mary was born sinless, then she could have been sufficient for our sins (which I do agree about). I do believe that she is special for she bore the Christ, but she was just a human being like the rest of us. Full of grace yes, but born sinless... no.
[/quote]

Christ was sinless correct? Yes. Where did Christ "get" His flesh? Mary. If Mary was not without sin, what is to stop Christ from receiving Mary's sin? Nothing, Christ would have receive original sin from His mother. But we know Christ is sinless, and He received His flesh from His mother alone.

What about when Christ was in her womb? When they where one, sharing everything. God, Christ can not come in to contact with sin, can not be one with sin, how then could Mary be sinful, and Christ be sinless yet share everything like any mother and child?

What the mother eats the child eats, the mothers blood flow is the child's blood flow. This is how original sin is pass to generations. If Mary was sinful how did Christ not contact that sin? They where one, Christ can not be one with sin, but if Mary was sinful then God was too, at least in her womb.

Sin is the absence of Grace, yet we both agree she was "Full" of Grace. Full of Grace, not like us partly graceful and partly sinful.

How can Mary be Full of Grace, yet still have room for sin? When sin is the absence of Grace?

Edited January 27, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1177257' date='Jan 26 2007, 10:45 PM']
If Mary was born sinless, then she could have been sufficient for our sins (which I do agree about).
[/quote]

How simply because she was sinless? Did she bear our sins? No. Did she die for our sins? No.

We sin against God, who is infinite. When we sin we contract an infinite debt, but we can not pay a infinite debt, because we, and Mary are finite beings.

Only the infinite can pay, an infinite debt. Mary was finite she was not sufficient for our sins, sinless or not.

Edited January 27, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]Christ was sinless correct? Yes. Where did Christ "get" His flesh? Mary. If Mary was not without sin, what is to stop Christ from receiving Mary's sin? Nothing, Christ would have receive original sin from His mother. But we know Christ is sinless, and He received His flesh from His mother alone.[/quote]

The problem with this is that if St. Mary, the Theotokos, had to be sinless in order for Jesus to be sinless, then St. Mary's mother [St. Anne] [and respectfully her father too ] would have had to be sinless in order for her to be born without sin too. If you're going to use the theology that St. Mary, the Theotokos, was sinless in order for Jesus to be sinless, then you also have to go as far as saying everyone through her geneology was also sinless, as to not inherit the "original sin" sinful nature.

Reza

P.S. I'm Coptic, just so there's no confusion.

Edited January 27, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1177583' date='Jan 27 2007, 04:28 AM']
The problem with this is that if St. Mary, the Theotokos, had to be sinless in order for Jesus to be sinless, then St. Mary's mother [St. Anne] [and respectfully her father too ] would have had to be sinless in order for her to be born without sin too. If you're going to use the theology that St. Mary, the Theotokos, was sinless in order for Jesus to be sinless, then you also have to go as far as saying everyone through her geneology was also sinless, as to not inherit the "original sin" sinful nature.

Reza

P.S. I'm Coptic, just so there's no confusion.
[/quote]

Welcome Reza! God Bless you!

I have heard this response before, and there is an answer. Mary's mother did not have to be sinless because Mary was not God. God can not be one with sin, but if Mary was sinful then how was He not one with the sin of Mary when in her womb? Mary was made sinless to give birth to God. Because God can not be one with sin. Now we're really getting into why it takes a book to explain it. And its very late so perhaps someone else can better explain the point.

But again, how can Mary be "[u]Full[/u] of Grace" yet still have room for sin? Sin being the absence of grace. Was she not full, but partly full of grace?

Also, how could a sinless finite being, Mary pay our infinite debt? She could not, even thou she was sinless. Only a infinite being Christ, can pay an infinite debt.

Edited January 27, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

Something else to think about... Why was it so important that Mary was the Virgin Mother of God, and not just the Mother of God? Because a virgin is clean of a certain sin. Why is it so important for the Mother of God to lack this sin, to give birth to Our Lord? But not so important for Her to be without Original Sin? If Mary was sinful why would it make any difference for her to be virgin or not? If Mary was sinful she could just as well been a widow and not a virgin and give birth to God.

If Mary needed to lack one sin, why not all sin?

[RezaMikhaeil]

Thank you for your kind welcome

[quote] have heard this response before, and there is an answer. Mary's mother did not have to be sinless because Mary was not God. God can not be one with sin, but if Mary was sinful then how was He not one with the sin of Mary when in her womb? Mary was made sinless to give birth to God.[/quote] Here's what I dont understand, you said that St. Mary had to be sinless in order for Jesus to be sinless, but in order for her to be sinless, don't you think that her mother would also have to be sinless in order to birth a sinless child?

It's like you mentioned that St. Mary was sinless, otherwise Jesus would have had sin inherited by her, but why wouldn't she inherit the sinful nature of her mother, if Jesus would have inherited St. Mary's sinful nature, according to your theological stance, if St. Mary wasn't sinless?

