Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Constantinopolis]

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-very-grave-sin-for-catholics-to-try-to-convert-orthodox

Did we ever talk about this here?

Complete nonsense, of course. If you really believe the Catholic Church to be the true Church then you should be trying to convert us.

I'm not sure if the increasing willingness of Catholic leaders to give up or tone down their historical claim to be the true Church is a good thing or a bad thing. On the one hand, their historical claim to be the true Church is false, and it is good to give up false beliefs. But on the other hand, they are only giving up one false belief to replace it with another, worse belief - the idea that there is no true Church at all.

(also, as a side note, the author of the article clearly has no clue what Orthodoxy actually teaches about the Church, making the annoying but common Catholic mistake of imagining that the Patriarch of Constantinople is some kind of Orthodox "supreme pontiff")

[Venerable Bede]

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-very-grave-sin-for-catholics-to-try-to-convert-orthodox

Did we ever talk about this here?

Complete nonsense, of course. If you really believe the Catholic Church to be the true Church then you should be trying to convert us.

I'm not sure if the increasing willingness of Catholic leaders to give up or tone down their historical claim to be the true Church is a good thing or a bad thing. On the one hand, their historical claim to be the true Church is false, and it is good to give up false beliefs. But on the other hand, they are only giving up one false belief to replace it with another, worse belief - the idea that there is no true Church at all.

(also, as a side note, the author of the article clearly has no clue what Orthodoxy actually teaches about the Church, making the annoying but common Catholic mistake of imagining that the Patriarch of Constantinople is some kind of Orthodox "supreme pontiff")

Catholics are more increasingly believing that there are many true churches.

[The Alexanderians]

Complete nonsense, of course. If you really believe the Catholic Church to be the true Church then you should be trying to convert us.

I'm not sure if the increasing willingness of Catholic leaders to give up or tone down their historical claim to be the true Church is a good thing or a bad thing. On the one hand, their historical claim to be the true Church is false, and it is good to give up false beliefs. But on the other hand, they are only giving up one false belief to replace it with another, worse belief - the idea that there is no true Church at all.

(also, as a side note, the author of the article clearly has no clue what Orthodoxy actually teaches about the Church, making the annoying but common Catholic mistake of imagining that the Patriarch of Constantinople is some kind of Orthodox "supreme pontiff")

Catholics are more increasingly believing that there are many true churches.

[Salus Maior]

Complete nonsense, of course. If you really believe the Catholic Church to be the true Church then you should be trying to convert us.

I'm not sure if the increasing willingness of Catholic leaders to give up or tone down their historical claim to be the true Church is a good thing or a bad thing. On the one hand, their historical claim to be the true Church is false, and it is good to give up false beliefs. But on the other hand, they are only giving up one false belief to replace it with another, worse belief - the idea that there is no true Church at all.

(also, as a side note, the author of the article clearly has no clue what Orthodoxy actually teaches about the Church, making the annoying but common Catholic mistake of imagining that the Patriarch of Constantinople is some kind of Orthodox "supreme pontiff")

Catholics are more increasingly believing that there are many true churches.

Yeah, the Catholic Church needs to start crackin' down on this sort of thing.

[United Marxist Nations]

Catholics are more increasingly believing that there are many true churches.

Yeah, the Catholic Church needs to start crackin' down on this sort of thing.

Who would they crack down on? It's the leadership that seems to think it.

[Salus Maior]

Yeah, the Catholic Church needs to start crackin' down on this sort of thing.

Who would they crack down on? It's the leadership that seems to think it.

God?

Edit: I read that wrong, I thought you said "who would crack down on them". xP

[Diopolis]

Yeah, the Catholic Church needs to start crackin' down on this sort of thing.

Who would they crack down on? It's the leadership that seems to think it.

We need to get rid of most of our leadership, that's for certain. Well, we need to revamp the leadership of the Roman rite. The eastern rites are generally doing pretty well.

