The desert of my discontent
Once again I find myself in the desert, the parched dry land gives no comfort for the weary.
In this place one can survive a long time, but no one is ever here by choice. A heart alone, devoid of life, surrounded by those who live their lives oblivious to darkness and pain.
This wasteland is of my own making, it’s a place that guards my heart. Providing isolation from those who would seek to impose their view of faith, life and love.
David has been here often, the Psalms are full of a darkness that plagued his existence. Oddly, I find comfort in his pain, it tells me I am not alone, others have shared this isolation.
How I wish I could find someone like David, who understands the pain and darkness. Instead of offering empty words, or fatuous bumper sticker theology, would just sit and suffer with me, shed a tear for my pain and simply offer nothing but sympathy.
This, more than anything else to me, is the mark of someone who understands why God whispers in the quiet hours and chooses to simply suffer with us.
Israel, Israel, your cries for justice did not go unanswered, like so many today, you missed the God of suffering in your midst.
There is a presence in the silence here, a still small voice. It calls to me, leading me on. Ahead I see the shore, and on the horizon a storm approaches, and I know I must endure, for my own good.
How did I get here? Does it really matter?
Those storm clouds may entail bad weather, but the rain and wind are needed to wash away the stains, so when they have passed, I can walk again into the glory of a new morning.
I find nauseating the words of so many who do nothing other than live their faith through empty statements, forced piety, and smiling faces. I would like to see them suffer, for no other reason that the same Bible they so quickly quote victory from, is just as full of darkness and defeat. Unless you understand suffering, sacrifice, and pain, then you will never truly understand what victory meant to those who have gone before you.
Just as insipid are those who selectively avoid the whole truth to push their theology, who will never be able to see beyond the lifeboat of their tightly held beliefs. They spend more time patching holes in their boat, than learning to swim in the storm of truth, they can never be free until they understand that truth lives outside our safety nets.
I’m surrounded by those who claim the title of Christ, but seem to have no measure of him anywhere other than their empty words. Justin Martyr said the same thing in his first apology written in the first century, funny how some things never change.
But I digress (not without good reason, mind you)
This place is temporary while I sort through what has become of my life, I have left the safety of the Catholic Church because I can no longer support their claims made in the last two centuries, they chose to make those beliefs dogma leaving no room for dissension. I have not yet fully entered into the arms of the Orthodox church, doctrinally I find them them to the most solid, but aligning my western worldview, with their eastern one is no easy feat. And I truly feel like an infidel, who has invaded a strange and holy place.
So for now I live in desert of my discontent, I find solace in those who have been here before, they filled the bible with their pain as well as triumph. It will all end, and the sun will shine again, but for now I need to carry on, and keep my eye focused on the prize.
This road has taken it’s toll, it’s meandered in out and of this place many times, but I still push on because I know that he’s calling me onward. At one time I thought the road stopped in Rome. I no longer know where it will stop, I’ve stopped worry about the where, and have just gotten busy with the moving part, one foot in front of the other.
I’ve been here before, but this time is different, this time I’m simply pausing to re-collect who I am, before I’m led on towards a new direction.
The Vicar: Part II
This last week I met with the Vicar for the final time, he was being reassigned to another Parish, and I was returning his books and giving him one more shot. It was bittersweet in many ways, a new parish is getting a very talented and compassionate man, who has a true heart for Christ. He will be missed for sure.
I read through the suggested material from my last post, plus some of the books the father had supplied, I found them again to be fully unconvincing on the issue of Papal infallibility. I don’t buy the apologist line that it’s in there if you look for it, that’s the same line that other religions use to justify their theology. You have to read the meaning behind the text, and read the whole history to get the true ‘meaning’ of the words. I read Adrian Fortescue’s ‘The Early Papacy’ and found that again, as with other Catholic apologist, good sound evidence of the PRIMACY of the papacy, but nothing meaningful on infallibility. I stopped reading Catholic Apologists on the issue after that, I just don’t see the point. I can read the early fathers for myself, and ultimately *I* have to decide.
So based on everything I’ve read, the only way you can get papal infallibility is to claim it as part of the Doctrine of Development, because despite what I keep hearing time and again from Apologists, I can’t find any direct or even salvageable indirect history that it was ever fully supported outside of Rome, or that the early churches in the East, had the same concept. Francis Sullivan, who is highly regarded as a Catholic Theologian, basically says the same thing. The man has a Doctorate in Theology from the Gregorian University in Rome, and while he believes in papal infallibility, he’s at least honest enough to say you can’t use history to prove it.
