Orthodoxy and me

Give my Bishop's Church a visit.

St. Seraphim of Sarov Cathedral
4208 Wycliff
Dallas, TX

">http://oca.org/DIRlisting.asp?SID=9&KEY=OCA-SO-DALSSK>

By the way, what does this mean?

they are a few clicks left of Opus Dei,>

Eric,

Because unlike any of the denominations you mentioned, the Orthodox Church, like the Catholic Church, has preserved episcopal leadership with bishops who are successors to the apostles. They have preserved the seven sacraments. And they celebrate a liturgy with roots in the ancient Church.>

jb,

I am a convert and I don't look at it like a brand and most converts I know are fiercely loyal to Holy Father.>

Dear Rod,

I can't write much because I'm having wrist problems, so let me cut to the chase: stay Catholic. Eastern Christianity is a glorious thing, but it needs to be in communion with the Pope. "Upon this Rock. . ."

If your reason for switching is the untrustworthiness of the "institutional Church," consider that Orthodoxy is not going to be any more immune to scandal than the R.C.C. Think about the O.C. in Romania or Russia during the Communist era. Wasn't Patriarch Alexei a colonel in the KGB? There is no place, and never will, be a place to hide from the scandal of the Church: "God among us" (miserable wretches).

Ignatius of Loyola says in his Exercises that one shouldn't make important decisions in a state of desolation.

Good luck,
Adrian>

Rod,

I too am confused by the either/or mind-set. Martin Luther was a good catholic monk who sought to reform the RC; but of course the RC disowned him. Perhaps many of your misgivings are the same as his? And.. if so.. shouldn't you be at least considering the more conservative, liturgical, protestant denominations? Anyway, just my two cents. I wish you well in your search.

Great book, by the way. And I'm not just saying that because I saw myself on every page.. honest. ;-)

R.G.>

Isnt there a movement to "ordain" deaconesses in the Greek Church? I understand it is called ordination not consecration there and it is being viewed as a first step (by some) toward you know what.

There seems to be a great deal of theological diversity there - even the number of "mysteries" is undefined - can the Western mind accept that?

The Maid>

Rod,

First, realize you're not alone in such a struggle. Next, consider that the American Church represents 6% of the Church worldwide. All the while pray and study. When you're finished, pray and study some more. Finally, be sure and include St. John of the Cross in your studies.

You'll be in my prayers.>

One other point. There was a remark about Rod treating his religion as a brand choice. This criticism of Rod's religious affiliation has come up before, and I consider this line of attack a fairly cheap one. Whatever anyone may think about Rod's contemplation of becoming Orthodox on doctrinal, ecclesiological or other important grounds, no one should view that change as something entered upon trivially or flippantly. It is difficult to get the impression from his posts (to say nothing of other correspondence I have had with him) that he has contemplated this change with anything other than seriousness and sobriety. I think he understands how very serious it is, and that it is fundamentally a question of truth and not simply a passing preference.>

Daniel -- I'm the one who said "YES and YES," so let me respond to your remarks about the differences between Catholic and Orthodox.

First, my comment was made from the perspective of a Byzantine Catholic; few Roman Catholics would make such a remark. Two issues you raised illustrate how a Byzantine Catholic will see things differently from a Roman:

1. The anti-Palamites. Gregory Palamas is actually on our Byzantine Catholic calendar; we honor him as a saint. (Which, by the way, means that he is a saint in the universal Catholic Church, even if he's "gotten in through the back door," so to speak.)

2. The filioque. The fioloque is not in our creed, and I do not pray it even when in a Roman Church. The Roman Church never meant anything heretical by it, but it can too easily lead to heretical notions of the Trinity; it's got to go, and I think it will, possibly soon.

Now, neither of these two issues is trivial (nor are any of the others that separate us). But it is my ardent conviction that on each score a way can be found that will reconcile East and West. I start from the premise that neither Church has fallen into error, but that greatly differing ways of speaking and worshiping have given rise to conflicts that ultimately can be resolved.

This is why I can say "YES and YES," and why I think it is essential to do so. A conviction that our differences, great as they may be, can be resolved is essential to ever actually resolving them -- just as a similar conviction is essential to healing the divisions in a marriage.

(I look at the Schism much in light of a divorce, the West being the masculine principle and the East the feminine. To the question, "Where does the marriage subsist now," we have to answer, "In both, and yet in neither.")

For example, a Byzantine Catholic friend of mine, a philosopher, is working on reconciling Aquinas and Palamas. He is a student of both, and venerates both, and sees in them different ways of speaking about the same ineffible mystery of God's presence. (I cannot do his analysis justice so I won't butcher it by trying.)

That kind of work can only be attempted by someone who says "YES and YES" to Catholicism and Orthodoxy.>

Rod (speaking as a recent 'Gelical->RCC convert who knew up front the disappointment coming) whoever said the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic would be a paradise... or even user-friendly... much less an iron-clad safehouse for our children? If one approaches the Church as a consumer of what one, privately finds comfortable, safe, satisfying, or (even) true, then however noble and virtuous those goods may be, one has still turned the Church into a consumer product. If the Church is what she says she is, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary given by her children either in their misdeeds or pathetic teaching, then one must remain in her... and pray!>

Rod,

I hope to write more later but I have say that this, while not very surprising, is still saddening.

Perhaps it is just the abuse scandal that has you rethinking the Truth claims of the Catholic Church but if you really honestly think that the Orthodox Church will protect your children, I wonder if you are just blind to the scandals that hit it as well.

A few links:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20060227-14460800-bc-us-orthodox.xml

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20060317-0942-orthodoxchurch-finances.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1418094,00.html

http://www.pokrov.org/Abusers/perpetrators.html

None of that is to suggest that the Orthodox Church isn't true. It may well be.

Also, I have to agree with others who note a tendency in the Orthodox to constantly put down Catholics. It is as if they have an inferiority complex. I see this even in Rod's estimable friend Frederica. I know very few Catholics (who know anything about the Orthodox) who feel the need to put down the Orthodox -- rather they see it as the other lung from which they can learn (and which they need).>

I am suprised, but not really all that much, that no one has mentioned the Catholic dogma 'Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' - Outside the Church there is no salvation.)

Despite all the nuanced backpedalling we've heard over the past 40 years, this is still Catholic dogma, infallibly taught at least three times. (Do the research.)

On one of those occasions, the Holy Father explicitly said that the Orthodox (as schismatics) cannot be saved unless they are united with the pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, I don't blame Rod a bit -- I've often struggled myself with whether or not the Orthodox could be right, and the RCC be wrong.

But one thing's for sure: one of them is not.

God bless you, Rod. I wish the best for you and your family.>

The Maid wrote:

"These deaconesses are not the same as nuns."

Neither are they the same as deacons. They have no liturgical function. Also, you may notic that they were restoring the office of deaconess - an office which previously existed in the Church

Rod,

I enjoyed your book immensely, and I am reading it through for a second time before passing it on to my wife. Wendell Berry has been a favorite of mine for several years, and, man other of my favorites are refered to or quoted in your book.

I wish you well regarding your spiritual journey, and I am totally biased in hoping that you do come home to the Orthodox Church.>

You're right, Mark. No disrespect to Methodists -- I was baptised as a Methodist, and all of my family remains Methodist -- but I can't imagine being outside one of the validly apostolic churches. Which is to say, Catholicism or Orthodoxy.>

As a Southern Baptist, I'm not going to add much to this discussion. There's a remark or two I almost can't help but make -- some flippant, some quite serious but not appropriate to this particular thread.


Rod, all I can say is that I believe you should live out your theological convictions as best you can. If you believe that an apostolic succession is important, if you believe that the Pope in Rome is the only true heir of that succession, you ought to remain Catholic and find a way to make that work.

In some ways, being a Baptist puts me at an advantage in a situation such as this. For instance, I believe that the principle of apostolic succession is not a necessary consequence of Scripture, so I have no theological problem finding an independent congregation who shares my beliefs. The Baptist beliefs about communion and baptism probably also make it easier to find a congregation with which I am both socially comfortable and theologically at ease.

But I remain Baptist, not because it does sometimes makes things easy, but because I am convinced that its principles, from sola scriptura to the priesthood of the believer, are true.

As hard as it may surely be for you, and as much as I disgree with Catholics and Orthodox on a great many things, I would urge you not to abandon what you believe to be the truth, whatever that happens to be. A compromise of the one you seem to be considering strikes me as dangerous.>

His displeasure with Rome is a matter of record. It's just a matter of time before Othodoxy loses its luster. There is, perhaps, no religion that is pure enough or rigorous enough for his conservative heart. Maybe he should go the way of Joseph Smith and found his own religion -- apostolic integrity be damned. After all, Jesus said, "Where ever two or three are gathered in my name, I too am there.">

I knew this day would come. You have finally stated what really is in your heart. That is to desert when things get bad. God forbid you do something like stick it out and reform from within! I bet if the Holy Father nominated your pastor to become the next Dallas bishop you would find something to gripe about! Maybe you might be the first to find grass greener on the Orthodox side. I doubt it!>

I came over here from Amy's, and am a bit torn - I'm very, very sorry that you're feeling so torn and pray that you'll be able to straighten things out. And yet I can't help but feel that you have already decided to desert and that this is merely a bit of window-dressing. That in itself is not the issue - you don't owe anyone a real-time play of your decision. HOWEVER, your reasons are very troubling, in that there don't seem to be any besides that (a) you like the feel of the liturgy and (b) you want to protect your sons (though since you seem like the last person to leave your children alone with anyone clerical, I can't make out what danger they're in). I don't see any doctrinal issues there, nothing with theological substance. Unlike some of your commenters, I am not very theologically erudite, but the fact that you barely mention it at all is bothersome, to put it lightly. When, incidentally, did Greeley's point lose its validity? Because if you convert to Orthodoxy while still believing Greeley's point to be true, you are not converting. You are using the Orthodox as a convenient, picturesque refuge from the problems in your diocese - you are running away (and I must wonder - is Dallas really such a spiritual wasteland as that, or are you at this point unable to be satisfied with any RC church you go to? Do you attend a Mass now only looking for the mote in the priest's eye? I've done that myself, and once in that frame of mind it's easy to see nothing but the bad).

If you are thinking of becoming Orthodox for safety and traditional issues, I tell you, you will be disappointed. Oh, not at first. But eventually, you will realize that the Orthodox are people like any other, and that they have their own problems, and that your ideal is as far away from you as ever. I can't speak to this firsthand, never having been Orthodox, but I grew up Eastern Catholic (and never actually left - I attend an RC church now because there is no Eastern rite parish where I live) and the liturgy is indeed beautiful and free of much foolishness, but they have different problems (extreme clannishness, for one thing, and if you think that has less potential for strife than what's happening in the RC church, reconsider).

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, and I wish I could just wish you well with your discernment and leave it at that. If you were sincerely convinced that Orthodoxy is the truth, that's what I'd do. But the fact is I'm not convinced either that you think the Orthodox may have the right of it, or that you're really discerning this. It sounds like you're ready to jump ship for reasons which are at their core transitory and shallow, and you're just setting us up for the actual announcement.

You will doubtless be upset by many of the posts here, and yes, some of them are harsh, and things that would pain me if they were said to me. But you must realize, we aren't trying to throw you overboard or turn our backs at the first word of doubt. We are trying to show you that there is room for concern about your stated motives. You mention liking Robertson Davies in your previous posts. Is this proposed conversion something you're doing because you really, really think it's the right thing - or is it possibly Kater Murr purring to you that the best thing in life is to be cozy and content with oneself - cozy and content with your beautiful children, with your delicious vegetables, with your house done just so - and finally, with your quaint liturgy and sense of Authenticity?

I'll keep you in my prayers. No matter where you go :). But do please take care.>

This is a bit of a long paste-job, but perhaps worth including, in light of your citing the Father Clay situation as the last straw. It also seems to take issue with your claim that a formal sex-abuse allegation was made.

Ex-Bishop: Priest OK'd for Duty:
No Abuse Charges Were Filed against Christopher Clay, So Former Bishop Timlin Was Set to Give Him a Church. Clay Went to Texas Instead

By Bonnie Adams badams@leader.net and Mark Guydish markg@leader.net
Times Leader [Pennsylvania]
July 2, 2004

Bishop James Timlin and others say the Rev. Christopher Clay was entitled to resume ministerial duties when no criminal charges resulted from a young man's accusations against him.

The former Diocese of Scranton bishop said he offered Clay local parish work in 2003 after a police investigation yielded no charges.

But that word apparently hasn't reached the Diocese of Forth Worth in Texas, where Clay this week was barred from saying Mass because church officials say they have no proof he's in good standing.

Clay until recently assisted his close friend, the Rev. Allan Hawkins, at St. Mary the Virgin Church in Arlington, Texas. In reaction to a Dallas Morning News article, Hawkins distributed a letter to his parishioners Wednesday.

Hawkins said he had contacted Timlin in 2003 "to make sure that there was no objection to my inviting Father Clay to assist us at St. Mary the Virgin." Timlin confirmed Thursday that he had no objections.

Diocese of Scranton spokeswoman Maria Orzel said this week that Clay was removed from active ministry after his name surfaced during an investigation into an allegation against two priests at the Society of St. John in Pike County.

Since February 2003, she said, Clay has been on leave from all ministerial activity in the diocese. She said the internal investigation is ongoing. Orzel could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Hawkins said in the letter that current Bishop Joseph Martino wrote to Clay in April to ask him of his "intentions regarding your future ministry." Hawkins said the inquiry would be absurd if Clay was under suspension.

Clay had been removed from his teaching job at Bishop Hafey High School in Hazle Township in 2002 after a young man made sexual misconduct allegations related to the facility in Monroe County. The accusations came during a deposition for a federal lawsuit against two other diocese priests.

Timlin said Thursday that the diocese felt it was unfair to prohibit Clay from resuming ministerial duties after police did not file charges. The young man who made the accusations has not sued Clay.

The bishop said he did not feel that the 2002 U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops policy applied to Clay once no criminal charges resulted. Church policy dictates that when sexual abuse is admitted or proven, a priest must be permanently removed from the ministry regardless of when the incident occurred.