[The Archregimancy]

(also, as a side note, the author of the article clearly has no clue what Orthodoxy actually teaches about the Church, making the annoying but common Catholic mistake of imagining that the Patriarch of Constantinople is some kind of Orthodox "supreme pontiff")

Or, as the article states:

More than 1,000 years ago, the Orthodox split from the Catholic Church, arguing that the bishop of Constantinople, not the pope, should be recognized as the supreme pontiff.

There's so much wrong with that sentence that I hardly know where to begin.

[Diopolis]

(also, as a side note, the author of the article clearly has no clue what Orthodoxy actually teaches about the Church, making the annoying but common Catholic mistake of imagining that the Patriarch of Constantinople is some kind of Orthodox "supreme pontiff")

Or, as the article states:

More than 1,000 years ago, the Orthodox split from the Catholic Church, arguing that the bishop of Constantinople, not the pope, should be recognized as the supreme pontiff.

There's so much wrong with that sentence that I hardly know where to begin.

At the beginning.

More than 1,000 years ago,

It was actually less than 963 years ago.

the Orthodox split from the Catholic Church[

It would be more accurate to say they were kicked out.

, arguing that the bishop of Constantinople

Actually, they argued that the emperor should have that position.

, not the pope,

This part's true.

should be recognized as the supreme pontiff.

They don't recognize the concept of the supreme pontiff.

[Herskerstad]

(also, as a side note, the author of the article clearly has no clue what Orthodoxy actually teaches about the Church, making the annoying but common Catholic mistake of imagining that the Patriarch of Constantinople is some kind of Orthodox "supreme pontiff")

Or, as the article states:

More than 1,000 years ago, the Orthodox split from the Catholic Church, arguing that the bishop of Constantinople, not the pope, should be recognized as the supreme pontiff.

There's so much wrong with that sentence that I hardly know where to begin.

That sentence made me legitimately laugh.

[Lorkhan]

Catholics are more increasingly believing that there are many true churches.

Yeah, the Catholic Church needs to start crackin' down on this sort of thing.

The Catholic Church has been blaspheming and revolutionizing itself since oh before you were born.

[Gondolaulus]

Yeah, the Catholic Church needs to start crackin' down on this sort of thing.

The Catholic Church has been blaspheming and revolutionizing itself since oh before you were born.

It all went downhills with the Second Vatican Council

:^)

(also, as a side note, the author of the article clearly has no clue what Orthodoxy actually teaches about the Church, making the annoying but common Catholic mistake of imagining that the Patriarch of Constantinople is some kind of Orthodox "supreme pontiff")

Or, as the article states:

More than 1,000 years ago, the Orthodox split from the Catholic Church, arguing that the bishop of Constantinople, not the pope, should be recognized as the supreme pontiff.

There's so much wrong with that sentence that I hardly know where to begin.

I got merely one appropriate face for this

When the council of ''heads of churches'' is called the Pentarchy and you assume that there was one supreme pontiff, then you got it all wrong.

[Centuran Republic]

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-very-grave-sin-for-catholics-to-try-to-convert-orthodox

Did we ever talk about this here?

Complete nonsense, of course. If you really believe the Catholic Church to be the true Church then you should be trying to convert us.

I'm not sure if the increasing willingness of Catholic leaders to give up or tone down their historical claim to be the true Church is a good thing or a bad thing. On the one hand, their historical claim to be the true Church is false, and it is good to give up false beliefs. But on the other hand, they are only giving up one false belief to replace it with another, worse belief - the idea that there is no true Church at all.

(also, as a side note, the author of the article clearly has no clue what Orthodoxy actually teaches about the Church, making the annoying but common Catholic mistake of imagining that the Patriarch of Constantinople is some kind of Orthodox "supreme pontiff")

I believe what the Holy Father is speaking against is using unscrupulous means to convert non-Catholics. The definition of proselytism by a Catholic dictionary is:

Originally to convert someone from one religion to another, either by bringing a person to full acceptance of the new faith and ritual or at least sympathy with it. The more common meaning, however, is to induce people to change their religious affiliation by using unfair and even unscrupulous means.