As to the development of doctrine, the argument that the trinity had to be developed like the the findings of the early church doctrine, is an incredibly weak position to try and prove your case. First of all, the trinity is EASY to find in scripture, there is clear scriptural and historical evidence for what the councils agreed upon, and certainly we deepened our understanding of those issues over time. But that’s COMPLETELY different than saying we had to develop the immaculate conception, or infallibility, because WHERE DO YOU FIND THE SEED FOR THOSE LIKE YOU CAN FOR THE TRINITY? Do they exist in any standard written form?, and I’m not referring to the practice of reading your theology into someone elses writings. The church Fathers weren’t illiterate idiots, they spoke clearly and concisely on a number of topics, but it seems that there is a hidden theology in their writings that Catholics have been able to piece together, where’s Dan Brown when you need him? Doctrine has to develop and change over time, I’m not disputing that, but you can’t claim something out of nothing, and then make it dogmatic. That simply goes too far for me…
Back to my discussion with the Vicar, what became apparent to me this time around. Was that the Vicar who is a cradle Catholic, has never explored much outside of Catholicism, why would he? I mean you have a church claiming to be the one ‘True’ church, and an infallible pope and magisterium. So why ask questions? I wasn’t there to try and challenge his faith, he’s got a good handle on it. I was there to try and quiet my doubts, and this time it did the exact opposite. Part way into the conversation I realized we had left logic at the door, and had started into the area of philosophical sparring, which I really have no interest in.
We did discuss how far my disbelief could go before I fell into schism with the church, and that for me was the point where something inside me broke. When all your left with is posturing, and the discussion begins to resemble an Aristotelean diatribe, the gig is up and it’s time to move on.
We parted on good terms, I hold no ill feelings against the Catholic church, but I cannot honestly consider myself Catholic and gloss over these crucial issues. If the doctrine of infallibility, immaculate conception, and the assumption where not Dogma then I’d be staying. But they aren’t, and the gradual change in the character of the papacy starting around time of the Gregorian reforms have led to a situation where the church has overreached.
This is a decision that has been a long time in the making, I could spend another two years rooting and digging, and I’m convinced now that I would still reach the same conclusion. I’m not an apologist, I’m not going to write any books on the papacy, I am simply someone who had to decide for himself where the truth was to be found. Fortescue was kind of the lynch pin for me, once I realized how weak his argument was on infallibility, there was no going back, the landslide had begun.
I came home Friday evening dispirited, but after a good stiff drink, and some time to talk things out with my wife. I decided at that point that I needed to move on, it was time to go east, stop putting off the inevitable, and get with the program.
So this Sunday, Michelle and I attended our first Great Liturgy service with the Christians at the local Antioch Eastern Orthodoxy parish. It was like entering a different world, the basic structure of the liturgy was the same, but the form was SOOOO different. We didn’t feel out of place, as much as lost trying to keep up with what was going on, we’ll get better as time goes by. We did decide that doing the Great Liturgy, and then the kneeling vespers was a little too much for these novices 
Next Sunday we are visiting the local Greek Orthodox parish, they have this new invention called pews, so maybe our legs won’t hurt so much after a long service.
The Vicar
Two weeks ago I met with the Vicar at our local parish, I always enjoy spending time with the good Fr. He’s very orthodox in his faith, has a degree in philosophy and theology, and he enjoys a good discussion about faith.
But this time I had a real surprise for him, I told him that I was considering leaving the Catholic faith, and moving into the Eastern Orthodox church. To his credit he only paused for a moment before beginning to ask questions, and find out what was driving my decision. After a lengthy discussion covering a whole spectrum of issue, we finally got down to the following issues, listed in order of precedence:
1. Papal and Magisterial Infallibility.
2. Universal Authority given to the Papacy in the Gospel of Matthew as taught by the church.
3. Dogmatizing The Assumption of Mary, and The Immaculate Conception.
4. The Churches stance on contraception and Natural Family Planning.
5. What I agreed to without full understanding when I was confirmed.
The conversation covered many other topics, but none really worth writing about in much detail. We talked about the Filoque and what it means from both the Catholic and the Orthodox perspective, liturgical abuses that still take place (even in our own parish), the sorry state of the RCIA programs.
The first issue on the list is the single most important, on it actually rest all the other issues. We discussed church history, and how I could find no real reference in the writings of the church fathers to bolster the Catholic case for infallibility or universal authority for the papacy. Because of other commitments, he handed me a number of books he used when going through the seminary to become a priest, and I promised to read through them and we would meet back up and continue our discussion. We both agreed that if the Schism could be repaired none of this would be needed, but I’ve come to believe that will never happen until Christs return (more on that in a bit).
The three books where on the Magisterium, the councils of the church, and one called ‘All Things Catholic’. I started on the Magisterium book first, while I don’t deny the magisterium as some do. I do not believe that it can be proven to be infallible, I hold the same view with the Papacy. I believe in the primacy of the petrine position, and that each bishop receives the promise given to Peter in Matthew 15. The Papacy played an important role in the early church in regards to protecting dogma, but I have never found any evidence that the Papacy was given universal authority to make dogmatic statements outside of an ecumenical council.