"I was ready to assign him," Timlin said. The bishop offered Clay a position at St. Thomas More parish in Lake Ariel, Wayne County. By then, Clay had traveled to his home state of Texas to rest.

"Clay, who had been under a lot of stress, responded to Timlin that he was still suffering from some anxiety," said Clay's attorney, Greg Magarity, on Thursday. Magarity said Clay told Timlin in March 2003 that he wasn't ready to return to ministerial work.

Magarity remembers someone in a district attorney's office saying the statute of limitations had run out, which would have ended the investigation. Former Monroe County District Attorney Mark Pazuhanich had said in May 2002 that an investigation was ongoing.

But current Monroe County District Attorney E. David Christine Jr. said this week that the file Pazuhanich requested police send directly to Pazuhanich was missing and Christine's office had no knowledge of an investigation of Clay.

"I'm very sensitive to the victims in this case but I don't know that Clay's getting a fair shot here," Magarity said. "(Clay is) obviously not under restrictive ministry or they wouldn't ask him to take an assignment as assistant pastor."

Magarity said he has had trouble dealing with the Diocese of Scranton and getting information from officials about Clay's status.

Bonnie Adams, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 829-7241.>

[ continued from above ]

(2) That having been said ... if the Eastern Catholic option had not existed (with such a parish accessible to me), I would have gone over to the EOs in 1995. The liturgical chaos that is the norm in RCC parishes out here would have been unbearable.

An implication for you ... if there is an Eastern Catholic parish anywhere near you, give it a try. You might find peace there ... either permanently, or as you continue to discern the truth claims of Rome v. Constantinople.

(3) Eastern liturgy and spirituality is a thing to experience hands-on, not just to study. If you are considering Eastern Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, go regularly to their liturgies and practice their modes of prayer, with the Jesus Prayer as a centerpiece. If this is the way God is calling you, you will know. "In your heart, you know ... " (Alas, remember AuH20 in 64?)

(4) Contrary to the above defenders of the RCC who say that the Petrine Primacy is worth adhering to, despite the adverse "on the ground" experience of so many of us in the RCC: I reply that the Faith is not, and cannot be, reduced to theories and presuppositions. The Faith is incarnational ... so anyone who thinks that their Faith (or their family's) Faith can survive being in a Church where they are spiritually isolated and at war is kidding themselves. A Church has to be a home, a place where one can go trusting that the teaching is sound and that the Sacraments are valid and that the personnel are "safe". Without such assurance, the parish becomes another place of battle, not a place to learn, to open onself to receive God, and to worship. Defensiveness and fear are, even when fully justified by real circumstances, destructive of worship, and the attitude of trust and receptiveness that are essential to worship. (I still remember my last few months in ECUSA, when I wondered, "what are they going to preach this week? what will the prayers be? Can I sing their songs or pray their prayers without becoming a heretic?")

If you seek a place in which you and your family can be - in fact, week to week - spiritually safe, you have the right to do so.

(5) If you "Dox," I urge you not to do what I did from some years after 1995: to write about the affairs of my former denomination, and to participate in on-line discussion about it. New circumstances (too complex to relate here) may force me to go Orthodox within the next few months ... but now I know that if I go over, I will be far better off if I disengage totally from reading or writing about intra-RC affairs.

(6) My Eastern Catholic parish has received former EOs, and some of us have gone over to the EOs; we are used to being a bridge between the two communions.

E-mail me if you wish to discuss anything privately.

God be with you!

Lee>

Wow, I didn't know it was a requirement of Orthodoxy to hate the Catholic Church. Guess I should have investigated more before converting! :>

One hopes that if the Catholic Church is true, like I firmly believe, God will keep you in her heart. It would be a horrid shame if scandal pushed you away from the one true Church. I doubt culpability would be very high, though.

That aside, I can understand why if you went anywhere it would be the Orthodox. The Catholic Church is in shambles right now. Fortunately, even if every else abandons Her, the Holy Ghost won't.>

Dear Rod,

If I understand things correctly, you live in Dallas. You may want to go to St. Basil the Great in Irving.>

Another Greeley quotation to mull over:

"Search for the perfect church if you will; when you find it, join it, and realize that on that day it becomes something less than perfect.">

I was born R.C. and left for the very same reasons you elucidate. I went to the PNCC. Again, same reasons as you have.>

Rod,

As a Catholic, I can't help but feel sad at the thought of your loss to the Catholic Church. As a mom, I think in your situation I might be right there with you. Having already chosen not to sacrifice my children on the altar of the "stay in your own parish/local school and work for change" principle, I can appreciate where you are.

Pray to know God's will, and pray that whatever comes of it, your choice will be someday soon mooted by the unification and cleansing of both Catholicism and Orthodoxy.>

Good luck Rod.

The one thing I would have to say is what my SD stated once: "When you are in the depths of dryness and despair, that's when God is closest to you, drawing you closer and closer to him. And when you can struggle through those times and maintain your fidelity to God and Church, you draw closer to the sainthood He wishes for you."

You and yours are in my prayers.>

Rod,

Stay home in the Catholic Church. You mentioned the Eastern Rite. You can find it here as well without leaving in schism to Orthodoxy. Also find a good Catholic confessor.

God Bless,

Casey Khan>

The boat is not the shore, Rod. And so I'm just wondering, what is it you're really looking for?>

You are beginning to sound like yet another church shopping protestant...>

Since you and your family are already Catholics, have you looked at traditional Catholic communities in the Dallas area, either an indult chapel or the Society of St. Pius X? If you have, I'd be interested to hear your assessment. I will keep you and your family in my prayers.>

Daniel Nichols, who posted above, is an old and close friend of mine. I don't think he'll mind me quoting something he said once on this topic which I've always thought summed up the ecclesiological (did I spell that right?) question very neatly: he said of the Orthodox Churches that "They're holy and apostolic, but they're not one and catholic.">

Rod, I became a Catholic through your witness and that of dear Lebanese friends.

Every single day at work here in Boston, I have to listen to cradle Catholics castigate everything about the Church because of Cardinal Law etc. I am fortunate to have a very orthodox parish priest who I love and respect, and if I discovered that he was guilty of sexual abuse I would be devastated. I wouldn't leave, but it would be so very difficult.
I could never leave Rome for Byzantium, because as a Jewish Catholic that would be even more painful than the disappointments I would experiance in the Catholic Church.
Rod, this is your "dark night". Please know you have my prayers.>

This will be the last thing I say about this issue, barring some resolution. Mark Shea is quite wise to have said on his blog that this is not the kind of thing that should be discussed on a blog. I hadn't intended to write about it at all, but inasmuch as I couldn't avoid the direct question the WaPo reporter asked me about my faith, I felt like I had to be honest with him, and with the people who have been reading me all along.

A few things, though:

1. To Matt Lickona -- re: the case of Father Clay, the diocese itself firmly maintains that he is formally suspended from ministry, no matter what Bishop Timlin says. I can't account for the discrepancy, but I do think it's telling that Father Hawkins put Father Clay to work after making a deliberate decision not to tell his own bishop about what he was doing -- or to tell his congregation. It is important to acknowledge that Father Clay's case has not been resolved, at least not to my knowledge, and that we must presume him innocent until proven otherwise.

2. If I was considering this Orthodoxy thing lightly, as a matter of church-shopping or merely gratifying my consumerist desires, I would have left for Byzantium a long time ago. I am absolutely preoccupied -- almost to the point of paralysis -- not only with Truth, but with my own motives. As I said earlier, I've come to understand my problem in Kierkegaardian terms: what is the nature of Christian truth? Is it assent to authoritative doctrines? Well, yes, but it is more than that: Jesus is a person, not a principle. But it's also true that the Church (that is, the Body of Christ, not merely its Roman iteration) is not merely an organization, but a family. What is one's obligations to that family, especially when one worries that in honoring one set of obligations he is, for complicated reasons, putting the spiritual health of his own personal family at risk?

What does it mean to have a right relation to truth? It cannot mean mere intellectual assent to doctrines, at least not in the historical Christian understanding of the faith. Those doctrines have to be incarnated, to be appropriated inwardly and manifested outwardly in our actual lives. Call it my weakness, which it probably is, but I find myself burned out on Catholicism, mostly because of the scandals. I am making a statement not about Catholicism, but myself. I am tired of being desolate about my faith. I don't seek a faith in which it is easy to be Christian -- if you are a serious Christian, it is *never* easy, no matter in which church you find yourself. Perhaps I wouldn't find myself in his hole today if I had spent more time in the good years thinking about Jesus, and less time thinking about Peter, if you follow me.

As this is the last thing I intend to say about it for a long time, I want to be clear: this is one of the most agonizing things I've ever faced. I love Catholicism. I have not been a serious Christian in anything but the Catholic Church; it's all I know. I find myself in this place because I despair of my ability to remain a serious Christian when I am so alienated from the visible Church, and when I see no real prospect of things getting significantly better in my lifetime. I do believe God saves men in the Catholic Church. He saves men in the Orthodox Church. He saves men in the Protestant Churches. This is not to say one is as good as the other, because that would be relativism. The point is, wherever I end up, if I am saved, it will be because of Christ, not because I entered communion with this or that Church. The Church is the Way; it is not the Destination.

Whatever happens to me, I will end up a much humbler Christian. I think back to my first years as a Catholic, how triumphalistic I was, and how quick I was to scorn and sneer at dissenters within Catholicism. And how self-satisfied I felt that I had found the True Church. The dissenters are no more right now than they ever were, and if the Roman Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth, she does so whether or not she is administered with competence and integrity. I get that.

But I also get that my own pridefulness about my Catholicism was a sinful thing, in need of repentance. One moment symbolizes that for me. It was the year 2000, and I was in Israel covering John Paul's pilgrimage. I found myself in the courtyard of the Latin Patriarchate in Jerusalem. I spied across the way a cardinal. I rushed over to him, knelt to kiss his ring, and introduced myself. It felt so good, weirdly, to perform that rite. I thought, "Here I am a good Catholic, honoring a prince of the church. Aren't I special!"

The cardinal, by the way, was Bernard Law, a thought which has often given me pause, considering what we were later to learn about him. But he could have been a saint, and the motive for my action would still have been contemptible. Whether I stay in Catholicism or go, I hope that the past four years of scandal and so on at least have the effect of a purification, which I so desperately needed, though in my proud spirit I didn't have eyes to see.

I appreciate your prayers, those of you who pray for me. Seriously.>

Rod,

If you're having doubts about the truth claims of Catholicism, you need to work through them with prayer, study, and spiritual direction.

If you think the Catholic Church is the true Church, but that the state of most Catholic parishes today, and indeed the state of the Church as a whole, is such that contact with Her threatens your faith, might I suggest moving?

Do some research and find one of the few good parishes. I, too, was burned by some priests. I am disgusted with our hierarchy. I think heretics pretty much run the ship. So I concentrate on private devotions and drive a good distance to an indult parish on Sundays. When my clerkship is up, I'll move to one of the parishes I've been researching.

A move across country or even overseas is not to much of a sacrifice to make to find a vibrant, truly Catholic, home.

God bless you.

Charles>

jb: Here's a sock. Deploy in the neighborhood of the teeth.

Rod: Let me just add my Catholic prayers to the pile. I'll spare you the psycholanalysis by modem that's popular on the 'net, too.

To be honest, I've felt that same occasional tug, but have found a good--and improving--hearth in the Detroit area. If I lived in, say, the Saginaw diocese, I don't know what I would do. [Though I note to my amazement that Bishop Carlson has somehow managed to find sixteen seminarians in a little over a year, whereas the previous administration maxed out at four.]

As with any discernment, I hope the Holy Spirit guides your steps. And one piece of unsolicited advice: don't overthink it--make sure you consciously avoid the issue, in fact. Spend time with the boys at the park, take the family to gravel pits for a day of swimming, curl up with a Dave Barry book or the Napoleon Dynamite DVD. Burp your head and walk away--in my experience, that's when I start to discern better. FWIW, and YMMV.

[Oh, and another thing--if a Catholic breaks out the "caesaropapism" argument, feel free to swat him with my blessings. It's one of the doofier arguments deployed by Catholics, to put it gently. As an amateur Byzantinist, it's silly beyond words.]>

Rod, dude, move to Nebraska, Diocese of Lincoln. It's not perfect here, but it's a dang sight better than what you've got.

You can telecommute much easier now with the Internet. There's a 4-br prairie foursquare house for sale two blocks away from me in a downtown neighborhood (older, walk to church, walk to grocery store) for only $115k.>

Yeah, Rod! Flee the world! Join the ghetto!>

This raw lefty who finds you as an opponent in the culture wars would rather you in the fold. Stay Catholic.

You're in my prayers.

Dan>

Rod:

First, congratulations on Crunchy Cons. I think I first heard of it in a reference on the CTAC email list (which is also where I first heard of you several (?) years ago); I read the book, think it's great and have ordered a couple of the books you mention in it.

Second, I confess to having not carefully read all of the comments here, but I was wondering if you have considered embarking on a more traditionalist approach to Catholicism, such as by attending, and getting involved with the priests and people who attend, the traditional Masses offered in Dallas (Carmelite Sisters' chapel; St. Thomas Aquinas; St. Mary of the Assumption in Fort Worth). My guess is that you would find exactly what you are looking for in terms of the liturgy, community, child-rearing, etc...>

Either the Catholic Church is the true Church or it isn't. If it isn't, there isn't one. If it is, you can't leave just because it's members are sinners. Moving to Orthodoxy is just a way of avoiding the reality of sin.

Would you have left during the Arian revolt or during the Avignon papacies?

The Church is not perfect - not now, not ever on Earth. The choice is either that the Church is true and you stay or it isn't and you abandon all religion.>

+J.M.J+

I may not win too many friends by saying this, but it is true so it must be said.

The Church teaches that, if anyone knows that the Catholic Church is the One True Church, yet remains outside Her or leaves Her, that person is going to Hell.

Rod, do you know that the Catholic Church is the One True Church, outside of which there can be no salvation? If so, then you cannot leave without endangering your immortal soul and the souls of your family. Bottom line.

