Back to the Beginning: A Brief Introduction to the Ancient Catholic Church

The Roman church tolerates married clergy in the eastern church in an attempt to convert orthodox in the eastern countries.

Forcing priests to take a vow of celibacy is not at all like FASTING periods.

2 cases of abuse are par for the course, they are not the epidemic (nor the MASSIVE administrative cover up) that has shown itself in the catholic church.

There was actually one single case of a monastary where the leading bishop was gay and leading the flock astray near boston; the whole monastary was excommunicated.

Further Corinthians 14 doesn't say it is OPTIONAL Paul says it is a commandment from the Lord:
1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1Cr 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

1Cr 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Further from Paul:
1Cr 11:3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
1Cr 11:4 Every man who has {something} on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
1Cr 11:5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
1Cr 11:6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
1Cr 11:7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

1Cr 11:4 Every man who has {something} on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.

Here's a description of Syriac Orthodox vestments that include head coverings for the priest: http://sor.cua.edu/Vestments/

"The priest then puts on the phiro (lit. 'fruit'), a small black cap which the priest must wear during all public prayers. It consists of seven sections which indicate the full priesthood of the celebrant. Bishops including the Patriarch wear it under the Eskimo."

Are Syriac Orthodox priests bringing disgrace upon themselves? After all, they're required to lead prayers with their heads covered...

"Why would you enter the church in America knowing the problem is epidemic?"

Truth is truth regardless of how badly some under its mantle adhere to it. And you haven't been to my parish, which is a oasis of orthodox Catholicism in a desert of modernism.

Why, on the other hand, would I wade into the doctrinal confusion that appears to be Orthodoxy? I can't find any substantial agreement within Orthodoxy on whether they permit divorce, or don't. Or whether they permit contraception, or don't. Or on whether truth is truth regardless of people's acceptance of it, or whether the people have to consent before it becomes truth. Or even on banal matters, such as whether a priest should or should not cover his head while praying.

http://sor.cua.edu/Ecumenism/

The Romans have standing ecumenical agreements with this church.

Further the Syriac Orthodox are an autocephalous church; self governing, and separate. In fact they are not in communion with many Orthodox churches.

They aren't even a result of the same schism.

http://www.answers.com/topic/syriac-orthodox-church
The Syriac Orthodox Church is an autocephalous Oriental Orthodox church based in the Middle East with members spread throughout the world. It is one of the five churches that comprised what is now the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church before the Great Schism.

"you speak of orthodoxy as though it is some all encompassing group."
"I have repeatedly shown you the example of ROCOR which is as close to the early church as you will ever get, and there is no doctrinal confusion."

You contradict yourself. Orthodoxy is not one all-encompassing group, but I should refer to the ROCOR as the gold standard of Orthodox doctrine. How do you reconcile these two statements?

"FTR the Catholic doctrine on evolution, as well as divorce, abortion, and contraception is confused. I have had catholic freinds ask church officials and get differing answers on ALL of those."

The manner of creation is not dogmatically declared (nor does it need to be, in my opinion). Divorce, abortion and contraception are very clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt. The opinions of dissenters do not matter, since they do not line up with the doctrines expressed within, among other places, the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Consider the following quotes from the Catechism that refute your claim of doctrinal confusion on just these two matters of abortion and contraception:

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

Nothing confusing about this, except for those who would choose to dissent from revealed truth...

As Orthodox, we believe that the Roman system has lead to error and innovation but we also recognize the historical fact that the proper exercise of the Petrine Office also, on numerous occasions in the Pre Schism Church, assured the survival of Orthodoxy against the assaults of heretical groups

And that is a very important point to remember! Orthodoxy, as well as Roman Catholicism, by and of themselves did not stop heresy. Obviously, the Church is stronger when it is united. A divided Church in not immune from corruption and fallout, and history proves it.

Were it not for the Orthodox Popes, the East would most probaly have slipped into Monothelism or Arianism, or Monophysitism, as what happened with the so-called Oriental Orthodox Churches. At the same time, it is obvious that had the Latin Church not fallen victim to its own innovations, the Protestant tragedy would most probably have been averted. But by that time the whole concept of the Petrine Office was redefined and the Orthodoxy was not there to counter-balance their errors.

It is therefore obvious that only an undivided Church can resist the gates of hell. As the saying says -- united, we stand; divided, we fall. The hierarchs of both sides of the divide now more than ever recognize it and are bent on overcoming that which divides us.

You pick at obscure eastern church on the footsteps of full communion with the Roman church and use that as the pinnical of Orthodoxy?

The fact is there are Catholic bishops openly endorse homosexuality, contraception, abortion, etc. The Catholic bishop is the make and break of doctrine within the diocease.

I am well aware the 'official word' on Catholisim I had my Catholic education in a Catholic school with Catholic education materials. I am also extremely aware that precious few Catholics follow this.

Even if Catholic DID follow it to the letter it would not change the fact that Catholic innovations like papal supremacy, papal infailibility, and the Filioque are heretical.

The Roman church abandoned the truth in 1054 and the result was protestantism, and things like today's rampant homosexuality and child abuse in the church.

It is this continuing heresy that is the root of the Catholic church's problem.

The Orthodox church has Christ as it's head. The Catholics instead have a man (and one who has long since been outside the bloodline of Peter).