In 2007, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said this:

The term proselytism originated in the context of Judaism, in which the term proselyte referred to someone who, coming from the gentiles, had passed into the Chosen People. So too, in the Christian context, the term proselytism was often used as a synonym for missionary activity. More recently, however, the term has taken on a negative connotation, to mean the promotion of a religion by using means, and for motives, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel; that is, which do not safeguard the freedom and dignity of the human person.

The Pope is condemning aggressive proselytism while evangelism (attracting people to the Church by spreading the Gospel in non-aggressive ways) is still being allowed here. I didn't decide to join the Church because I was proselytized, far from it. I think I would've actually been repelled from the Catholic Church if any of my faith-filled Catholic friends tried to actively and aggressively proselytize me.

[Luminesa]

Complete nonsense, of course. If you really believe the Catholic Church to be the true Church then you should be trying to convert us.

I'm not sure if the increasing willingness of Catholic leaders to give up or tone down their historical claim to be the true Church is a good thing or a bad thing. On the one hand, their historical claim to be the true Church is false, and it is good to give up false beliefs. But on the other hand, they are only giving up one false belief to replace it with another, worse belief - the idea that there is no true Church at all.

(also, as a side note, the author of the article clearly has no clue what Orthodoxy actually teaches about the Church, making the annoying but common Catholic mistake of imagining that the Patriarch of Constantinople is some kind of Orthodox "supreme pontiff")

I believe what the Holy Father is speaking against is using unscrupulous means to convert non-Catholics. The definition of proselytism by a Catholic dictionary is:

Originally to convert someone from one religion to another, either by bringing a person to full acceptance of the new faith and ritual or at least sympathy with it. The more common meaning, however, is to induce people to change their religious affiliation by using unfair and even unscrupulous means.

In 2007, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said this:

The term proselytism originated in the context of Judaism, in which the term proselyte referred to someone who, coming from the gentiles, had passed into the Chosen People. So too, in the Christian context, the term proselytism was often used as a synonym for missionary activity. More recently, however, the term has taken on a negative connotation, to mean the promotion of a religion by using means, and for motives, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel; that is, which do not safeguard the freedom and dignity of the human person.

The Pope is condemning aggressive proselytism while evangelism (attracting people to the Church by spreading the Gospel in non-aggressive ways) is still being allowed here. I didn't decide to join the Church because I was proselytized, far from it. I think I would've actually been repelled from the Catholic Church if any of my faith-filled Catholic friends tried to actively and aggressively proselytize me.

*Walks outside.*
*Fires Const with water hose.*
JOIN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OR GET DUNKED ON!!!! XD XD XD

(Kidding, by the way.)

[Centuran Republic]

I was supposed to have a discussion today about the priesthood with our diocese's vocations director and perhaps the AMS military chaplaincy (Go Navy), but they cancelled school today (he was coming to talk about vocations).

I have sent an email to the Archdiocese for the Military Services' vocation director, basically just telling my story and situation and asking for advice. I have yet to receive a response from him.

I read through the vocations section on my diocese's website and came across this:

And some people suddenly want to be priests: they have gone through a life-changing spiritual experience; it has never occurred to them before but now it does; the priesthood is something new, sudden and unexpected, but very real and almost overpowering. This is why the Church asks new converts to have time to settle into their new Catholic life for a few years before seeking ordination.

Since I'm still in RCIA and not even Catholic yet, this may come up with the vocations director. I believe this is not the case since as an Episcopalian I wanted to be a priest also for the past couple of years. And being sacramentally similar, I think I was Catholic in belief before in practice by the principle lex orandi, lex credendi.

[Luminesa]

I was supposed to have a discussion today about the priesthood with our diocese's vocations director and perhaps the AMS military chaplaincy (Go Navy), but they cancelled school today (he was coming to talk about vocations).