The book I started with is written by Francis A. Sullivan, and while reading through the book, I ran into a section that made me stop and go back to make sure that I had read what he stated was correct. In discussing the authority of the Papacy, he clearly states that up until 1032, when the schism between east and west happened. That the doctrine of Papal authority ONLY existed with the Roman church, and that even when the Papacy made decrees ex cathedra, that the Eastern churches would not accept such declarations until a ecumenical council was held and the decree could be validated against both the deposit of faith, and scripture.
Wait, What?
Here is a Catholic admitting the very thing I’ve been saying all along, that the early church DID NOT, in any way shape or form support the doctrine of divine Papal authority to decree doctrine unilaterally. He also states very clearly something I had never considered before, that after 1032, when the west was no longer being held to account by the East, the doctrine of Papal authority began to to expand quickly.
I had never considered that the union of East and West was a good counterbalance, but he’s right. The seat of Peter being the universal position of power in the church, is NOT taught in the deposit of faith. If it was then the East either discerned it incorrectly or the Apostles made a mistake. Instead what I’ve seen from history is that the East steadfastly held that the authority of the Papacy did not extend universally, and that unlike the decrees of Vatican I, the Papacy DID not have authority to unilaterally make dogmatic decisions. Only when the Papacy AND the bishops met in a truly ecumenical council could such decisions be made.
I had to stop and smile, I know the Vicar was hoping that the book would clear up the issue for me, instead the author in being truthful made the very case I’ve been making all along. Then he asks a question that I was hoping he would get too:
How can we be confident that the Catholic understanding of papal doctrinal authority is a correct insight into what is implicit in the ‘petrine ministry’? I would say that our confidence is ultimately based on our belief that the Church of Christ is indefectible in its faith, and that it subsists in the Catholic Church. When the Catholic Church accepted papal authority to define dogmas, it was making a judgement about a norm of its faith. A Church that is indefectible in its faith cannot be mistaken about the very norm of its faith. [Magisterium, Francis A. Sullivan, Wipf And Stock Publishers, Pg 77]Two things about this statement, by the time the Church decreed as doctrine, infallibility it was no longer the original Catholic Church, it had long since lost the East and the balance that they brought to such decisions. And I would say that she no longer can be called the ‘One True Catholic Church’, without the East, the Church is missing a key component and no longer has any real accountability other than whatever doctrinal development that the Church decrees as core to the dogma of the faith. That’s a harsh statement, but one that I don’t see any way around, the Church believes that both the Assumption of Mary, and the Immaculate Conception are dogmatic, not because the Church can prove them explicitly. But because over centuries of theologians, and the Magisterium working through the belief, that they where guided by the Holy Spirit to finally be able to conclude that they could authoritatively make those beliefs, even without Apostolic teaching on the matter, dogmatic.
This development of doctrine concept, when combined with the break at 1032, was a slippery slope that allowed the church to slowly move away from the structure of the first millennium, into one where doctrine is no longer accountable. It should concern Catholics that an infallible Papacy and Magisterium, had to declare themselves as infallible in 1870, and not during the first seven ecumenical councils. If such a drastic doctrine is TRULY inspired, then why declare it only after almost two thousand years?. I’ve heard the argument that the Church was forced to do so, because of the protestant revolution, but the doctrine of Papal authority can be seen as being challenged as early as the second century. So that argument doesn’t wash.
To be fair, I’m now reading through the book where he talks about infallibility and breaks it down. And maybe yet he can make a case, and I will finally see the light. I’m trying to keep an open mind, because I could be wrong, but the fact that the Church made both the Assumption, and the Immaculate Conception to be dogmatic, meaning that to be a Christian I HAVE to believe them. Well, that’s a bigger problem than even infallibility. To be clear Orthodox believe in the Assumption (they call it the Dormition), and the Immaculate Conception requires a discussion of original sin, which honestly I don’t have time to address here, but I will at a future point. But you don’t have to believe them to be Orthodox, which is the way it should be.
I’ve made my position clear on contraception, that I believe that in a marriage with medical or external reasons for not having more children, that the Orthodox position is much more grace filled than what you will find with a truly orthodox priest. The point that we did argue on was Natural Family Planning, Catholics just can’t seem to admit that it’s used for contraception. I get that it can be used to conceive, and that’s a GOOD thing. But there is no difference between a married couple using a condom, and using NFP to achieve the same result of no children, sorry there’s no way to spin that one.