You can leave the Church to get away from sinful priests, if you wish. Yet if you end up in Hell you will have to spend eternity with them. Think about that.

I don't day this to be "mean" to you during what is certainly a difficult time. But this is serious; I don't want to see a brother lost. Even if you don't "feel" anything, cling to Christ and His Church, cling to them in the darkness, choose to love Christ and His Church even if you can't "feel" it. You are in my prayers. God be with you.

In Jesu et Maria,>

I know I'm not you favorate person Rod but this is for your benefit.

Augustine said you can have many things outside the Church. You can have doctrines, good liturgy, sacraments, devotions..etc. But the one thing YOU CANNOT HAVE is salvation.

Why destroy your soul over Cardinal Law?
The bastard isn't worth it.>

I split this comment up because I remember the days when Haloscan had strict comment length limits (although given the gargantuan length of some comments above, maybe that's no longer the case).
Only the Catholic Church has preserved the ancient teachings on contraception and divorce (the latter of which, of course, came directly from the mouth of Christ Himself). When you consider the world situation in 1968 - the role of a Catholic doctor in creating the Pill; the claims that the Pill was not a true contraceptive in the same way that condoms and other old-fashioned methods were; the caving that so many other churches had done by that point; the recommendation of the Pope's own commission that the traditional teaching be abandoned; and, perhaps most significantly, the personality of Paul VI himself - well-meaning but pliant and unable to stand up to Church liberals in everything else, from changing the Mass to relations with the Soviets - Humanae Vitae does have a touch of the miraculous about it.
Second, I simply don't agree with Rod's belief about "outside the Church there is no salvation." I believe that persons raised in another communion in such a way as to be "invincibly ignorant" of the truth can be saved. I couldn't imagine Heaven without such Christian witnesses as Samuel Johnson, William Wilberforce, Lewis Tappan, John Mason Neale, David Livingstone, the Ugandan martyrs who suffered at the same time as St. Charles Lwanga, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, C.S. Lewis, Janani Luwum, Billy Graham, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, etc. Unlike what Terry Mattingly apparently believes, I think this can be true of Jews and other non-Christians as well. If the Drehers defect, the little Drehers, thank God, are probably still young enough that they would count in God's eyes as persons raised in another faith rather than as apostate Catholics, but as for Rod and his wife, if an adult can deliberately leave the Catholic Church with his eyes wide open and still be saved, than "Outside the Church there is no salvation" is meaningless. Naturally, I will keep the Drehers in my prayers.>

God bless you, Rod. We are praying for you.

But we probably need your prayers for us as well.

Satan is having a field day, isn't he?>

I appreciate the difficulties of your journey, Rod, and wish you great joy as you lean in to embrace the fullness of the Faith.

Christos anesti! as we say hereabouts.

S.C.>

One other thing for the fella above who claims not to be your favorite person:

Augustine (4th Century) was talking about the very Church you now embrace. Bishop Kallistos (21st Century) further observes: "We can say where the Church is, but we cannot say where it is not."

Kalo taxidi, philemou!

S.C.>

What I observe in Rod's very public hand wringing is something I see often among converts from protestantism. The need for some kind of metaphysical purity. When parish life is found wanting, move on to another parish and then perhaps another faith. The schism temptation dies hard so why not revisit the first great schism. Of course, after a while in that reality, he may need to schism again. There are many divisions in the Orthodox world. So much room to divide.

Worshiping in a big Catholic parish where many treat it as a "sacrament factory" requires an attitude of service. Within this big tent of a church, niches exist for those who need to serve more seriously and involves charisms too numerous to name here. Their work enriches us all even the CEO (Christmas and Easter Only) Catholics. It should not be our role to feel superior in our work but to bring a witness to others. I never hear that in Rod's work.

Rod seems intent on a withdrawal from everything he finds less than ideal. Homeschooling, perfect little church etc. There is wisdom in the idea of a geographical parish. These are the believers I live with and I must learn to serve God here in their presence. It is a very practical exercise in humility and once you do it, amazing how much you can learn from others when you start to listen.>

If you do cross back over the Tiber to join an Orthodox church, just don't get involved in church politics, squabbles, and controversies- it's hazardous to your (spritual) health.>

Either Eastern Orthodoxy is true OR Catholicism is True. I agree with many of the Orthodox who post here. Truth must be the basis for joining a Church. Not feelings and not metaphysical experiences. Not externals. I certainly would be suspicious of a Eastern Orthodox who wanted to be Catholic because.....oh let us say he caught his wife in bed with their Priest. I've know a few EO who became Catholic largely for the doctrinal truth offered.

Now I believe objectively Catholicism is the fullness of Christian Truth. But what Mark Gordon said is true. Rod your "reasons" for joining Orthodoxy seem too experience orientated; they should only be truth orientated. What is it about Eastern Orthdoxy you find true? Do you believe only Seven Councils not twenty are Eccumencial? Do you reject the Immmaculate Conception of Mary as dogma? Do you reject papal infallibility? Do you believe the Popes have artifically built their authority & have in fact not been excercising authority Christ already gave Peter? Do you think you can have an Eccumenical Council that hasn't been confirmed by a pope? Do you think divorce up to three times is okay? Are you comfortable with Czar Nicholas II of Russia being declared a saint?

How do you know that Chalcedon is a true Eccumenical Council & the so-called "robber council" of Ephesus II isn't? The Catholic answer to that is easy: the Pope confirmed Chalcedon and declared Ephesus II null. The Eastern Orthodox answer seems to me more subjective: "because it was against Tradition". Yes, but who had the authority to say that it was against Tradition? Historicly it was the Bishop of Rome who settled that matter.

Granted, I'm biased, but it seems to me that if a knowledge of history is the death of Protestantism, I don't think history helps the truth of Orthodoxy either. This is why a lot of what you're saying so far seems experiential; you need a rational basis for becoming Orthodox & I don't see it. It has to based on Truth. So what is it about Eastern Orthodoxy that is true that you will leave the Catholic Church for it?

One last thing, Rob. Apostate liberal Catholics base their faith on experience & feelings; orthodox Catholics do not.>

If, per chance, anyone is interested, I found the URL for the magazine article by Ronald Modras about Dr. Ratzinger's stated views on Orthodoxy, back in his days in the classroom:

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1609

A key section:


In its first thousand years, in the old church, as Ratzinger phrased it, episcopal office had a horizontal structure. The relationship of the various churches to one another was described with the Trinitarian language of unity amid equality. Collegiality was regulated regionally by metropolitan bishops, and across the empire by the five patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.

Unfortunately, Roman Catholics no longer have a strong sense of that horizontal bond. Ratzinger blamed the subsequent schism between East and West for the impetus toward papalism and a consequent devaluation of the episcopate in the West.

Papalism is not a word one expects to hear from someone who later came to exemplify Catholic orthodoxy. Similarly unexpected was Ratzinger s opinion that the form of the old church described above has been essentially preserved in the Orthodox churches of the East. Rome has traditionally maintained that its structure and its theology of Roman primacy correspond to the structure and theology of the old church. But, as the Eastern churches see it, Rome has replaced a Trinitarian theology of church with the profane concept of absolute monarchy.

Ratzinger has long been forthright in his sympathy for the Orthodox point of view. The Eastern churches have never denied Rome s primacy, but they have interpreted it using Trinitarian categories like unity, plurality, and diversity. From a Trinitarian perspective, unity does not require rigid uniformity, and it excludes a priori anything like top-down subordination. Roman Catholic theology, in Ratzinger s view, needs to take this Trinitarian view seriously. As he wrote in a 1977 article on the future of ecumenism, what was possible for a thousand years cannot be regarded as impossible today. In short, Catholics could learn something about the papacy from the Orthodox.>

God bless you Ron, I will pray for you. There is a lot of good comment on here and I don't if I can add anything meaningful here but here goes:

I was Episcopalian. I live in a town with only one Catholic Church in what was at the time an extremely liberal and modernistic diocese. (Since then with a new bishop it has improved somewhat). Like Benson, I was a very reluctant convert. The music and liturgy at my Catholic parish are much much worse than my old Episcopal one. We have had some wacky priests, though the one we have now is good. But none of this really matters. I firmly believe that the Catholic Church is the true church in a way which the Orthodox Church (or churches, more accurately) is not. I firmly believe in the necessity of the Petrine office for the Church.

The Church has been in a bad way before. The Arian period comes to mind. Ever read the Canterbury Tales? Aren't the Summoner, the Pardoner, the Monk, the Friar and the Prioress just as bad as anything we have now? How about Alexander VI, the Borgia guy? OMG!!!!

The Orthodox have issues, too. A number of people have mentioned contraception and divorce. They have had homosexual priests and bishops and pedaphilia issues as well. They have politicians who are Orthodox in good standing and vote pro abortion. Do the names Paul Sarbanes and Olympia Snowe ring any bells?

There is no safe, ideal, pure Church anywhere because the Church is made up of sinners. I don't know of a church which has not been touched by sexual scandal. Maybe we are worse than others at dealing with it, maybe. I hope you are not going to become one of those church shoppers who is always looking for that pure ideal community and thinking they've found it for awhile only to become disillusioned and move onto something else.

I think you have to decide 2 things: do I still believe the Catholic Church is the true one? Is Peter still the Rock? And, does Eastern spirituality "work" (I hate that term but don't know what else to say) for me better than Western? If you answer yes to both questions, I would suggest attending one of the Eastern rite Churches which may be within reasonable commuting distance of where you live and possibly switching rites, though I understand this is hard to do. Paul Weyrich did it though. He is a deacon in the Melkite Church.

If the answer to the 2nd question is no, maybe an indult Tridentine parish might be your thing. I personally would like to attend an Anglican Use parish but there aren't any here. Aren't there any in Dallas? Though I think you are somewhat disabused with Fr. Hawkins who I believe is involved with such a parish due to the priest from Scranton thing.

As a last thing, dude, you live in a big city. According to the National Catholic Directory, there are 28 parishes in big D alone. They can't all suck!! Also I think there is a Byzantine parish in Irving TX.

Another thing to ask yourself: Would you be having these thoughts if not for the pedophilia scandal?

Well, God bless, and I hope you find peace of mind. I love your Crunchy Con blog. I think really what Crunchy con ism is, is really Distributism.>

Google "Bishop Henry" and "pedophile" for even more shocking news about RCC clergy who protect child abusers.

They do NOT have any moral authority left.>

"Anonymous,"

First, the Church's moral authority comes not from the conduct of its members, even clergy. Rather it comes from God Himself. Jesus recognized the both the Jewish leaders' authority and their failings when he told his followers to "do what they tell you, but do not do what they do" (obviously I'm paraphrasing). Immoral conduct does not forgeit God given authority.

Second, your are cowardly for failing to sign your name to your post.

D-O-U-G C-L-I-N-E>

Actually my comment above re the difference between Orthodoxy and RCsm I meant to use the word spirituality for Orthodoxy not Sanctity (sorry). Okay so again the prime diff is the Catholic emphasis often lies in the practical while Orthodoxy is concerned much more with spirituality - hence my comparison between Russia and Poland and their dealings with Atheistic Communism.>

Speaking of oversimplifications... ;)
I wholeheartedly concur with Huston Smith who recently told Bnet: (scroll to bottom of this link) "(I)f you mean does it make any difference which [religion to practice,] The answer is no, as long as each is followed with equal intensity, sincerity, dedication."

While I certainly reject out of hand the notion that any particular religion is regarded by God as the one true 'gated community', I certainly hope CC follows his heart and is personally at peace with whatever decision he makes re his religious affiliation, without concern with what other people would will him to do, as if they had such power.>

Rod,

You live in Dallas, right? I may be wrong about that. But if you do, do you rule out even a good orthodox Anglican (Episcopalian) Church?

I know that our communion has more than its fair share of problems but you already know that a troubled church is not necessarily a bad church. You also know that all churches and all communions have problems. But have you ever considered the arguments for the apostolicity of the Anglican church?

If you could even conceive of joining a fabulous Anglican church, then I would urge you to come visit St Matthais just once and speak with our rector. What could it hurt? I ask because I was once strongly attracted to Orthodoxy because my grandparents were Ukrainian Orthodox and I did quite a bit of reading about it. But I ended up giving the Anglicans a chance, found St Matthais and I've never looked back. I have been through my periods of doubts but I have never regretted joining my parish. From a worship standpoint, from a teaching standpoint, from a fellowship standpoint dont think that one could find a more satifiying church even coming as I do from long exposure to Orthodoxy.

I guess what I am trying to say is this. The RCC will tell you that the Orthodx are schizmatics. The Orthodox will tell you that the RCC are too. If your mind can see both churches as apostolic is there even the tiniest bit of room in there to listen to the case for one more and to see what church can be like from our point of view?

I just thought I would ask. We would love to have you visit even if you wouldnt seriously consider joining us.

God Bless you in your decision whatever your decision may be.>

As St. Basil said, The life of man reaches fulfillment through a succession of many deaths. May the Lord show you mercy as you go through this one. And it is clearly a purgation of some sort. But I do think it more honorable to find resurrection in the same Church that has been your cross, if you believe the Catholic Church to be a true "four-note" Church. I share all of your griefs about the Western Church. But one thing that holds me back from doing the Bosphorus is the question of how much worse things were in earlier eras. I don't think we have a clue today given our bureaucratic culture's obsession with transparent and efficient administration and governance. But if St. Thomas More saw something in the corrupt papacies of his time worth dying for despite the alluring paths offered by Luther, Henry VIII and Cranmer, then maybe I'm lacking perspective and need to cling ever tighter. It's the Holy Martyrs, the Saints of the first order, that keep me Catholic.