I have sent an email to the Archdiocese for the Military Services' vocation director, basically just telling my story and situation and asking for advice. I have yet to receive a response from him.

I read through the vocations section on my diocese's website and came across this:

And some people suddenly want to be priests: they have gone through a life-changing spiritual experience; it has never occurred to them before but now it does; the priesthood is something new, sudden and unexpected, but very real and almost overpowering. This is why the Church asks new converts to have time to settle into their new Catholic life for a few years before seeking ordination.

Since I'm still in RCIA and not even Catholic yet, this may come up with the vocations director. I believe this is not the case since as an Episcopalian I wanted to be a priest also for the past couple of years. And being sacramentally similar, I think I was Catholic in belief before in practice by the principle lex orandi, lex credendi.

You can do it! Be a Catholic priest and be amazing! I will pray for you!

[Diopolis]

I was supposed to have a discussion today about the priesthood with our diocese's vocations director and perhaps the AMS military chaplaincy (Go Navy), but they cancelled school today (he was coming to talk about vocations).

I have sent an email to the Archdiocese for the Military Services' vocation director, basically just telling my story and situation and asking for advice. I have yet to receive a response from him.

I read through the vocations section on my diocese's website and came across this:

And some people suddenly want to be priests: they have gone through a life-changing spiritual experience; it has never occurred to them before but now it does; the priesthood is something new, sudden and unexpected, but very real and almost overpowering. This is why the Church asks new converts to have time to settle into their new Catholic life for a few years before seeking ordination.

Since I'm still in RCIA and not even Catholic yet, this may come up with the vocations director. I believe this is not the case since as an Episcopalian I wanted to be a priest also for the past couple of years. And being sacramentally similar, I think I was Catholic in belief before in practice by the principle lex orandi, lex credendi.

Firstly, in order to be even considered for the priestly formation a man has to have been Catholic for at least two years. There are some exceptions, but unless you are already a cleric in another denomination, they do not apply to you.
Secondly, unless I am very much mistaken the more normal method for becoming a military chaplain is to become a priest in your home diocese and obtain permission from your bishop to enlist in the military as a chaplain. In fact, as far as I'm aware there are no personnel except for very senior management assigned permanently to the archdiocese of military services at all. When I was in priestly discernment, the impression I got was that chaplaincy in the military was considered almost to be another vocation within a vocation, something to be discerned separately after ordination.
It might be a good idea to mention to your spiritual director, if you have one, that you feel as if you have been drawn towards the clerical state for quite a while, even as a protestant, but be aware that it will likely be a while before you can do anything about it.

[Centuran Republic]

I was supposed to have a discussion today about the priesthood with our diocese's vocations director and perhaps the AMS military chaplaincy (Go Navy), but they cancelled school today (he was coming to talk about vocations).

I have sent an email to the Archdiocese for the Military Services' vocation director, basically just telling my story and situation and asking for advice. I have yet to receive a response from him.

I read through the vocations section on my diocese's website and came across this:


Since I'm still in RCIA and not even Catholic yet, this may come up with the vocations director. I believe this is not the case since as an Episcopalian I wanted to be a priest also for the past couple of years. And being sacramentally similar, I think I was Catholic in belief before in practice by the principle lex orandi, lex credendi.

Firstly, in order to be even considered for the priestly formation a man has to have been Catholic for at least two years. There are some exceptions, but unless you are already a cleric in another denomination, they do not apply to you.
Secondly, unless I am very much mistaken the more normal method for becoming a military chaplain is to become a priest in your home diocese and obtain permission from your bishop to enlist in the military as a chaplain. In fact, as far as I'm aware there are no personnel except for very senior management assigned permanently to the archdiocese of military services at all. When I was in priestly discernment, the impression I got was that chaplaincy in the military was considered almost to be another vocation within a vocation, something to be discerned separately after ordination.
It might be a good idea to mention to your spiritual director, if you have one, that you feel as if you have been drawn towards the clerical state for quite a while, even as a protestant, but be aware that it will likely be a while before you can do anything about it.

