From the "Not Allowed list"

[linden branch]

Please forgive the new person for being controversial in his first real post, but I thought it best to get this issue out of the way before proceeding to others.

Oh, and my name is Isaac, and all of my information, plus a link to an extensive biography, is included in my profile for any and all interested.

I was wondering how the Orthodox deal with the restriction on statements equivalent to "The Orthodox/ Coptic Church is the only true Christian Church"? As best as I can ascertain, this is actually the majority position of the Orthodox Church. Is the operational principle one of, "yes, that is what we believe, but we just don't say it so as to maintain compliance with the forum rules" or do the majority of Orthodox members here believe this statement is erroneous and so concur with the spirit of the law as well as with the letter?

Also, if this issue has already been discussed, I would accept a link to that discussion so as not to be repetitive in my topic.

Grace and peace to all,

Isaac

[ufonium2]

All Christian churches hold different doctrines. No two denominations are exactly the same, otherwise they would be the same denomination. If no two are the same, then no two can be exactly right. Either one is exactly right and all others are varying degrees of wrong, or all are varying degrees of wrong. See what I'm saying?

We are exactly right. Everyone else has something (or many things) wrong, to varying degrees.

We're not the only people who believe this about our church. In fact, everyone should believe that their church is the true one, or they should change churches, right? Why would you belong to a church if you knew it taught heresy?

To those who say "all churches have some wrong doctrine" I ask: How do you know? Do you know what is wrong with your church's doctrine? If you know what's wrong, why don't you fix it? If you don't know what's wrong, how do you know there is anything wrong?

"Nobody's perfect" is a good slogan for those who want to feel better about their shortcomings, but it doesn't apply to churches.

Personally, I have no problem saying this all day long, on forums or in person. I also don't believe there's any restriction on saying it, here or otherwise. After all, the word Orthodox means "right belief," so it's pretty obvious that we believe we are the True Church.

[Orthosdoxa]

Hello Isaac!

Welcome to TAW!

I read your biography. Interesting, but I'm a bit confused. Have you actually been received into the Orthodox Church by baptism and/or chrismation, or are you just a serious inquirer? That's too bad that you had a bad experience with a parish, but it happens. Under what archdiocese was it? Was it canonical?

I hope your wife softens up to the idea a bit eventually. I believe you are most likely not satisfied with attending a heterodox church, and hopefully you can soon be back within the Holy Church's embrace.

As for the rule you asked about, I just kinda ignore it. :) We don't go around trumpeting, "We're right and the rest of you all are a bunch of heathens, nyah nyah!" But if someone asks, we tell them the truth - that Orthodoxy is the oldest expression of Christianity and contains the fullness of the faith handed down by the Apostles.

Sinner Katherine

[Rick of Wessex]

Hello, Isaac, and welcome to TAW. :wave:

About your question, as I understand it, it is the teaching of the church that our visible institution is the Body of Christ. This is true of the Eastern Orthodox, but not of any other organization. A particular person may in fact be united with Christ (Billy Graham, for instance), but no other organization can be said to be the Church.

We must on no account allow ourselves to feel pride in this, any more than, say, the first person to be rescued from a burning building should feel proud of his bed in the burn ward while other people are still being rescued.

But on the other hand, we should not deny that this is our teaching.

Your brother in XC,
Rick

[ufonium2]

Hello Isaac!
That's too bad that you had a bad experience with a parish, but it happens. Under what archdiocese was it? Was it canonical?

If I'm reading this right, the parish was the OCA Cathedral in Dallas. So, definitely canonical. Isaac, I'd be interested to hear what was disastrous about that visit, so maybe some of us can help you work through it or find another Orthodox church in the Dallas area. There are a bunch, and the ones I've visited have been great. Let us know so we can help :)

[The Prokeimenon!]

We must on no account allow ourselves to feel pride in this, any more than, say, the first person to be rescued from a burning building should feel proud of his bed in the burn ward while other people are still being rescued.


Wow! Very well said!

Moses

[Akathist]

I am new here too and I am glad he posted this question. I am really touched by the replies. Especially the reply by Ufonium. I am feeling really convicted by the idea that it makes no sense to continue in any church that you have come to believe teaches heresay.

I would like to post a related question and I was afraid to because I didn't want to break any rules. I am wanting to have an intelligent conversation about the differences between the Roman Catholic faith and Orthodoxy. On a Catholic only board, I recently posted that I was thinking of visiting an Orthodox Church and my reason for looking at it was because the Roman Catholics will never allow me to take Holy Communion because my husband was married before. (This is my first marriage and I waited until the late 30's to marry... not too many men out there unmarried that long... and besides, I love my husband, so I married him.)

When I posted that I wanted to visit the Orthodox church I was bombarded with replies about how that is a church that fell away into heresay from the "True" Catholic Church.