Granted, the Orthodox have their equally valiant martyrs. But we are of the West -- the RCC, not the EOC, is the only entity where the West and Christ truly connect historically and apostolically. And if we are to enjoy the riches of the East, it must be through the RCC and back through the Schism, not around it. Things would be very different if one were Protestant and choosing between RCC and EOC. But converting to the EOC from the RCC is simply an illusory luxury we cannot yet afford.>

If apostolicity depends on the continuity of episcopal orders, and if for over one hundred years the Anglican ceremonial was such as to EXCLUDE what Catholics and Orthodox consider indispensable elements of episcopal orders, then it's hard to see how the AC has, shall we say, the same type of apostolicity as the RCC and the EOC. See Apostolicae Curae, and the Edwardine Ordinal.>

Ultimately, God does not intend us to each be our own judges of what is right and wrong in matters of faith. When we came into the Church, we were asked to consider the Church's teaching authority. The Church teaches that certain doctrines are divinely revealed, and we were asked: Do you hold and believe all the doctrine that the holy Catholic Church teaches as divinely revealed? It's a significant obligation to take on, and one we intended to be irrevocable.

Unless breaking communion with Rome has a positive value for someone, it's hard to see a way to justify the departure. That's why the converts I've seen leave were people who came in from Protestantism, passed through Eastern Catholic life, and on out to one of the Orthodox churches, all the while maintaining a consistent anti-Roman attitude.

Rod, if you choose to reaffirm your identity as a Catholic in union with the Pope, whether Roman or eastern, you will be giving your children a valuable lesson about fidelity and about acceptance of our limitations.>

Francesca you said "We know, in Britain, for instance, that the number of Catholics who stood out against Henry's Reformation was miniscule."

From what I know I believe you to be wrong about that. Further down the line when Elizabeth I reigned, England was a police state not much different from Communist Russia. Henry 8th actually died believing himself to be a good Catholic. It was mighty hard for any English 16th C Catholic to hold onto his/her faith in the face of monetary fines, confiscations etc etc. With low levels of literacy, communication, propaganda and constant hounding, is it any wondor that by the end of the 18th C only 2% of England remained Catholic?

Read "The Stripping of The Altars" by Eamon Duffy or the recent book on Shakespeare "Shadowplay" by Clare Asquith. A picture emerges of an England with a strong faith held by people desiring a return of Catholicism. Sadly for them it wasn't to be. Like bees from a plundered hive they slowly died out.>

In case you are wondering why this is worth having a debate about when Rod is struggling with spiritual doubt: gung ho fantasies about what Catholicism has historically been like undermine a person's ability to remain in the Church. There is only one immaculate Catholic, from whom all other Catholics draw the graces necessary to remain in the Church. She is the only human being who can give the Drehers the strength to stay.

Francesca>

Dr. Paul Meyendorff of St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary has been known to quote his father, Fr. John Meyendorff, as saying about Orthodoxy, "Right church, wrong people."

I was baptized Lutheran and raised more-or-less fundamentalist (but with an atheist father). Questions about serious inconsistencies in the Evangelical view of church history landed me in the Episcopal Church where I was confirmed and married, but realizing that they didn't really take their own teaching or history showed me and my wife that it was a way station, a "transitional communion", not a final destination. Finally we converted to Orthodoxy a little over a year ago, the primary reason being that we became convinced that the Orthodox Church is what she claims to be.

If one takes the witness of the early undivided Church seriously (and, as some here have demonstrated, not everybody does) there are only four possible solutions: Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, or throwing up one's hands and saying, "It's all crap. I'll just be an atheist." There are strong arguments for the first three if one is committed to remaining a Christian. There are strong arguments for the fourth if one decides, "We can't get our own story straight, so why does it matter?"

For my part, the Copts have issues regarding incarnational theology to which they are fully committed, but which remain a tragic dividing point. An Egyptian friend of mine who converted from Coptic Orthodoxy to Eastern Orthodoxy painted it to me as semi-Gnosticism, that being why he converted. With respect to Rome, I must let stand what Professor Mattingly said about agreeing with the popes of the first millennium who denied that they had universal authority. I must also correct the person who said that Rome is the only major See to have never had a heretic as patriarch; in fact, the Sixth Ecumenical Council condemned Pope Honorius as a heretic over the monothelite heresy, and the acts were signed by Pope St. Leo II himself, thus being a rather strong indication that papal infallibility, even if limited to matters spoken ex cathedra, is a rather tight corner into which Rome has backed herself.

It's worth noting that St. Cyprian's statement "Quia salus extra ecclesiam non est" is also Orthodox doctrine, that his De unitate ecclesiae speaks at some length about what Jesus meant in saying "Upon this rock..." to Peter, and it doesn't have anything to do with being in communion with the Pope:

"The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, 'I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, 'As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;' yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. [...] The episcopate is a single whole, in which each bishop enjoys full possession."

Bubba--is that you, CC?

Regardless of which set of claims one chooses to adopt, there's only one good reason to become Orthodox, or Roman Catholic, or any other of the communions claiming historical continuity with the undivided Church, and that's because you believe what they claim to be. If you don't believe such a thing can even exist, then by all means, go find a denomination where you'll be comfortable and your needs will be met. Certainly, many don't; arguments abound from the near-immediate total apostasy of the institutional church with the end of the apostolic age (something simply not attested to in the historical record), to the notion that there's no way to untangle the mess of schisms over the last two thousand years to figure out who was right and who was wrong, and that as a result nobody can justly have any distinctive or unique ecclesial claims, so you just might as well go with what you like.

The problem with both of these lie in the words of Jesus, that "the gates of Hades will not prevail" against His Church, and that the Holy Spirit, "the Spirit of Truth," would guide the Church "into all truth". Furthermore, Jude tells us that the faith was "once delivered", and Paul tells us that "the pillar and ground of the truth" is the Church. Either these things are true or they are not; if they are not true, or if they require some "private interpretation" to understand correctly, then Sola Scriptura fails, taking most of the Protestant argument with it. If they are true, then the break with the organic Church is a) wrong b) fixable, and again these arguments are shown to be specious.

Someone once told me that they had presented an expanded set of these points to several conservative, evangelical Protestants only to be essentially told, "So what?...All are intelligent and knowledeagble men, committed Christians, but totally nonresponsive to the idea of the Apostolic Church." Well, I'm not sure what there is to say to that.

Having said all of this--Orthodox and Catholics (and Copts, for that matter) can and should be looking for ways to interact at the level of the laity. "Dialogue" is not what I'm talking about, and neither is concelebration or communion--maybe, rather, cooperation and conversation. We should at least be looking for situations in which we can be allies, because we have much more of a common vocabulary among us than any of us really have with the Protestant mainstream.

Mr. Dreher, as a convert to Orthodoxy who came very close to converting to Roman Catholicism, all I can tell you is that if you choose to become Orthodox, I will rejoice and exhort you to embrace it fully. On the other hand, if you choose to remain Roman Catholic, I will likewise rejoice and exhort you to embrace it fully. It will only be through the interactions of fully-committed, faithful people on both sides, in cooperation with the Holy Spirit's "guidance into all truth", that these divisions can ever be healed and the sins repented of. You are in my prayers, Mr. Dreher.

In Christ,

Richard>

Francesca said "There is only one immaculate Catholic, from whom all other Catholics draw the graces necessary to remain in the Church. She is the only human being who can give the Drehers the strength to stay."

I couldn't agree more.
Pax
Steve>

One more note, Rod:

I have to disagree with Fr. Greeley (whose writings on the Irish I've admired greatly), when he said "even if the Catholic church was run by psychopathic tyrants, that has nothing whatever to do with whether or not the Catholic faith is true."

If a church was indeed THE church founded by Christ, would He allow it to be run by psychopathic tyrants? Really? I mean, would Christ stand by and watch if His bride ran down off the altar, into the streets and off into the netheryonder?

To sum up this point, I think it very valid and instructive to look at a church's leadership when considering whether it is a vessel of grace. That goes for any church.>

I am a former Catholic seminarian who converted to Orthodoxy. I haven't looked back. Something deep and abiding changed when I became Orthodox, and as a husband, a father, and a Christian, I thank God for it every day.

re Orthodox deaconesses, there is a mis-understanding of history here. The order of deaconness never completely died in the Orthodox church, like in the Coptic church. One can read of deaconnesses in 19th Century Russia and in 20th Century Greece and Palestine. What the Greek Church restored is simply what has been maintained in various places since the beginning. They use the same prayer used in Patristic times. The question of priestly ordination of women is a non-starter, despite what a few lone voices in the West may say.

re birth control, I am a Greek Orthodox in the U.S., and I would be forbidden Eucharist if my wife and I contracept. Even in those places where there is some tolerance of it, it is still viewed as sinful.>

That link again:

">http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1609>

Looks like a fun new book on themes related to all of this:

http://southern-orthodoxy.blogspot.com/2006/05/book-one-flew-over-onion-dome.html

I cannot help notice that Father Joseph of the Orthodixie blog plugs his book and then, right next to that, plugs the new Thrill of the Chaste book by Catholic convert Dawn Eden. Gosh, I guess he does not hate her.>

I m a convert to Orthodoxy from Calvinism, which I adopted as a young adult after being raised a more generic Evangelical. I can t deny that I could be wrong yet again, nor can I rule out another epiphany whereby I will finally get something about Rome that I ve missed thus far.
That said, it seems to me that the Orthodox Church on the ground in North America today is in considerably better shape spiritually than is the Roman Catholic Church in its Liturgy and (whatever you can say about the immutable Catholic magisterium), in unity of belief. One prominent Orthodox convert said, roughly, that one reason he became Orthodox is that he didn t have to decide which kind of Orthodox. Had he become Catholic, he would have had to choose which flavor of Catholic to become - almost like remaining Protestant. The commendation of Byzantine Rite Catholicism in comments to Rod tacitly confirms that observation. Catholicism appears to be a big tent where the papacy is one of precious few things on which everyone halfway agrees.
A turning point in Michael Dukakis run for the Presidency was when he was asked about capital punishment in the context of a hypothetical rape-murder of his wife. His objective answer marked him as almost subhuman. Rod s anguish over the actual state of Catholicism on the ground in North America is perfectly human (and of a whole cloth with his Crunchy Con sensibility). Many of the Catholic responses, while quite polite, seem rather cold-blooded in comparison; their shared anguish with Rod seems pro forma; the substance is repeated Latinisms about Ubi Petrus and extra ecclesia.
And that doesn t even count Eliphaz of Teman, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar of Naama who have come back as jb doubtless, Sinsonte and Jonathan Carpenter to kick another good man while he s down. Good to see you guys again.>

+J.M.J+

>>>re Orthodox deaconesses, there is a mis-understanding of history here. The order of deaconness never completely died in the Orthodox church, like in the Coptic church.

Interestingly, Carthusian nuns recieve the stole and maniple at their consecration - this is a remnant of the office of deaconess in the Catholic Church. However, unlike deacons, deaconesses never received Holy Orders.

In Jesu et Maria,>

tmatt asks: "[I]s anyone going to respond to the fact that the current pope -- at one point in his professional life -- argued that the Orthodox churches have a more ancient structure and approach to church authority?

Sure, I'll bite. I can't speak for Benedict, but I don't see any real contradiction between his having said something like this and his nevertheless upholding the papacy and even being Pope himself.

In Ut Unum Sint, John Paul II called upon the Orthodox to help him envision new ways that papal primacy could be exercised in the world. Anyone who can read history knows that the papacy was once very different from what it is today—papal primacy has gone through several phases throughout history and could be transformed again into something new.

Consider the comment some have made that early popes denied that they were universal patriarchs. I haven't seen these statements—I'd appreciate a link or two—but I'll take their word for it. But I don't think we ought to see the papal office as that of "universal patriarch" anyway. The Pope is the patriarch of Rome (if I can put it that way); his patriarchal office is distinct from his papal office.

This is a point that many, probably most, Roman Catholics have a hard time understanding—but something Byzantine Catholics get, because while we are in union with the Pope of Rome, we don't really have our own Patriarchs—and we want them.

So the unifying role of the Pope needn't be desscribed as that of a "unversal patriarch" (which is something of an oxymoron anyway). It seems that Benedict actually may hold such a view, since I understand he has recently dropped the title, "Patriarch of all the West."

I doubt Ratzinger/Benedict has changed his views since 1977. Sounds like back then he was anticipating Ut Unum Sint, trying to envision a new way for the unifying principle of the papacy to be exercised.>

Reader John:
Is it kicking a good man when he is down when I point out what he always was; a sanctimonious phony? Despite all the protests to the contrary from people like Mark Shea, Dom B et. al. he has contantly kicked the church when it is down. It is know obvious that he has never believed in the teaching authority of the church or the Petrine supremacy. Their motto at the National Review is "Mater Si. Magistra No!" It has never been "Mater et Magistra." This is a view shared by many Pro-Abortion Liberals.>

I think Richard has nailed something.

The Orthodox are not fond of "historical development" outside of Ecumenical Councils that include the whole Church. Rome is. Thus, the past 1,000 years have been such a tragic era of division.>

tMatt,

What about the Nestorians who accept only the first two councils out of seven & or the Orientals who accept only three? None of them participated in all seven of the councils? So logically how can anybody even claim all seven involved the "whole church" and that later "Roman Catholic" councils did not?

What a bogus argument.

Can you show me from the Acts of the Second Council of Nicea where the representatives of the Partrarchs of the Copts participated? How about the Assyrians? What? They didn't attend!

Well so much for that argument. All Seven council HAD to be confirmed by the Pope. That is why Catholics could continue to have Eccumenical Councils while the EOC are stuck in the 9th century afraid to call any synod they have Eccumenical. If you guys where the True Church you think you would have had at least one Council since Second Nicea? Truth is you broke from us (much of it was our fault) & we went on without ya. Come home.>

And just to address the point about the early Popes from above, I think the evidence is heavily in favor of their authority. Like I said before, it was a much less de-centralized. But the Popes were clear about their authority. Pope Leo the Great (who I believe is honored as a Saint in the East) was a great defender of the supremacy of the Roman See. Writing in the mid-5th century:

"The connection of the whole body makes all alike healthy, all alike beautiful; and this connection requires the unanimity indeed of the whole body, but it especially demands harmony among the priests. And though they have a common dignity, yet they have not uniform rank, inasmuch as even among the blessed Apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honourable estate, there was a certain distinction of power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead of the rest. From which model has arisen a distinction between bishops also...and again that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter's one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head. Let not him then who knows he has been set over certain others take it ill that some one has been set over him, but let him himself render the obedience which he demands of them...">

"...Protestantism is out of the question; I have to be part of the historic apostolic church, and have the Sacraments; for me, that is possible only in RCism and Odoxy"
Pretty much says it all to me about Rod and his beliefs. Rod is showing here that he worships doctrine, not G*d, and follows theologians, not Jesus. The religious barriers Rod creates in his mind only take him further away from what he claims to be seeking. -- THICH72

Agree completely.