I'm aware of all of all of that. But since I'm 16, it'll be nearly over a year and a half as a Catholic before I'm even able to go to college, so the wait really isn't that bad.

EDIT: Also, a couple of priests I've talked to decided to get a bachelor's in philosophy before they went to seminary, and I could do the same.

EDIT 2: Actually, I just discovered that I can be received into the Catholic Church any Sunday from the Diocese of Honolulu's website:

It is important to note that those who fall into the third category above (candidates for full communion) do not always need to take part in the full process. Especially if they have been actively living the Christian life in another denomination, they are likely in need of very little catechesis and may be welcomed into the Church on any Sunday after a short period of preparation. According to the National Statutes for the Catechumenate, "Those baptized persons who have lived as Christians and need only instruction in the Catholic tradition and a degree of probation within the Catholic community should not be asked to undergo a full program parallel to the catechumenate."

EDIT 3: I just texted my priest about whether or not I could go to First Reconciliation and be received into the Church on an upcoming Sunday.

[Diopolis]

Firstly, in order to be even considered for the priestly formation a man has to have been Catholic for at least two years. There are some exceptions, but unless you are already a cleric in another denomination, they do not apply to you.
Secondly, unless I am very much mistaken the more normal method for becoming a military chaplain is to become a priest in your home diocese and obtain permission from your bishop to enlist in the military as a chaplain. In fact, as far as I'm aware there are no personnel except for very senior management assigned permanently to the archdiocese of military services at all. When I was in priestly discernment, the impression I got was that chaplaincy in the military was considered almost to be another vocation within a vocation, something to be discerned separately after ordination.
It might be a good idea to mention to your spiritual director, if you have one, that you feel as if you have been drawn towards the clerical state for quite a while, even as a protestant, but be aware that it will likely be a while before you can do anything about it.

I'm aware of all of all of that. But since I'm 16, it'll be nearly over a year and a half as a Catholic before I'm even able to go to college, so the wait really isn't that bad.

EDIT: Also, a couple of priests I've talked to decided to get a bachelor's in philosophy before they went to seminary, and I could do the same.

Just make sure you don't get too much in the way of student loans- most dioceses tend to be rather leery of accepting candidates with a lot of debt, for a variety of reasons. It might be a good idea to look into an associates in philosophy from your local community college; it would be much, much cheaper and occupy a slightly shorter timetable, and still make you look like a go-getter.

EDIT 2: Actually, I just discovered that I can be received into the Catholic Church any Sunday from the Diocese of Honolulu's website:

It is important to note that those who fall into the third category above (candidates for full communion) do not always need to take part in the full process. Especially if they have been actively living the Christian life in another denomination, they are likely in need of very little catechesis and may be welcomed into the Church on any Sunday after a short period of preparation. According to the National Statutes for the Catechumenate, "Those baptized persons who have lived as Christians and need only instruction in the Catholic tradition and a degree of probation within the Catholic community should not be asked to undergo a full program parallel to the catechumenate."

EDIT 3: I just texted my priest about whether or not I could go to First Reconciliation and be received into the Church on an upcoming Sunday.

This is technically the way it's supposed to happen with those who've already been baptized Christian anyways. Most parishes do the RCIA thing with them for logistical reasons.

[Centuran Republic]

I'm aware of all of all of that. But since I'm 16, it'll be nearly over a year and a half as a Catholic before I'm even able to go to college, so the wait really isn't that bad.

EDIT: Also, a couple of priests I've talked to decided to get a bachelor's in philosophy before they went to seminary, and I could do the same.

Just make sure you don't get too much in the way of student loans- most dioceses tend to be rather leery of accepting candidates with a lot of debt, for a variety of reasons. It might be a good idea to look into an associates in philosophy from your local community college; it would be much, much cheaper and occupy a slightly shorter timetable, and still make you look like a go-getter.