In regards to "full of grace", that depends on how you define "grace", if you define it to me "perfect/flawless/without sin" then you're right, she wouldn't fit that criteria but if grace means:

[quote] Theology. a. the freely given, unmerited favor and love of God.
b. the influence or spirit of God operating in humans to regenerate or strengthen them.
c. a virtue or excellence of divine origin: the Christian graces.[/quote] Then St. Mary would have easily fit the criteria of being "full of grace" without nessessarily being sinless.

I'd definately agree that sexually [hence her virginity] she was sinless, but in every aspect of her life being sinless, I wouldn't agree because that in itself, is a charectoristic that only God alone holds [IE: Only God is sinless, that's part of what proves his divinity]. Ezekiel 44:2 clearly prophesies her ever-viriginity, [sinless sexual behavior and untouched] but it doesn't prove that she, herself, is sinless to the extent of God.

Why did Jesus Christ come down to die for our sins? Because he was the only individual that could attone for our sins right? Why was that? Because Jesus Christ was the only sinless individual on the face of this planet [and universe]. Its said that only a sinless man, can die for someone else that has sin [that is guilty of the punishment of death], yet none on this earth have been found to have been sinless, that's why Jesus Christ came down to save everyone from the bondage of such a law, that through him... the cost is paid and we're not bound to such a law [the wages of sin is death].

Note: I'm sure that you've heard the above, over and over again before, but I just stated it so everyone's on the same playing feild and understanding.

Reza

[desertwoman]

Made you post, made you post!

[Nathan]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1177290' date='Jan 26 2007, 11:06 PM']
My friend gave me a link saying that alot of people are converting to the orthodox church. The one thing that turned me off about orthodox churches is the "racism." so to say, I went to a Greek Orthodox Church and asked some questions, and they just brushed me off. Its kinda like they didn't want me to join their church due to the fact that I'm not Greek. This has happened time and time again, and it makes me believe that some of the orthodox churches are they for ethnic reasons. I could be wrong, and hope that I am, but its really disheartening.[/quote]

I would agree with this; I've felt it. There's a giant Coptic Orthodox centre/parish in my hometown that I've entered a few times, because they have a great bookstore. Whenever I go there, I get a lot of strange looks and vibes, like because I'm Causasian I'm not supposed to be there or something.

Edited January 27, 2007 by Nathan

[Era Might]

Hi Reza,

Just for clarification, are you Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox? I'm not completely familiar with the Oriental Orthodox, but I know that communion was ruptured between some of the Eastern Churches themselves because of Chalcedon.

[mortify]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1177257' date='Jan 26 2007, 10:45 PM']
and not Orthodox? I've been studying about Catholicism for about 2 years now and there are still things that I don't grasp or understand. During the course of the New Year, I've been talking to a real cool Coptic friend of mine and some of his reasons why he didn't choose to be Coptic Catholic and remained Coptic Orthodox.
[/quote]

Peace to you Desertwoman,

Quite frankly I've struggled with this. When I started coming back to Jesus I never had the Catholic Church in mind, my intent was on becoming Orthodox. I absolutely loved the Divine Liturgy and culture of the Orthodox. Catholicism seemed much to modernized for me. What held me back was the fact that my ancestors, going back a thousand years or so, were Catholic and I knew many Catholics who were saintly people, thus proving to me Catholicism is not some "bankrupt religion." So I gave Catholicism a shot.

I suggest you start with Matthew 16:18. Jesus makes a prophecy, His Church will be built on St Peter (thus the old saying, "Where there is Peter there is the Church") The orthodox try to pass this off by saying Jesus was referring to Peter's confession but this is nonsense. It is too obvious to deny, Jesus was referring to Peter himself.

Now to back this up there is a PLETHORA of Eastern witness to the primacy of the Pope. If you search, you will literally find statements by prominent Eastern Saints saying "Can one be part of the Church if one is not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Peter?" The Orthodox pass this off as nothing more than "kissing up" to the Pope.

They turn our Lord's promise in Matthew 16:18 into nothing more than empty words. "Peter is first among equals." What does that mean? Sounds like they're trying to say we just give Peter and his Successors *verbal* honor, but otherwise it's meaningless. I suggest looking up Isaiah 22, and noting the parallels between Matthew 16:18. The Keys Jesus gave Peter are not empty promises of verbal honor, they are AUTHORITATIVE. The Orthodox will deny this of course, and even suggest that all the Apostles received the keys but this is not true. Only Peter received the keys. Other apostles who are in communion with Peter were able to [b]share[/b] in the power to "loosen and bind" but only if they are in communion with him.

The Orthodox denied the Holy Pontiff his rightful God given authority, and so they are in schism and some say even heresy.

Let me just add as a final note the Orthodox are not all that perfect. They have a good liturgy but they are just as imbedded with Modernism as we are. In some places the orthodox laity VOTE on how traditional the parish should be.

Anyway, I can rant on forever. Let us stick to the Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ because Our Lord promised the Church built on Him will never be destroyed.


God bless,
Mort