Pssst! JPII conceded that one can only enter heaven through God's grace, not through 'good works.' IOW, Martin Luther was right.

OK...resume discussion on hair-splitting of various doctrine and dogma ;)>

"afraid to call any synod they have Eccumenical"

Not really. Many Orthodox not in PC America refer to the eighth, ninth, and tenth ecumenical councils.>

Meanwhile, I can sympathize heartily with anyone who leaves the madness of American Catholicism for the comparitive sanity of Eastern Orthodoxy. My only prayer is that, if Mr. Dreher goes down this road, that he will think fondly of the communion he leaves behind and not become one of those bitter ex-Catholic converts to Orthodoxy who make it their life's work to decry every miniscule detail of Catholicism.>

Where does this weird idea that the Orthodox are more "sane" then Catholics come from?

I don't see it.

see http://www.pokrov.org/

http://www.pokrov.org/news/abusernews2001.html

Rod you are living in a dream world if
you think the Eastern Orthodox are the answer to all your problems.
I challenge you sir to read the above link & tell us with a straight face join them will be "different" then staying in the True Church.

Yeh orthodox leaders got their act to gether unlike those clueless Romans.>

Where does this weird idea that the Orthodox are more "sane" then Catholics come from?

Mostly from personal experience. Pick any given Antiochian Orthodox parish on any given Sunday and any given Roman Catholic parish on the same day and tell me which one is more likely to have liturgical dancers or gender neutral corruptions of Scripture or a homily about the spiritual benefits attendant on watching Brokeback Mountain? I say this as a loyal Catholic who entertains no intentions of leaving - Orthodoxy is not caught up in the madness of the modern culture wars to nearly the same extent as Catholicism, ethnic paranoias prevalent among the Orthodox notwithstanding.

I would venture that the sexual abuse problem in the Orthodox Church is probably worse than in the Catholic and you, Rod, would endanger your boys bringing them into it.

Aside from your own speculations, have you any actual evidence to support this claim?>

BenYachov,

Most of what Pokrov posts is a vain attempt to find the same scandal. They resort to posting things about non-Orthodox splinter groups (that account for a large percentage of what they post) and things about lay people. I wouldn't use them as a good example.>

After a yearlong exploration of the RC faith, I've come to the conclusion that I cannot convert for the very same reasons you are considering leaving. Even at the most "orthodox" of the RC parishes in my city, the highly regarded Priest is very feminine. Of course no one talks about it, but it makes me uncomfortable to think that someone so obviously homosexual is in charge. I've heard all the arguments for not letting the gay Priest problem get in the way, but I cannot risk putting my four year old son in harms way. How can a church that shelters abusers while showing little concern for victims (in thousands of cases) call itself the true Church? That's what it boils down to and that is why I am now investigating the Orthodox Church.>

"However, unlike deacons, deaconesses never received Holy Orders."

Eventually you will hear the retort, of documentation that deaconesses were sacramentally ordained (in Greek, chierotonia). This is not so much wrong as very, very misleading. During the latter first millenium, both terms were more loosely applied than they are today. There's documentation on that too.>

Tmatt: Well, from Rome's perspective, Orthodox churches no longer are part of the whole church. If one leaves the church, one can't complain about what they do after you've gone. Eastern Catholics were well-represented at Vatican I and Vatican II. This is not true of some other Councils like Trent, but "ecumenical" has never meant "every possible square foot of territory is represented." There were few Westerners at the seven Councils we both recognize. Please, don't create a strawman.>

Before you bolt for the sunny shores and green pastures of Constantinople, read up a little on current EO activities in the US: (If you think the RCC is bad handling scandals, you ain't seen nothing yet....)

www.ocanews.org

Also, your stated reasons for (possibly) leaving the Catholic Church don't sound very Crunchy Con to me. Seems to me, you are exhibiting the same consumerist traits towards the Catholic Church that you railed against so eloquently in your book (and for which I loudly applauded)>

Rod,

I think you were subconsciously dissatisfied with Catholicism long before the sexual abuse scandals. As one of the previous bloggers wrote, if you're thinking about going, you should probably go. But don't trash the Catholic Church on your way out; it doesn't deserve that. You will find plenty of problems in Orthodoxy once you make it your permanent home. Please don't cry about them publicly.>

Do you believe that the RC church is wrong about Papal Infallibility, the filioque, and the Immaculate Conception? If yes, then you're half way there already.

This seems rather backwards to me - as if the true Church could be recognized by virtue of the fact that it is the one that preaches the true Faith. How do we know the faith apart from the Church?

For my part, I do not know that the Son is begotten of the Father except that the Church tells me so, and the same goes for any other issue, including papal infallibility, dual procession of the Spirit, original sin, etc. I do not know how we might say "I know that the Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son, so the Catholic Church cannot be the true Church." We begin by knowing the Church and then learn the Faith from Her, not the other way around.>

Andy -

The trouble with your otherwise very intelligent point is that many of us believe that there is One, True Church founded by Christ.

Consequently, it would do no one any good to say that well, this Church or that Church is "good enough" for to us there is only one and all others are false.

In these days of moral relativism, this idea may come as a shock to many people -- even those who share our particular Faith (whichever that may be.) The Catholic Church three times infallibly declared that no one outside of her may be saved. (Modernists will dispute this point, but a quick Google search will reveal the text of the three infallible papal statements to this effect.)

If the Catholic Church is indeed the One, True Church and her infallible pronouncements are in fact infallible, then this is a big problem for those who are not within her confines.

If on the other hand, these pronouncements were false, then the Catholic Church and its adherents (such as myself) are likewise in big trouble, as infallibly declared statements have proved to be fallible, thus calling into question whether or not the Catholic faith is true.>

Anybody know how the liturgical life at the Cistercian monastery in Irving is?>

Good one steve!

www.ocanews.org

BTW show me 10,000 more scandels in the EOC & that really has no effect on my belief or disbelief in Her as the True Church Vs The Catholic Church.

That too me is a low browe why to discern Truth. But it does level the playing field.>

FBC,
Don't arguments over whether or not the RC Church is the only means of salvation inevitably bog down into a hopeless "Yes, it is," "No it isn't" kind of exchange?

The only proof that can be cited, even if you are right that the RCC has said this about itself, is of a circular kind. "The Church has said this about itself, therefore it is true." But if Dreher is thinking about becoming Orthodox, he must be considering that perhaps the Orthodox have a better claim to the truth in its fullness. Therefore, it probably doesn't matter to him what the RCC has said about itself as being the only way to Heaven, if it indeed has said this about itself.>

Richard, the purpose of music during mass is to make sure no one misses the chance to suffer for the faith.>

I have said befort and still maintain that you were ignorant of many things Catholic and were not even aware of what it meant to be a Catholic Journalist or a Journalist who is Catholic.

No Peter
No Church

Know Peter
Know Church>

I was raised Catholic by two very devout parents - fasts, holy days of obligation, weekly CCD and confession, never miss a mass kind of parents.

YET, when I went away to college that was the last time I ever went to a Catholic church, save the odd wedding or Christmas mass with my parents. When I had kids of my own, and was in personal crisis due to a serious illness of my son, I didn't even consider a Catholic church. I began attending a local evangelical church and we are now all "born again". My children attend a bible based Christian school where the kids are "on fire for God", as the cliche goes.

So why did the Catholic church get such short shrift? I wanted my kids to have a relationship with God, I wanted God to be at the center of their life. And I just didn't see that ever happening in a Catholic parish. Not ever. I knew that I could never be as devout as my parents, and yet my faith fell away like so much water off a duck when I pulled out of the driveway one September day in 1980.

There is much that I miss about Catholicism, and much that annoys me about my current church. (Although I have attended some local Catholic masses recently due to a long-term house guest, and I have to say that the things that are most annoying about evangelical worship are now visible in the Catholic mass.)

Sometimes I really do worry that I have put my kids' souls in peril. But I have left that for God to sort out, believing as I must that it is pleasing to him to have followers who are passionate about their faith and committed to spreading the good news. I believe it beats the alternative that was my fate in the Catholic - sacramental check-list completed, faith dead.>

Maureen,

My wife was raised Roman Catholic with a similar experience to yours. When she went to college she was baptized again within Evangelical circles, was "born again", and started saying many of the kinds of things you do.

Some years later, she and I were leaving a Mass together (a High Mass at the cathedral), and she made the observation that for awhile after running in Evangelical circles she harbored a lot of anger towards Catholicism over, she believed, not having been taught the Gospel--essentially, "Why in the world haven't I heard these things before?" However, after that Mass, she realized that, in fact, she had.

The point is this--the burden that faces the Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Church in this country is that, by virtue of our roots, we're a lot of self-described "plain folks" who have the conceit of, by and large, wanting the message without having to worry about how it is delivered. ("I don't care about all that extra stuff, I just want to hear the preaching and take communion" is a direct quote on the matter from one such person I know.) It's almost Gnosticism, really, and we hear it expressed throughout our society. It manifests itself where religion is concerned with a core distrust of liturgical or sacramental (read "material") worship.

This presents these kinds of communions with a dilemma: do we compromise in hopes of making ourselves more "accessible" and "relevant", or do we stay as we are? The ECUSA and the RCC, to a large extent, have chosen the former path. Trouble is, the very nature of liturgical and sacramental worship is that it is otherworldly, so to try to minimize that aspect creates a perceptible disconnect. I've seen Catholic Masses and Episcopal Rite II Eucharists that just come across as the clergy winking at the congregation for an hour--"We know all of this ritual is silly, but please bear with us and we'll try to get to the good stuff fast." (In all fairness, I've also been to Masses and ECUSA services where this wasn't the case, but they are outnumbered.) This leads to situations like what one has in Chicago right now, where the RCC is hemorrhaging its Latino membership to Pentecostal congregations. "We keep trying to imitate the Protestants," one spokesman for the Archdiocese said about a year and a half ago, "and it doesn't work."

The only way it can work at all is if everybody involved takes it absolutely seriously and treats it with the utmost respect--because God *is* at the center of the liturgy. Our own American cultural prejudices may cause to struggle with the material aspects of sacramental worship, but the point is Incarnational, which we find in the Gospel of John--"And the Word became *flesh*, and dwelt among us." Fr. Alexander Schmemann's _For the Life of the World_ explains the implications of this quite well.

What's become clear to my wife through all of this is that "being on fire for God" is not an experience that can be separated from the context of the Church's sacramental life, and that placed in that context, it takes on an entirely new, and fuller, meaning.

michigancatholic: I'll make sure I pass that on to my choir.

In Christ,

Richard>

Rod:

The gates of repentance are opened. Follow that way.

We will remember you in the Divine Liturgy tomorrow.

Christ is Risen!

luke>

I haven't read all these comments, but I think it is wrong to imply, as some do, that Rod's only, or chief, reason is his frustration over the sex scandal.

Isn't it rather a question of solidity of the faith held, an important matter when raising one's children?

Note this express point made to Rod by his friend (and mine) TMatt.

Personally, I was the child that needed raising, or at least a very hungry sheep, tired of cold empty hillsides, when my husband and I decided on Orthodoxy.>

Rod, I wish you all the best and hope to find you and your family soon over here in the East (in the Christian sense).

I had suspicions that you were going in this direction when I thought I saw you in the OCA cathedral in Dallas last summer.

On a different note, I am saddened by many Orthodox who have such a bitter view of Catholics. Sure, we have divisions that need to be sustained, but the RC's and OC's share many, many common goals and visions. And besides this, JP II was indeed one of the most beloved and revered Christians of the 20th century.>

Justin,
You are one of those "old calendar" types aren't ya? So might be "Orthodox" in the same manner the SSPX is "Catholic". You remind me of the old Catholic saying that Eastern Orthodoxy is congregationalism with crok and Mitre.

Clearly Pokrov is quite credible.>

"Adherence to Holy Tradition no longer becomes important to salvation because it is really formal adherence to the papal see that is important. Traditionalist Roman Catholics now find themselves in a seemingly impossible fight to preserve traditional liturgy, yet they have not considered the fact that papal supremacy/infallibility leaves no room for the conscience of the faithful, and even the bishops become vicars of the vicar with little real authority of their own."

Traditional Roman Catholics are not losing the battle to preserve traditional liturgy; they're winning, and have been for years. In fact, recognition of the conscience of the faithful is one driving force behind efforts to reconcile the SSPX; the "vicars of the vicar" in fact have usurped papal authority and they have been the major reason the battle for the traditional liturgy has not yet been visibly won. But rest assured, it has been won.

=====

"One Roman bishop can teach and practice what is contrary to the faith, while another can be in line with the faith, yet both are considered valid and authentic Roman Catholic bishops merely because they are under the Pope."

Wrong again; these disobedient bishops are valid bishops by virtue of their *ordination*. What is it about disobedience that you don't understand?

=========

"Adherence to Holy Tradition no longer becomes important to salvation because it is really formal adherence to the papal see that is important."

Wrong again - formal adherence to the papal see IS adherence to Holy Tradition. This does not mean that the popes cannot have, should not have, or have not had many loyal opponents throughout history. The pope is a sign of unity, which can only be grounded in Truth, of which only he has Christ's guarantee; not every word he utters is protected by Christ's guarantee, but when Rome speaks definitively, the truth is known and there is unity among those who do not place their private opinions above Christ's promise.

As for "validity" being a function of formal adherence to the pope -- the term "validity" is usually applied to the Sacraments, of which ordination is one. Rome recognizes the validity of many Sacraments administered outside of formal adherence to the Pope, even among "schismatics." She also recognizes that mere sin cannot undo the mark upon the soul who has received a Sacrament.

Which, by the way, is precisely why she does not allow divorce and - to reiterate - why she recognizes the disobedient "vicars of the vicar" as "valid bishops."
============
"True unity of faith, worship, and practice is only to be found in the Orthodox Church."