EDIT 2: Actually, I just discovered that I can be received into the Catholic Church any Sunday from the Diocese of Honolulu's website:


EDIT 3: I just texted my priest about whether or not I could go to First Reconciliation and be received into the Church on an upcoming Sunday.

This is technically the way it's supposed to happen with those who've already been baptized Christian anyways. Most parishes do the RCIA thing with them for logistical reasons.

Sure, it might be that way for "logistical reasons," but there are only 2 baptized, catechized non-Catholics (including myself) joining the Church this year in my RCIA class. Surely 2 people aren't much of a "logistical reason."

EDIT: My RCIA class consists of 2 baptized, catechized non-Catholics, 1 Catechumen, and 12 or so baptized, unchatechized Catholics seeking Confirmation and the like.

EDIT 2: My pastor emailed me back, but since the email states that there's supposed to be utter confidentiality, let's just say my RCIA director hasn't experienced this sort of situation (probably because everyone else either didn't know or bring it up), he's looking for a Sunday before Easter to receive the other candidate and me, and my pastor would like to have a discussion with me about my faith journey.

[Auristania]

(also, as a side note, the author of the article clearly has no clue what Orthodoxy actually teaches about the Church, making the annoying but common Catholic mistake of imagining that the Patriarch of Constantinople is some kind of Orthodox "supreme pontiff")

Or, as the article states:

More than 1,000 years ago, the Orthodox split from the Catholic Church, arguing that the bishop of Constantinople, not the pope, should be recognized as the supreme pontiff.

There's so much wrong with that sentence that I hardly know where to begin.

Therefore the Author of that Article believes that the Archbishop of Canterbury is God-Emperor of all the Britons and son of Arthur pen Dragon.

More than 1,000 years ago, TRUE

the Orthodox split from the Catholic Church,

Orthodox continued to belong to the Catholic Church

arguing that the bishop of Constantinople, not the pope, should be recognized as the supreme pontiff.

arguing that the bishop of Rome is NOT God-Emperor of the Universe.

[United Marxist Nations]

Mount Athos releases findings on Crete Council documents

To give a basic rundown, they think that the vagueness of the documents has contributed to dual-interpretations of them by people on both sides of the divide, and they recommend several amendments be made to these documents to eliminate any vagueness. They maintain that, while the vagueness was an error guided by ecumenist spirit, the reactions of some have been a stretch, and that "...not one Orthodox bishop fell into heresy as acknowledged by the Church.”

[Centuran Republic]

-Snip-

Secondly, unless I am very much mistaken the more normal method for becoming a military chaplain is to become a priest in your home diocese and obtain permission from your bishop to enlist in the military as a chaplain. In fact, as far as I'm aware there are no personnel except for very senior management assigned permanently to the archdiocese of military services at all. When I was in priestly discernment, the impression I got was that chaplaincy in the military was considered almost to be another vocation within a vocation, something to be discerned separately after ordination.

That's not completely correct; here's what the vocations director of the AMS said in reply to my email:

...I would suggest that you go to our Archdiocese for the Military Services webpage http://www.milarch.org/vocations where you will find detailed information on our Co-Sponsored Seminarian program. Simply put, The Military Archdiocese pays half of the seminarian’s tuition and expenses during the time of his formation. In exchange the seminarian's home diocese agrees that he will serve as an active duty chaplain for a minimum of five years, after he has served in a parish for three years. Many dioceses accept students right out of high school and we will co-sponsor suitable candidates at that level.

[Diopolis]

Mount Athos releases findings on Crete Council documents

To give a basic rundown, they think that the vagueness of the documents has contributed to dual-interpretations of them by people on both sides of the divide, and they recommend several amendments be made to these documents to eliminate any vagueness. They maintain that, while the vagueness was an error guided by ecumenist spirit, the reactions of some have been a stretch, and that "...not one Orthodox bishop fell into heresy as acknowledged by the Church.”

So the Orthodox conspiracy has its own dubia...

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Have some good news.