I felt it was best to not reply to them. But I wanted to point out the following: (Please correct anything I have here that is not accurate... I am still learning.)
1. Eastern Orthodox did not fall away from the Roman Catholics, the Roman Catholics went a different direction than the original tradition.
2. Roman Catholics officially call the Orthodox Church their "Sister Church" and invited officials to attend Vatican I (Orthodox officials refused invitation) and Vatican II (Orthodox Officials were invited to full participation, but declined and went as "Official Observers".)
3. According to Roman Catholic regulations, those Baptised and accepted into the Orthodox Faith are welcome to participate in the Holy Eucharist at any Mass. But that is not a mutual invitation. The Orthdoxy does not open Holy Communion to Roman Catholics.

All this goes to say that it appears, just looking at these three things without direct comparison of doctrine, Holy Tradition, and other matters, that the Catholic Church seeks out a connection to the Orthodoxy Church. This would imply that they do not see the Orthodox Church has heretical. However, the Orthodox Church does see the Roman Catholic faith as flawed with some heretical doctrines or practices.

Any other thoughts?

[linden branch]

Everyone,

Thank you for answering my question and clarifying the status of this rule.

Anonykat,

I am not Orthodox, and was hesitant about adopting that symbol on my profile. I am currently joined to no ecclesial organization, but since my strongest affinities are with Orthodoxy, I decided to enter that as my choice. It is where I would like to be if circumstances were less complicated.

The parish I visited, St. Seraphim Cathedral, is canonical (at least if one accepts the OCA as being canonical), and is an excellent parish. The ethnic difficulties are only problematic when combined with other issues, like my wife's resistance to Orthodoxy. I personally have no difficulties with other cultures, obviously since I married a Korean.

I too hope that she will open up to Orthodoxy, and to be honest, I expect she will. She is a wonderful wife, and I could not ask for a better companion.

No, I am not satisfied attending a heterodox parish (Anglo-Catholic), although if I had to, the parish I currently attend is as close as I can get to being satisfied outside of Orthodoxy. It is an excellent example of Anglo-Catholicism, and is rooted in the defense of Tradition and the Faith.

ufonium2,

The disastrous visit to St. Seraphim's was the result of me poorly preparing my wife who's Presbyterian background is deeply ingrained in her conception of Christianity. There has been vast improvements, thanks in large part to the pastoral care we have received at the above mentioned Anglo-Catholic parish.

I have been to the OCA, Antiochian, and Greek parish here in Dallas. I have found them all to be fairly ethnic in their congregational make up. I don't personally mind this, but since my wife had objections going in, it made things more difficult for her to accept these parishes. The largest obstacle though is simply the alien nature of Eastern worship in general coupled with the typical Protestant objections to general catholic sacramentology (icons, prayer to saints, incense, liturgy, etc.). One thing that has been helpful is this Anglo-Catholic parish, which, while maintaining all of the general catholic items, has its worship organized in familar western patterns and is an ethnicity she can readily accept (Anglo-American, which is the same cultural locus that formed Korean Presbyterianism).

God bless,

Isaac

[The Prokeimenon!]

Dear Isaac,
In the Orthodox Church we have some parishes called "Western Rite". These are fully canonical Orthodox parishes that use a western Liturgy. I've been told that it's similar in form to Anglican worship (though I've never been to an Anglican Church so I wouldn't know for sure). Your wife might be more comfortable there, and, like I said, it's fully canonical and Orthodox.

There's a Western Rite parsih in Ft Worth called St Peter's. Their web site seems to be down so I can't tell you anything else about it, but it would be worth checking out.

She is a wonderful wife, and I could not ask for a better companion.


I feel the same way about my wife! :clap:

Moses

[Rick of Wessex]

Isaac,

This site - Western Orthodoxy (http://www.westernorthodox.com/) - has more information the on Western Rite Orthodox Parishes moses mentioned. It might be very helpful.

In XC,
Rick

[linden branch]

Thank you Moses and Rick

[Rilian]

We're not the only people who believe this about our church. In fact, everyone should believe that their church is the true one, or they should change churches, right? Why would you belong to a church if you knew it taught heresy?

I think that pretty much sums it up for me. I came to be interested in Orthodoxy not because it has some abstract notion of its identity, but because it proclaims directly that it is the faith of the Apostles handed down in an unbroken chain of succession. It isn't just another choice on the menu possessing a portion of the truth, it contains the fullness of truth. It is the visible body of Christ.

Isaac, I read part of your blog and found it interesting. My wife and I both come from Protestant backgrounds and most of her family are members of evangelical Korean churches (Presbyterian and AOG). We went to an Episcopal Church for a while, but I became increasingly disturbed by the things I saw within that denomination, despite the fact that our parish was traditional. Once I made the decision to leave, I actually ran across a couple of interesting pieces of information from the last century about St. Raphael of Brooklyn and his interactions with that church. There's an article (http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/issa_bishop_raphael_part3.htm) and a letter (http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/raphael_hawaweeny_episcopal_relations.htm) which the article mentions.