That argument has been roundly demolished in this series of comments; have you read through them? But please explain, if you will, what principle of faith, worship, and practice permits the Orthodox church to teach that contraception and divorce are acceptable?>

Rosemarie...

"the RCC is the only true church, and outside of it, no one is saved"

Actually, the papacy itself no longer believes that.

Furthermore, Rome recognizes the validity of the Orthodox Church's sacraments and apostolic succession.

So if a person were to leave Rome and go to Orthodoxy, you certainly could not apply this statement of "outside of it, no one is saved.">

Lucas,

Glad you asked; here are a some of fairly detailed answers:

On Artificial Contraception vs. Natural Family Planning

On Annulment

On Our Lord's "exception" regarding Divorce


I brought up the contraception-divorce issue because it is a central issue concerning the moral authority of the Pope and because of a personal experience. About ten years ago, an Evangelical friend was considering converting to Orthodoxy at the same time I was considering converting from "non denominational Christianity" to Catholicism. I asked my friend, "Why Constantinople rather than Rome?" and he -- with a degree of honesty one has to admire -- replied, "So that I can contracept without feeling guilty."

Within a couple of years he was Orthodox...and divorced.

God bless you.>

+J.M.J+

>>>If Rome doesn't allow "contraception" why is the rhythm method allowed (effectively having sex without conceiving--isn't that literally "contraception"?)

No. Contraception literally means "against conception" - it exists only to prevent conception by deliberately frustrating the procreative power of the conjugal act.

"Rhythm"/NFP, OTOH, can be used to both postpone or *cause* conception, because it simply makes a wife aware of when she is fertile and when she is not. If used to postpone conception, the couple just waits until the procreative power is no longer present (the infertile period) and engages in the marital act at that time. The procreative power cannnot be frustrated if it is not present!

Here is Pius XI's declaration against contraception in Casti Connubi:

"The Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and the purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin that surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately deprived of its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin" (CC 56).

Note that it is a sin when the conjugal act is "deliberately deprived of its natural power to generate life". Contraception does this by directly thwarting conception when it is possible. NFP does not do this; it does not at all thwart the natural procreative power of the marital act, but leaves it intact, either using it to conceive or simply waiting till it is no longer present for relations if the couple has a just cause to space children or postpone conception. Therefore, NFP is not contraception and is morally acceptable.

Our Faith wasn't always opposed to all attempts to limit family size. Even before we had accurate, scientific knowledge of the infertile times, Christian couples could lawfully postpone conception by total abstinence from relations, if they had just cause to do so. When people started trying to use infertile times for that purpose, the Vatican said it was okay as far back as 1853; see:

Is NFP a Heresy?
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea2.asp

Of course, NFP is not manditory on all Catholics. One can certainly take a "providentialist" approach and just let children come as they may.

>>>2. If Rome doesn't allow "divorce" how can there be a process of "annulment" which effectively separates a previously married couple (effectively "divorcing" them in the literal sense of the word).

An annulment does not divorce a couple. Divorce breaks a marriage bond, which can only be done with a natural marriage, not a sacramental marriage, since Our Lord said, "What God has joined together let no man put asunder".

An annulment is simply a declaration that the marriage is not sacramental, which means the marriage is only natural and so can be broken by divorce. This is done after closely examining the couple's relationship to see if there were "impediments" the Sacrament of Matrimony which may have prevented the marriage from being sacramental.

(Granted, I am of the opinion that this process is often abused in the US, since canon lawyers hand out far too many annulments in this country. But abuse does not negate proper use; the annulment process is still valid even if misused in some areas.)

In Jesu et Maria,>

http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2006/05/most-effective-argument-against.html

">http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2006/05/contraception-state-of-question.html>

I might add that Orthodox priests are received into the Catholic Church by profession of the Nicene Creed, (in Melkite's case, minus the filioque)in the presence of the bishop. There is a profession of loyalty to the bishop in the same manner that any Catholic priest makes when he is assigned a pastorate.
On return to the Orthodox Church, or in case of a Catholic (Latin or Eastern rite)priest, again there is the profession of faith and of loyalty to the bishop. This takes no more than ten minutes at most.>

On Fr. Sergius Bulgakov's experiment in "creative theology" is nowhere taken seriously by any Seminary either here or in Europe. I have lived and served in both places. To the average Orthodox "sophiology" has no bearing whatsoever. If those weren't so unknowledgeable about Orthodoxy, raising the matter of Sophiology is hilarious.>

I am stunned by the polemicism of some of the Orthodox comments, notably tmatt's. Good grief. If the historical claims for the papacy were as easily overthrown as tmatt assumes, the papacy wouldn't have lasted two years, let aloe 2,000. What purblind hubris! The mind boggles. If this is the sort of person Rod hangs with--along with Frederica, then God help us. Reminds me a bit of the Bad Shoulder Angel in *The Emperor's New Groove.* But without the sense of humor. ;)

As Karl Keating once observed, these anti-papal arguments get refuted over and over and over again...yet non-Catholics still trot them out as if they're some sort of revelation, on the apparent assumption that Catholics have never heard (much less refuted) them before. (I guess they assume we papists are really, really dumb--after all, we leave our brains at the church door, right? :p)

How can I take tmatt's arguments seriously when they're neither new nor compelling, and they've already been answered a hundred kajillion times? Is this the best the Orthodox can do? (Apparently yes, given the shallowness of every Orthodox critique of Rome I've ever seen.)

Orthodox seem bent on making polemical hay out of Rod's apparent imminent departure from the Catholic Church. This strikes me as rather Bad Form, to say the very least!

But back to the res: I am also praying very hard for Rod. I think he is very misguided, and his irrational animus toward my Church strikes me as utterly over the top. I also know for a fact that he will find the same moral problems in Orthodoxy that he deplores in Catholicism--along with a heck of a lot more DENIAL. Things are tough all over. As the husband of my church-hopping friend Kimberlee once told her, "If you ever find a 'perfect' church, they won't have you as a member." If Rod thinks he's gonna escape the human condition *anywhere,* he has set himself up for serious disappointment. I guarantee that, even if he becomes a hermit on a desert island, he will still hafta live with tares--the ones in his (s in every human) heart.

A personal note. I grew up Catholic in an Irish-Italian ghetto in Dorchester, a borough of Boston, during the pious '50s. I've been Catholic for the better part of my 55 years, both before and after VCII...which gives me a heck of a lot more experience of Catholiism than Rod has. And, based on this extensive personal experience, I can tell you this: Every anti-Catholic stereotype trotted out on this thread (e.g., Legalistic West versus Mystical East, one of the dumbest stereotypes in history, IMHO) and every caricature of my Church as Evil Incarnate posted by Rod has me going, "Huh? What on earth are these people talking about?"

The Catholic Church is far from perfect, but she bears no resemblance to the caricatures I've seen here. The Church Rod describes bears no resemblance to the Church I inhabit, the one I've known most of my life. (And BTW, my earliest memory related to that Church is of a mystical experience I had at age five during Benediction...but of course we Latins are just a bunch of ratiocinative legalists, right? [insert rolleyes here])

Well, I didn't mean to get off on that. Suffice it to say that I have my issues with Rod's approach. But no matter. I am praying for him and his family, big-time. I generally pray for ex-Catholics, non-Catholics, and anti-Catholics before the statue of Our Lady of Guadalupe at my parish church. If anyone can keep Rod in the fold, la Guadalupana can.

God bless,

Diane

P.S. Has anyone here mentioned Orthodox anti-Semitism, which is rabid, widespread, and getting worse by the minute? That would be a deal-breaker for me, right there.>

The unfounded assertion that Professor Mattingly has been "polemical" and that the "caricatures" of the Catholic Church bear no resemblance to that which Ms. Kamer has experienced, followed up with comments like "Frederica the Ultimate Eastern Chauvinist" and the assertion about anti-Semitism in Orthodoxy, comes across very much as the pot calling the kettle black.

The arguments against the papacy are what they are. There is a point of view from which papal supremacy makes sense; there is a point of view from which it does not. The question is, what did the early Church believe, and if it changed, why, and by whose authority did it do so? If the faith truly has been "once delivered", there is a right answer and several possible wrong answers.

That many do not find Rome's refutations of the arguments against the papacy convincing and thus continue to hold to them is saying *something*, certainly. That is not to say that there no function for the Patriarch of Rome in the Orthodox Church; clearly there was in the early Church. The issue is only if that function is one of universal, monarchical authority.

Speaking as an Orthodox, there is no reason for polemics on either side, and no reason for those of us "in the trenches" as it were to be treating each other as anything other than brothers and sisters in Christ. That said, just because I post something you disagree with doesn't make it polemical. It just means we disagree.

In Christ,

Richard>

I'm not sure it's possible to process the multitude of information out there about Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Apologists for both sides abound. Ask God where He wants you to be ... he will show you.
It may take a while. Possibly a long while. But He will show you.>

There have been plenty of uncalled-for polemics interjected into this thread on both sides. Aglaios, Professor Mattingly, and Justin have been, from where I sit, remarkably free from it. Just because Roman Catholics have something to say to Mr. Dreher about this matter does not mean that Orthodox do not, particularly when clearly both read his blog, and it does not follow that that this constitutes "polemics".

In Christ,

Richard>

Perhaps, to turn the exchange towards something positive--what about these thoughts from Fr. Thomas Hopko?

">http://htaoc.com/content/hopko_reunion.pdf>

Richard,

I read Father Hotko's piece, and I am left with the sense that were this followed, "Tu es Petrus...", "do you love Me more than these?...Feed my lambs" and "Strengthen your brethren" would be left without much current application.>

Justin, You are one of those "old calendar" types aren't ya?

To be fair, the majority of Orthodox Christians in the world follow the "old calendar"- due to the size of the Church of Russia- though the majority of the autocephalous, local Orthodox churches follow the "new calendar". The Russians, Serbs, Georgians, the OCA parishes in Alaska, and all of the monasteries of Mount Athos, etc. are all solidly Orthodox.

Separately, there are "Old Calendarist" groups that protested the calendar change more for what motivations lay behind the most obvious change, e.g., ecumenism, masonry, etc. These groups could be compared to the SSPX and various Old Catholic groups as being "schismatic" Orthodox Christians- to a greater or lesser degree, and for various reasons.>

Trackback Pontifications: "Ten thousand scandals do not make one doubt">

Ed,

I think part of Fr. Thomas Hopko's point is that it's the gap between "current application" and "application of old" that is one of the core concerns. Somewhere along the way the pope went from being the Vicar of Peter (no problem) to Vicar of Christ (um, problem)--again, as has been pointed out here, something that even the current pope has acknowledged.

In Christ,

Richard>

Diane, there is nothing in the Fathers denying the pope is "Vicar of Christ" because the title was never used in "Patristic" times. It is a later title, used by the emperor, that the pope assumed in order to show temporal power. See the discussion in Papadakis "The Eastern Churches and the Rise of the Papacy.">

Pope Leo the Great used the term "Vicar of Peter". Pope Innocent III, c.1215, was the one to really start using "Vicar of Christ" with the Hildebrandean reforms.

The current pope's acknowledgment, when he was still Professor Ratzinger, of the development of the pope's role, was well-covered in the link posted by Professor Mattingly: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1609

In Christ,

Richard>

Diane,

An examination of the original Greek text supports a different interpretation than the rather ambiguous English. Christ says "You are Peter (Petros-masculine) and on this ("this" appears as femenine) rock (petra-feminine) I will build my church."

The use of the feminine precludes Petros himself being the antecedent to which Christ refers (in "on this rock" etc.) as there would have to be gender agreement; no, Christ is referring to Peter's confession of faith which immediately precedes the above: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

I'm afraid the Greek simply doesn't allow the interpretation you are implying here.

en XC,
Lucas>

Richard,

My point was that Fr. Hopko's (sorry for previous misspell) document leaves the Pope with almost no particular functions at all, other than diocesan bishop of Rome. It's not even certain that he would be the Metropolitan of Latio.

Lucas,

This distinction is frequently used by Evangelicals who assert that petros denotes a small stone or a pebble, and petra is a large rock. But the original conversation took place in Aramaic, not Greek. That is why there are frequent NT references to 'Cephas' or 'Kephas'; the Aramaic word for "rock". The Aramaic for "pebble" is evna, which certainly acnnot be confused with Cephas. Also, Aramaic nouns for inanimate objects are genderless, so I would beware of relying on details in the grammar of the Greek translation.

And even were it granted, it leaves wide open the question, "Why was his name changed at all, then?">

Lucas: Is this really the best the Orthodox can do? Do you have any idea how very many times this silly charge has been refuted? Even some of your own scholars concede that Peter is the Rock of Matthew 16: 18. Sheesh!

Not only did Our Lord speak Aramaic, in which the word for "Rock" in both cases is "Kepha" (which St. John and St. Paul transliterate as Cephas). BUT even in the Greek: (a) the different word endings occur only because Peter is a guy, and it would be a tad silly for Matthew to call him Rockette, now wouldn't it?; (b) the alleged distinction between "Big Rock" and "Small Stone" (so beloved of fundamentalists) did not even exist in 1st-c. Koine Greek; furthermore, the usual Greek term for small stone is "lithos," not "petros."

But all that is beside the point because **Our Lord spoke Aramaic.** (insert rolleyes emoticon here ;))

Moreover, anyone the least bit familiar with syntax and parallelism knows that *you have to twist Matt: 16-18 into a syntactical pretzel* in order to force it to say that "Rock" means anything other than Peter himself.

Yes, I know--the Fathers sometimes said the Rock was Peter's confession blah blah. Well, the very same Fathers also said the Rock was Peter himself. As your own EO scholars concede, these Fathers (who saw the Rock *primarily* as Peter's person) viewed Peter's confession as *inseparable* from his person. Thus, for them, it was "both/and": Because Peter himself was the Rock, so was his confession; and because Peter's confession was so Rocklike, Jesus named him the Rock. (I bet tghe Fathers could walk and chew gum at the same time, too.)

This one's a non-starter, as EO and Protestant scholars alike admit nowadays. (There's a gigundous scholarly--as opposed to merely polemical--literature on the subject.)