I see nothing about the sacrament of marriage in this description of divorce and remarriage within Orthodoxy - only situations

Well, if there is no love and commitment there is no marriage. A paper does not make a marriage, and a sacrament that is given under false pretenses is not valid because we would say it is "empty," and you would say it is "null and void." Of course, that which is void is also empty and meaningless and therefore, legally, not valid.

A candle lit in a church by someone who doesn't believe is an empty gesture, void of spiritual value. A Communion taken by someone who did not prepare correctly for it and doe snot believe in the Real Presence is not a valid Communion.

You see it from a legalistic point of view -- and call it annulment. You are stating that the sacrament never occurred, that it did not have a "legal bind," did not take effect, so to say, and therefore there was no marriage. The Orthodox are saying that a "marriage" in which there is no love and commitment is no marriage, but a broken promise to God -- a sin, and that which is sin is not of God.

Thus, real marriage cannot be broken because it is of God. All the Orthodox Church recognizes is that there was no marriage because where there is no love and commitment there can be no marriage. If you go for a confession and lie and the priest, in his ignorance of your lie, "absolves" you of the trespasses -- you and I both know that such absolution is "invalid." It is an empty gesture which the priests does in good faith, but God knows that it is not so. So, the absolution never took place; your sins are not forgiven. Legally, it is null and void, and spiritually it is an empty and meaningless gesture -- a sin.

One more thing: the Orthodox may allow a second marriage; allowing a third one is something unheard of. Knowing that a sin was committed in the first one, the second (and it is hoped that it is the first real) one is more like a funeral, full of penance and contrition.

On the other hand, the Catholic Church does not specify how many annulments one can get, but I am sure an "abuser" would be cut short very soon, regardless of how many time one can "legally" get an annulment!

For reference here is the same scriptural passages both Churches base the possibility of remarriage on:

Mat 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Mat 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with [his] wife, it is not good to marry.

Mat 19:11 But he said unto them, All [men] cannot receive this saying, save [they] to whom it is given.

1Cr 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

1Cr 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

1Cr 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

1Cr 7:10 And unto the married I command, [yet] not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from [her] husband:

1Cr 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband: and let not the husband put away [his] wife.

Both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Doctrine exemplify these passages, and it's silly to debate topics on which the churches already agree.

Ecumenical Relations between Orthodox churches and the Roman catholic church have never been about remarriage or contraception, they've been about Papal Supremacy, and infallibility.

Dogma isn't dogma until the people accept it. Once accepted, it can't be changed. The only ones to do that were the Romans with the filioque

Dogma wasn't changed with the filioque. It is just a re-wording. But our creed, what is says, remains - we still believe that there is only one principle operating within the Divine Godhead, not two (Father AND Son). Perhaps a better word would have been "through". But at any rate, no dogma changed. The Catechim clearly explains that there is only one essence from which the Spirit proceeds from - and is clear that the Spirit is a result of both the Father and the Son's love for each other.

Brother in Christ

The Orthodox system is one of "syndeesmos" or a sort of partnership among the hierarchs, clergy and the laity, each having its own function and proper role and together making up The Church. The Roman Church is a top down system. In Orthodoxy, infallibilty rests with The Church while in the Roman system it dogmatically rests with the Pope;

That hardly describes the situation on the ground. A cursory view of the Church's life in the US will shatter the illusion that the Church is top-down here! Consider the many bishops who openly flaunt correction from Rome. If Rome was such an autocratic monarchy that you portray, we'd see bishops removed from office (perhaps many would desire this). As to Councils and Dogma, the Pope has rarely executed the Extraordinary charism that was defined at Vatican 1. I count two occasions in the past 150 years. Not the definition of a top-down organization. The individuals bishops have are relatively autonomous. Sure, occasionaly they must answer to Rome, such as on the priest's sexual abuse issues. But really, Rome is not a force at the local level.

Brother in Christ

2 cases of abuse are par for the course, they are not the epidemic (nor the MASSIVE administrative cover up) that has shown itself in the catholic church.

Some comments are in order here.

First, you are confusing what happened in the US with the entire Catholic Church. Despite what many Americans think, we are not the center of the world. The Catholic Church in America represents less than 10% of Roman Catholicism. Let's not lose sight of that fact. America is not the Catholic Church's paradigm!

Second of all, as terrible a job as the Bishops did, one must recognize that part of the problem was the advice they received from PROFESSIONAL psychologists! Upon THEIR advice, the bishops placed these priests in a short 1-2 month program, declared them cured, and sent them to other churches. ONLY NOW do we know that the disease that leads to sexual abuse is akin to alcoholism. It is not "cured" ever. It is only held in check. This doesn't excuse the Bishops actions, but we should take into account what they knew and were told by "experts".

And finally, there is a lot of doubt on the merit of the majority of the cases. While the first cases were certainly legitimate, I think most doubt that 5-10 years later, some of these people suddenly "remembered" that they, too, were abused 30 years ago - and wanted financial compensation. Because of the Church's desire to not defend these priests who were often accused on very flimsy grounds, many lay people were led to believe that they could make an easy buck off the Church's problem.

And finally, one must realize that the Church ALWAYS goes through such scandals. Remember when the Church in the East was nearly all Arian? That's the nature of the beast. Unfortunately, the US bishops of the 1960's were not punished for their open dissent from the "contraception" encyclical. This attitude led, I believe, to the acceptance of the American culture's sexual ways within the Church heirarchy here. This in turn eventually bred the sexual abuse cases. When the Church tries to follow the culture rather than God, the Church inevitably will stumble, whether it is following Greek philosphy or loose sexual morals.

Regards

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.