Christian Orthodoxy vs Roman Catholicism

Dear Pete, I have done a little reading myself. Here is an informing article, although very much biased:

http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: ambassadorbob
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 03 Kas�m 2005 Per�embe 0:33
Subject: [metatuning] Re: gum

Ozan,

I really don't know, yet. It's the next item on my theological
agenda, so to speak. But I hope to have something to say about it
very soon. It seems very beautiful and deep from this somewhat
convenient distance.

I have a little (old? 1966) book at hand that I haven't really
looked at, because it's I think it's extremely compact, and seems to
require complete alert concentration to read.

It's called _Introduction to Liturgical Theology_, by Alexander
Schmemann.

Regards,

Pete

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...>
wrote:

I didn't think it was terribly biased. It would be revealing to
read an RC version of the same basic comparison, to see who was
_more_ inclined to propagandize, I think. Another thing I would
look forward to finding out is how more or less reluctant an
Orthodox official would be to discuss the real theological bases of
dogma.

My experience is that the RC's draw a very hard line at what they
will discuss with presumed or would-be followers, so that there is,
to me, a lack of forthcomingness. You are expected to
unquestioningly obey, in a way which I find patronizing. For me, a
true father TELLS his son why the law is there, in a gesture of
respect (and love) for the son's capacity to understand.

Thank you for sending that,

Pete

I'm glad you found it useful. Since you are a member of Ehl-i Kitab, I presume we can humbly share our faith in the One Lord Above All, can we not? It might prove fruitful to attempt to demonstrate what we can accomplish in this forum as colleagues and brethren in creed. Would it be too prudent and presumptuous on my part if I asked your feelings concerning the following revelations from the Holy Quran?

Al-i Imran

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim (In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful)
...

110: You (followers of Muhammed) are an examplary congregation for mankind, enjoining righteousness, forbidding obscenity, and you believe in Allah. If only People of the Book were to believe as well, it would have been favorable for them. Among them are those who believe, but most are transgressors.

111. Those are they who may harm you in no way other than causing you grief. And if they were to fight against you, they would turn their backs on you and would be rendered helpless.

112. Humiliation is theirs wherever they may be found, save whenever they cleave to a covenant with Allah or a covenant with man, for they have incurred the wrath of Allah and indolence has been laid upon them. That is because they disbelieved the revelations of Allah and slew the prophets without any right, because they rebelled and transgressed all bounds.

113. Yet, not all of them are alike. There are those of the People of the Book, an upright congregation, who recite the revelations of Allah by night and prostrate themselves.

114. They believe in Allah and the Hereafter, enjoin righteousness and forbid obscenity, strive in goodness and are virtuous.

115. And whatever good they do shall never be rejected, and Allah knows well the provident.

Sadaqallahulazim (Allah Almighty is true to His word)

----- Original Message -----
From: ambassadorbob
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 03 Kas�m 2005 Per�embe 9:40
Subject: [metatuning] Re: Christian Orthodoxy vs Roman Catholicism

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...>
wrote:

I didn't think it was terribly biased. It would be revealing to
read an RC version of the same basic comparison, to see who was
_more_ inclined to propagandize, I think. Another thing I would
look forward to finding out is how more or less reluctant an
Orthodox official would be to discuss the real theological bases of
dogma.

My experience is that the RC's draw a very hard line at what they
will discuss with presumed or would-be followers, so that there is,
to me, a lack of forthcomingness. You are expected to
unquestioningly obey, in a way which I find patronizing. For me, a
true father TELLS his son why the law is there, in a gesture of
respect (and love) for the son's capacity to understand.

Thank you for sending that,

Pete

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Pete and Ozan,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob" <peteysan@s...> wrote:

> My experience is that the RC's draw a very hard line at
> what they will discuss with presumed or would-be followers,
> so that there is, to me, a lack of forthcomingness. You
> are expected to unquestioningly obey, in a way which I
> find patronizing. For me, a true father TELLS his son
> why the law is there, in a gesture of respect (and love)
> for the son's capacity to understand.

It's good to remember that there's a reason why it's called
the *Roman* Catholic Church -- after being declared the
official state religion of the Roman Empire, the church
structure was set up exactly the same way as the
administrative organization of the Roman state.

(Of course, it was still called simply "Christianity",
until the Great Schism which caused the "Orthodox" believers
to branch off and form their own version, at which point
the "non-Orthodox" version was called Roman Catholicism.)

So since the pre-Christian Roman citizens were expected
to obey and worship their Emperor without question, it's
easy to see how this transmuted into the Roman version
of Christianity.

-monz