I'm surprised such unsophisticated arguments are being trotted out in this thread. I'm sure you won't sway Rod with them; he's certainly familiar with the copious scholarly literature confirming that the Rock of Matt: 16-18 is Peter himself.

But, of course, you've succeeded in changing the subject and going back on the offensive, haven't you? I shouldn't have let you get away with that! So, I will now return to the question I actually asked, OK?

Where in the Bible does Our Lord say, "On this pentarchy I will build my Church"? Where does He say "On these Seven Ecumenical Councils I will build My Church"? Hmmmm?

Back on the defensive with you! Answer *my* questions, please. *Yours* I've heard a thousand times already. ;)

Diane>

Diane, the point isn't what Professor Mattingly said. The point was, if you actually read what the link points to, what then-Professor *Ratzinger* said vis-a-vis papal function and church structure in the first millennium vs. what exists in the Roman Church today.

As far as specific *denial* of the title "Vicar of Christ", that's like asking where the specific denial of Jerry Falwell's ministry is in the NT Epistles. It's not there because there was nothing to deny. It has to be in use for it to be denied.

I'm not going to get into the rock/kepha/petros argument, but while acknowledging that Christ didn't say "on this pentarchy I will build my church", I will also point out that neither did St. Ignatius of Antioch (a successor of Peter himself, as Peter was first in Antioch before Rome) say, "Where the bishop *of Rome is*, there is the Catholic Church." In fact, his ecclesiology uses the word "catholic" more to mean "complete"--that each local church with a bishop is *catholic*, complete, in and of itself.

There also remains previously-quoted Cyprian: "The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, 'I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, 'As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;' yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. [...] The episcopate is a single whole, in which each bishop enjoys full possession."

Note that last couple of lines:

"Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed *with a like partnership both of honour and power*; but the beginning proceeds from unity. [...] *The episcopate is a single whole, in which each bishop enjoys full possession.*"

For Cyprian, in other words, each bishop is a successor of Peter, and there's not anything in particular about the episcopate of Rome that distinguishes it in this regard. It is the *unity* of the episcopate that proceeds from Peter.

Ed--I read the following points, and just don't quite see what you're talking about:

"The pope would also assure all Christians that the bishop of Rome will never do or teach anything on his own authority, 'from himself and not from the consensus of the church (ex sese et non ex consensu ecclesiae).' He would promise to serve in his presidency solely as the spokesperson for all the bishops in apostolic succession who govern communities of believers who have chosen them to serve, and whose validity and legitimacy as bishops depend solely on their fidelity to the Gospel in communion with their predecessors in the episcopal office, and with each other.

On undecided doctrinal and moral issues the Pope of Rome would use his
presidential authority to insure that everyone clergyman or layperson would be encouraged to freely present his or her arguments concerning Christian teaching and practice as witnessed in the Church s formal testimonies to Christian faith and life, i.e. the canonized scriptures, the traditional liturgies, the councils
and canons, and the witness and writings of the canonized saints for the reasons that they are glorified.

The pope would also use his presidential authority to guarantee a spirit of freedom, openness, respect and love in and among all churches and Christians,
and indeed all human beings, so that the Holy Spirit, Christ s sole 'vicar on earth', may bring to remembrance what Christ has said, and guide people into all the truth. (Jn 14.25, 16.13) The pope would, in this way, truly be the Great'
Bridgebuilder (Pontifex Maximus)."

Am I missing something?

In Christ,

Richard>

Lucas: I beg forgiveness for my sarcasm. It is a perennial fault of mine.

At the same time, I cannot help but observe: Can you not see how frustrated we Catholics may be at encountering the same tired arguments over and over again? It gets so old, it really does. As Karl Keating points out, Catholics answer these charges again and again and again x 1000 to the nth power...and then, they turn around, and someone's trotting out the same old argument, as if it had never been put forth before, as if Catholics had never heard (and rebutted) it before, as if it were some sort of "gotcha" revelation, some sort of silver bullet that will torpedo the entire foundation of Catholicism. (Please pardon mixed metaphors.)

You say I am not serious about dialogue. Actually, that is not true. I *am* interested in dialogue--with people of good faith and good will who will do more than throw hackneyed polemics at me. I will be happy to dialogue with you, if you in turn are truly interested in dialogue, not just in scoring polemical points. OK? Can we be friends (or at least dialoguers) on that basis?

As I said up above WRT Professor Mattingly: If the historical claims for Catholicism were as easy to overthrow as some people seem to think, the papacy would not have lasted two years, let alone 2,000. That anvil has worn out many a hammer. It will certainly withstand Professor Mattingly's...and, I suggest, yours.

Blessings,

Diane>

Diane,

Thank you, I had completely overlooked the question of those Keys that would to have no lock anymore.>

Thank you, Lucas! Please forgive me, again, for my besetting sin of sarcasm (and insensitivity to other people's feelings). The Lord is dealing with me about this right now.

Are you a recent convert to Orthodoxy, if I may be so bold as to ask?

God bless,

Diane>

... I have not been able to see where the absolute authority over other bishops understanding comes from.

That really doesn't sound like an accurate representation of the Pope's authority at all, to me: more of a caricature of the fact that in a few things - things which involve the Universal Church, not the governance of a particular Bishop's diocese - the Pope has final authority.

Oddly, Rod Dreher's unhappiness with Roman Catholicism seems to derive at least in significant part because he thinks the Pope should match the Eastern caricature of him and is failing to do so.>

Daniel, so what? Do you realize that outside the U.S. these nations recognize Roman Catholicism as their official religion:

* Argentina
* Bolivia
* Costa Rica
* El Salvador
* Liechtenstein
* Malta
* Monaco
* Some cantons of Switzerland
* Vatican City

Next red herring?>

Mr. Dreher,

I can appreciate the strength of your feelings about child abuse. However, you could be jumping from the frying pan into the fire, judging from this site that tracks child abusers (both priests and bishops) in the Orthodox Church:
www.pokrov.org>

Dear Rod
I really appreciate the argument made about keeping a child Christian by providing it with a relavent faith, able to engage the culture and inspire the believer.
During the heights of the scandals I considered becoming Anglican or Lutheran. That was tough because I converted to catholicism from Pentecostalism at age 16, 15 years earlier. My daughter will be prayed for and tought to pray. In our secular world she will choose Christ or not. I don't believe any denominational backround will better serve to keep her Christian. To the secular thinker all Christians are dopes. To the lukewarm Christian the world's opinions matter to much for Christ who will spit them out of his body. I remained in the C Church, no reason against Protestants, which you might be too dismissive of. The nature of the Petrine ministry makes the Orthodox Church less an option for me as does this point-the Universal ethnic and racial diversity of the RCC tips it for me over the Orthodox Church. The Eastern Church where are there missionaries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, there is something less than Catholic about not being aggressive to share the Gospel outside of prescribed ethnic communities. Peace>

I don't suppose you can explan *how* it is "sincerely ignorant"? Proof, please.

Hint: One Hispanic parish does not constitute "proof." In fact, it's quite otherwise--it's proof of Catholic diversity. (We also have Korean parishes, Vietnamese parishes, Chinese parishes, Hmong parishes, Montagnard parishes, and the list goes on.)

There are significant Catholic populations in every country except those under the strictest Islamo-fundamentalist rule. The same cannot be said WRT Orthodoxy. But I guess you'll argue with demographic statistics, too, eh? The demographers must be "sincerely ignorant."

Oy!! And Rod finds the case for Orthodoxy compelling?? :p

Blessings,

Diane>

Btw. with regard to the divorce issue, see these postings at the "Catholic Answers" website - here and here. They offer part of the rationale for why the Orthodox Church, in some cases, tolerates divorce and remarriage. This is hardly new, and goes back well before the "great schism" when the Orthodox were supposedly under (and recognized) the "universal jurisdiction" of the Pope.>

>>>I don't suppose you can explan *how* it is "sincerely ignorant"? Proof, please.>>>

No, Mrs. Kamer. Proof is the burden of the claimant. You have to prove that there are no Orthodox missionaries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, or you have failed to put forth a believable assertion.

>>>Hint: One Hispanic parish does not constitute "proof." In fact, it's quite otherwise--it's proof of Catholic diversity.

You have to prove that all-Hispanic Catholic churches are examples of 'racial diversity,' in contra-distinction to Orthodoxy where you find greater diversity in each parish. Else you're just blowing smoke.


(We also have Korean parishes, Vietnamese parishes, Chinese parishes, Hmong parishes, Montagnard parishes, and the list goes on.)

>>But I guess you'll argue with demographic statistics, too, eh? The demographers must be "sincerely ignorant.">>>

No, I argue with YOU.

>>>And Rod finds the case for Orthodoxy compelling??>>>

Keep it coming, Diane. I am certain that you can talk Rod right into the true Faith.>

A Hispanic local Catholic congregation will include persons from Three Continents, from African, Eureopean, Native American, and Asian lineage. In the same way a English speaking Church will include people all united by that Language.
However, the Catholic Church is not identified by direct ethnic lineage of the Native Orthdodox Church. A Bulgarian Church will have largely Bulgarians as will a Greek Church. But a Catholic Parish will be open to holding Mass for Koreans, Spanish, Portugeese, French wht have you. All members of one Parish.
I would also assert that in Latin America, Asia, and Africa- the established Orthodox Churches have been established to minister to persons of the diaspora of the specific ethnic group that migrated from Eastern Europe and other Orthodox homelands.
In a typical Catholic Parish on a Sunday in NYC every nation is represented. But if I go down the street to a Orthodox Church, the True Church, will I find Nigerians, Phillipions, Ecuadorians, Brits, Poles, Egyptians, Albanians, Turks, and Puerto Ricans, I doubt it. And tht is not Universal to me. Peace>

Mark Ortega:

Yep. :)

Thanks.

Luke: Yes, we are praying very hard that Rod will remain in the True Faith.

Diane>

>>>A Hispanic local Catholic congregation will include persons from Three Continents, from African, Eureopean, Native American, and Asian lineage.>>>

Mark, How do you know this? I'm telling you there's a Hispanic parish right here in this town that is virtually all ethnic. It sounds like you're making this stuff up as you go along. It is not more diverse than my parish, for example.

>>>In the same way a English speaking Church will include people all united by that Language.>>>

Right. Which in America is indentified with the "ethnic" group called Anglo-American. We're all ethnic in the universal Church.

>>>However, the Catholic Church is not identified by direct ethnic lineage of the Native Orthdodox Church. A Bulgarian Church will have largely Bulgarians as will a Greek Church.>>>

Nonsense. The Roman Catholic communion is also identified by ethnic associations. You ever been to a Maronite Catholic church? Or a Melkite Catholic church? Or a Russian Catholic church? It's the same thing.

>>>But a Catholic Parish will be open to holding Mass for Koreans, Spanish, Portugeese, French wht have you.>>>

Mark, you're too much. The "ethnic" Orthodox parishes that you find to be less than catholic serve all ethnicities. I have found more ethnic diversity in local Orthodox parishes than I have in local RC parishes. What that means is that there are many different ethnicities represented in a given (single) Orthodox parish. That is true catholicity.

>>>I would also assert that in Latin America, Asia, and Africa- the established Orthodox Churches have been established to minister to persons of the diaspora of the specific ethnic group that migrated from Eastern Europe and other Orthodox homelands.>>>

You're telling us that there is a significant diaspora from Eastern Europe to Africa, for example? Incredible. But it is only natural that a universal church will establish missions wherever they have faithful that need pastoring.

>>>Gravatar By the way I am not putting down Orthodoxy but it does lack a sense of " Catholicity " by being so drawn by specific Ethnic and national membership.>>>

That's not true, Mark. And you ARE putting down Orthodoxy, although probably unknowingly. But you've shown the readers here no reason to think that most of what you've asserted is true. I hope you can make a more persuasive argument for someone remaining in the Roman Catholic church than that.

In XC,
luke>

People who speak English are not ethnically " Anglo American "


I never said that there is a large population of Orthodox Churches in Africa for example and that is my point. Why aren't there large numbers of Orthodox Churches in Africa or Latin AMerica or Asia ? What few there are must have been estanlished largely to minister to members of the diaspora of those who left a particualr Orthodox community.
Yet, if the Church is the true Church and to my knowledge the Orthodox hold that they are the " True Church " and that Catholics and Protestants are in error, than by pure duty to the Gospel they should have been compelled to carry the word to the whole world.
SO Ron in seeking the truely Catholic and Apostolic Church seek the Church that has spread the Gospel thru the whole world. By the way this would apply to the Anglicans, Methodists, and Lutherans, who I hold in great esteem. I'm am sure that the worldwide Lutheran and Anglican Communions have done this in much bigger numbers than the Orthodox who remain largely in the confines of the ethnic and comfy confines of the diaspora of those who left the old world.>

Yet, if the Church is the true Church and to my knowledge the Orthodox hold that they are the " True Church " and that Catholics and Protestants are in error, than by pure duty to the Gospel they should have been compelled to carry the word to the whole world.

That's right. There are Orthodox Churches on every continent in the world. And even though the Orthodox Catholic faith is the true faith, I would never try to support that belief on the argument that other churches are too ethnic, or that national churches are the essence of ecclesiology. That would be a foolish claim of authenticity. The fact is, separation of church and state is a recent phenomenon in world history.

Christ is Risen!

luke>

I would assert that we disgard the notion that there is a " True Church ". I certainly don't believe that Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, and Orthodox members are nt equally members of the body of Christ. I chose Catholicism for several doctrinal reasons and that also because for me " Catholic " means Universal in membership of its members where as Paul said " There is neither Greek or Jew in Christ "
I see that diversity in the population of Anglicans, Lutherans, Moravians, and the Catholic Church. Yet, not in the Orthodox Worldwide communion and I think that is a fair observation. Why is it so that this ancient communion lacks representaive membership in all the nations of the world among blacks, asians, western Europeans, Latin America. Roll out the numbers please Luke and not just a few token members. I think this worldwide inclusion of members is a fair criteria to judge " Universality ". This point was not a minor conisderation for me nor should it be for anyone. But I have no doubt what so ever that the Orthodox CHurch teaches goodness and the way to Christ.>

Mark,

Regarding Orthodoxy in China:
http://www.orthodox.cn/

Regarding Orthodoxy in Japan (written by a RC priest I believe):
http://www.cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg.aspx?eccpageID=31&IndexView=toc

Regarding Orthodoxy in Finland (Western Europe):
http://www.ort.fi/fi/index.php

Regarding Orthodoxy in France (again, Western Europe):
http://orthodoxie.free.fr/

Regarding Orthodoxy in England:
http://www.nostos.com/church/
&
http://www.antiochian-orthodox.co.uk/

Regarding Orthodoxy in Germany:
http://www.rum-orthodox.de/

Regarding Orthodoxy in the Czech lands and Slovakia:
http://www.pravoslavnacirkev.cz/

in Brazil:
http://www.catedralortodoxa.com.br/

in Mexico, Venezuela, Central America and the Carribbean:
http://www.iglesiaortodoxa.org.mx/

in Australia, New Zealand & Oceania:
http://www.antiochian.org.au/

in Chile:
http://www.iglesiaortodoxa.cl/

Aleppo:
alepporthodox.org

Lattakia:
lattakiaorth.org

South Africa (for Sub-Saharan Africa):
http://www.greece.org:8080/opencms/opencms/HEC_Organizations/gopatalex/sa/index.html

The following are all under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Alexandria:
Archdiocese of Cameron
Archdiocese of Cape of Good Hope
Archdiocese of Central Africa
Archdiocese of Ghana
Archdiocese of Irinoupolis (Dar es Salaam)
Archdiocese of Johannesburg and Pretoria
Archdiocese of Kampala and All Uganda
Archdiocese of Kenya
Archdiocese of Nigeria
Archdiocese of Zambabwe
Diocese of Bukoba
Diocese of Madagascar
Diocese of Zambia

Does this help to illustrate the universality of Orthodoxy? Obviously you needn't take my word for it you can see the geographical/ethnic diversity for yourself.
en XC,
Lucas>

I am familiar with Orhodox sites. I used ot read this one for a while, but I stopped.
I am a former convert myself and I can understand this type of apologetic/polemical nature it has. I guess I out grew it. But note this article comparing St Francis with St Seraphim. Why compare Saints for relative value something lacking in Charity here ?http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/searchresults.aspx?kw=st%20francis%20of%20assisi>

I frequently find the "anti" mentality exhibited at least as much by Ms. Kamer as by anyone in any other church. But I would not be so foolish as to conclude from that pathology that it is therefore "baked in" to RCism.>

From Luke "That's right. There are Orthodox Churches on every continent in the world."

You might want to check that one Luke. I don't think there are any Orthodox Churches in Antarctica... yet!

Khristus anahgrecum!>

"Many's the time I've regretted how high-handed I was with my friend the Religion Reporter, who was leaving Evangelicalism for either Orthodoxy or Catholicism, he couldn't decide which. I made the argument -- this was 10 years ago -- for Catholicism."

"And yet, and yet ... is Catholicism true? Is Orthodoxy true? Is Orthodoxy true enough?"

Dear Rod,

I have not read through all the commments so I do not know whether what I will propose to you has already been suggested, but I would like to ask you something: Have you considered all the options available to you? Perhaps your choice is not between either Orthodoxy or Catholicism, but rather your choice is both Orthodoxy and Catholicism. You can be Orthodox and Catholic at the same time: as truth and communion with the Bishop of Rome and the east already exists. I would invite you to explore one of the many Eastern Byzantine Catholic Churches in your area (Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Romanian, Melkite).

I, myself, am a Ukrainian Catholic and, although we too have our problems, I know that you can find the best of both worlds in the Eastern Catholic Churches, if you look hard enough. Perhaps you should inquire about joing our community? Please visit: http://www.stirenaeus.net/index.htm

I am sure you would be most welcome there.

Sincerely in the Risen Lord,

Alexander Wroblicky - sinner, seminarian.>

e or love their children in accordance with the commandment of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Why are the Priests that have a problem and live in a state of sin sometimes giving into pedophilia or homosexuality not denied communion?

Matthew 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Some of them actually believe it is part of who they are as people. What about the unseen states of sin like thoughts that people can often find ourselves continuously living in? Mercy and compassion is shown to them when they repent and still have sinful thoughts often it seems. The heart of the law is mercy, compassion etc. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ spoke of following the letter of the law while violating the heart of the law. After all, Rome does not interpret Matthew 18:6 in such a way to put a milestone around those that have hurt children and throw them into the sea. Is better to do that than to let them be in a position to hurt a little one again? They repent and struggle with sinful thoughts and are not denied communion and it is not said that they had never been Priests and that their ordinations (sacrament) had not been valid, it that not correct? The Latin faithful have been most forgiving and suffered much, yet the magesterium in her singular papal glory remains steadfast in her unorthodox understandings that effect people. It is clear to me that men that are married and become Priests are not isolated hence their understandings come from their living pastoral experiences and hearts.

Matthew 18:6
Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

The Orthodox Church is able to recognize that the Church of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ our God must be a place of reconciliation, just as Christ reconciles us with God Almighty so too the Orthodox Church embraces the sheep, lambs in short Her total beloved flock, yea even those that go astray, thanks be to God!

Matthew 18:12
What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go to the mountains to seek the one that is straying?

Such love is not just some concept to talk about but is the reality that is found in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is not about denying communion to infants or children or even adults that sometimes behave like children in their marriages. Thanks be to God when they come to their good senses the Orthodox Church does not reject them or vex them, just as it does not reject children not have reached the age of reason communion. You may find many references to Christ embracing all sorts of people that messed up with under-developed reasoning abilities. In such a way the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church the true Bride of Christ is the truthful and authentic interpreter of Holy Writ and the Gospel message. Since the Church was intended to be and really is the place of reconciliation, it seems the Bishop of Rome should change his thinking to take a step in the right direction in his journey and bring Rome back towards the Church. God went to great lengths, widths and breadths to reconcile man with God, perhaps one day Rome will come to that realization so that she to may know what is the length, the breadth and the width with all the Saints.

Matthew 11: 28-30

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Thanks be to God for all who care for the flock and give Glory to God rightly. One of the Church fathers has written; "A true shepherd is known by the compassion he has for his flock." For such grave and disturbing ways are not watered through the mis-use of our God given abilities to reason and blindly following those that error. The sheep know the voice of the good shepherd. When Christ said to the woman go and sin no more, she did not stop sinning from that moment on, she struggled like all human beings should struggle against sin.

Matthew 18: 21-

Then Peter came to Him and said, Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?
Jesus said to him, I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all. Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.

But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me what you owe! So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay you all. And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you? And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.
So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.

It is important for us to forgive and the Orthodox Church the True One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church the Bride of Christ is what? Merciful, compassionate and loving. When her members suffer she comforts and heals as she must and always will as the gates of hades will not prevail against her. Whether they are brought by the minds of men in error or physical attacks her rudder is not abandoned and her compass is not broken.

So yes Mardukn we understand the way of the cross, to claim otherwise would be a blatant lie. Certainly we have seen the sufferings of many of our friends in communion with Rome. Some of these faithful and sincere Latin Christians have been disturbed by the dismantling of the ancient and venerable Latin rite with acceleration before their very eyes. These faithful people have subjected themselves and their children to the understandings of those in error who when made aware of a heresy disregard or adjust that heresy for justification purposes. In more recent times they have suffered from pastoral matters i.e. the sexual abuse crisis or the continuance of the ridged pastoral stance relative to the matter of human failings in marriages. So the imposed suffering of ones flock is a departure from the Gospel message.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin>

Hello Rod, God bless you & yours.

FWIW:

My family, (parents, two older sisters, two younger brothers), was Catholic but split in the 80s with some joining Orthodoxy, some staying Catholic, one drifting elsewhere. My father was a fallen away Catholic who had returned, my mother a convert & both very devout. The changes after Vatican II, or at least how they played out locally, hit them hard. My mother's attempts to correct or report on liturgical abuses were greeted with cynicism, & eye-rolling. It was all very hard on her, and thusly on the rest of us, to see how it affected her.

Eventually, jumping ahead to the 80s, we became acquainted with a small Orthodox church filled with some wonderful people. The liturgy was of course, beautiful. The reverence for it struck a chord (no pun intended) with my parents.

Eventually my father converted. My mother stayed Catholic for awhile, but eventually told me she couldn't take being part of a separate church from my father, and that - and she teared up while telling me - she was going to leave the Catholic Church and join him in Orthodoxy, though deep down inside, she'd still consider herself a Catholic.

Eventually, the very nice priest from the church started gently, good-naturedly nudging my siblings and I with: "Well, what about you?" comments. One of my sisters confided to me that although she recognized the comments were being said in a good-natured manner, that the comments still mildly irked her. Eventually though, she converted as well, likewise fed up with liturgical abuses. My other sister remained Catholic. As for my two younger brothers, one eventually became agnostic, and has even done temp work for Planned Parenthood, God help us. My youngest brother - I don't know - he works overseas, and is rather mum about such things, but I think is still Catholic, if I had to guess.

For me, in the 80s, the hardest part was my mother converting. She was my "guru" (she passed away from cancer 10 years ago). We would so often find ourselves wrapped up in theological discussions. She introduced me to the religious writings of Lewis and others. She had such a genuine love of Christ and His mother - and such an insight into spiritual matters. Growing up in a small Southern town where the only Catholic Church was as old as I was, on the one hand, there was so much childish ignorance about Catholicism, on the other hand the tiny Catholic community seemed to have no trouble with various liturgical excesses or abuses & never really understood what the big deal was with my mother and father. It left me rather isolated feeling, as far as my spiritual beliefs, but there was always the sanctuary of family. Now, with family members leaving the Church, I felt even more isolated, even though my mother & I continued to enjoy theological discussions.

As the 80 & 90s progresses, and word of more & more abuses, this time sick and sordid sexual abuses & cover-ups developed, I think my parents and sister felt more comfortable about their conversions - though still troubled on behalf of a church they loved. For me, now a grown adult, often deeper feelings of isolation as my social circles (I'm an actor) were for the most part, not exactly warm to the Catholic Church anyway, to put it mildly.

Nevertheless, my parents & sister did become troubled by various abuses in Orthodoxy that did not necessarily get national exposure, abuses sexual & administrative. There were two Orthodox priests for example, in the 90s booted out of a seminary for sexual abuses as I recall, but reinstated by a presiding clergyman who through their treatment was unfair. Episodes such as that deeply troubled my parents who did not want to associate those sorts of problems with Orthodoxy. And at my parents' church one of the priests (not the one who encourage their conversion - a later one) left his church and Orthodoxy as a whole and also his wife & child, announced that he was gay, moved in with a man & started his own "gay-friendly" church.

Their church weathered that and other storms, and a priest of sterling character was brought in. A man who was so good to my mother in her illness (cancer) that took her life and has been so supportive of my father since my mother's passing, that I will *always* be *eternally* grateful to him. I know he & his wife would love it if I became Orthodox, though they are never pushy about it.

My mother was a singer and conducted the choir for her Orthodox Church. Whenever I would attend, I would join in - which I loved doing. I do sing, and the music was so gorgeous, devoid of insipidity & any quasi-70s-pseudo-folk sound. Authentically, genuinely elevating. And the people are still always so kind to me & appreciative when I do come and sing. It's wonderful to hear a liturgy done with dignity and a sense of importance & transcendence.

With all that, I can't help but sometimes contemplate leaving as well. But - whenever I do - always - what I find keeps popping up in my head - almost instantaneously - and so firmly that I can't ignore it - is : "Lord, where would we go?" - and the feeling subsides.

I don't want to paint a picture of complete gloom and sorrow - I have since found a few Catholic churches that have beautiful liturgy, and traditional values, and I feel good when I am there. Alas, they are not close by, and I can't work out going as often as I'd like. But regardless - I find I can't leave this Church, even if I wanted to, and a part of me at times does wants to - but again: "Lord, where would we go?, end of story. And after I hear that "stumbling block" of a phrase - I find, that, even when it's difficult, even when I feel alone in my Catholicism, which I often do, I find that if deep down inside I want to leave, *deeper* down inside, I do not, regardless of everything.

Hope you don't mind me sharing all this. I've been lurking for some time here, thinking I just shouldn't say anything... but, here, FWFW, there it is.

Whatever happens, may the Lord bless you & your family, & bless you also for all the good work you have done. Please if you think of it, remember my family in your prayers as well.

In Him

- henry>

Julie & Rod, do you remember me from Austin, Texas? We teach NFP. All our 5 kids stayed Roman Catholic & are better Catholics than I am. We all love the Church & Jesus. We are imperfect & are sad when a priest is too. I kept very close watch over my kids, homeschooling, going to daily Mass & finding many new parishes to get the most faithful to Rome as I could through many moves. We made Eucharistic Hours and said rosaries (not as many as we should have. God is merciful & can keep your kids real Catholic Christians. I am so sorry for your constant fear and anger. You're right;it will began to eat away at you. Ask God to move your faith from a cerebral thing, into a friendship in your heart! He will. Ask Him to show you the beauty of the Church & a reverently said Mass. Our son will soon be ordained & our daughter is consecrated. They are very happy. We visit them in Rome & Mexico, where they live. We lived in Europe for years. We have been to Mass in many places & in many languages. I always look for a priest in love with Jesus in the Eucharist, who says Mass reverently. No struggling priest is going to take me away from Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament!!! Not with Gods mercy & grace! Pray & sacrifice for the Church! She need our help; she DESERVES our help. God bless & keep you, Julie & Rod! Love in Christ, Barb Jaloway>

It's nice to read your perspective. I am in the process of converting to Orthodoxy and I have to say that I have experienced a transformation by submitting to the rules of fasting, by sacraficing my time for prayer and meditation and by experiencing the Liturgy in a cooperative way.(chanting, learning the prayers and creeds, performing prostrations, etc..)

I wish you well on your journey Brother. Christ is Risen. Glorify him and feel your eyes, your mind and your heart slowly be given to the spirit of Christ, in unity with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

ICXC,
-Enos