I’m reading through this book pretty quickly, and will meet with the Vicar again very soon. As stated before, I still love the Catholic Church, I wish that the schism could be fixed. But that would mean the decree of 1870 would have to be revoked, and that would mean that the whole thing was a mistake. That’s not happening anytime soon…
I cannot in good faith, be forced to believe that the immaculate conception actually took place as taught in the Catholic Faith. And especially that it is an issue of salvation as stated in the decree given by the Papal office. Which means that I don’t believe that office be infallible, it’s all connected. That’s a deal breaker, because the Church has deemed that it has the right after almost two thousand years to change the dogma of the faith. I can’t abide with that, and so it’s East that I continue to go.
-Paul-
What I’m reading
I love my kindle, an average reading day for me is The Orthodox Bible (I like the translation), the Philokalia, and a science fiction novel of some kind (anything that piques my love of fiction)
But last night while searching for a new non-theology book (I gotta keep my sanity somehow), I ran across this book:
Changing Churches: An Orthodox, Catholic, and Lutheran Theological Conversation
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007MJCS4I/ref=docs-os-doi_0
It’s an account of two Lutherans (both professors), who converted away from the Lutheran church to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (Antiochian to be precise). I was intrigued so I grabbed the sample version and read the whole thing this morning, I was blown away by how respectful they are treating the subject, and yet are being fully honest about the strengths and weaknesses in their decisions. I immediately bought the full book, and will dive in tonight. I’m very excited to see how their journeys compare to mine, and what I can gleam from their combined knowledge.
The last time I was this excited was when I found Francis Beckwiths conversion story.
I’ll post a review when I’m done, which won’t be long
Blessings
-Paul-
Answering Devins Questions Part 2…
I realized after writing my last piece that I didn’t fully answer Devins question, it had been on my mind for a few days. So I sat down last night and wrote it out while it was still freshin my mind, then ran upstairs and started working on our renovations…
Here again is Devins question:
“But if you became Catholic while believing that the Catholic Church was in error in one or more of her doctrines, that perhaps reveals that you never fully accepted that God has guided and is guiding her into all truth. Do you believe that God is guiding the EO Churches, protecting them from error in their doctrines? Not accusing, not trying to trap you, just curious.”
So the last part of his question about if God is guiding the EO churches protecting them from error in their doctrines. It’s a complicated answer, and something I have thought about for a long time. But first let me state that I am not a theologian, or an apologist. I’ve been studying Philosophy when my schedule allows (hopefully will get a degree one day), and I love to dig and study, but by no means should someone bank their salvation on anything I say. I have done some study under Michael Patton over at Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, and have a huge debt of gratitude for his program that teaches lay people theology.
So let’s start with some biblical references to set the stage:
St Paul in talking to the church in Philippi makes the following statement:
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Do all things without grumbling or disputing, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain. Even if I am to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all. Likewise you also should be glad and rejoice with me.
(Philippians 2:12-18 ESV)
He goes on to explain that he is straining and pressing on toward the Goal of being Christ like. His admonition has always stuck with me, I never stop trying to make sure that what I am doing, believing, practicing, helps to make me a better man spiritually.Then we get to 1st John:
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
(1 John 4:1-6 ESV)
Finally there are the Bereans:
The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men. But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Berea also, they came there too, agitating and stirring up the crowds. Then the brothers immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there. Those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens, and after receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they departed.
(Acts 17:10-15 ESV)
The Bereans have influenced me greatly since coming back to find my faith, I love the fact that they didn’t just take Paul at his word, but went and studied everything he said before believing. So today in our Christian world, we have three main divisions all claiming to have some type of Apostolic succession and the “truth” about the Gospel:
- The Catholic Church
- The Eastern Orthodox Church
- The Protestant Churches
I can easily dismiss the Protestants with a minimal amount of study into both history and scripture, been there, have the funny hats, not doing it again.
But the other two are harder to deal with, much harder.
Protestants by and large, have gone on a rampage against the Catholic faith since Luther introduced his own unique view of the Gospel in 1516. Granted Luther had some very valid concerns about the Catholic Church, but those things eventually got fixed.
So now you have two Churches both claiming Apostolic succession, and both can show a direct historical lineage back to their foundations from the Apostles. So that’s a tie…
Both claim to be the ‘One True Church’, and here comes the rub in this whole thing. Both churches have been plagued by bad decisions, neither side has been ‘Protected’ by God. Catholic apologist will split hairs and say that the dogma of the faith has only been changed by the Papacy a few times, and that is the only time that Papal infallibility comes into play.
It’s true in one sense, but in another, the view from the Catholic side that the Papacy was handed universal authority on matters of faith here on earth, has been problematic. Adding the Immaculate Conception in 1854, the doctrine of Papal infallibility in 1870, and the Assumption of Mary to the dogma of the church in 1965, should give anyone pause. In my view the issue with the Papacy is not being the Primate of the Bishops, I think that role is desperately needed. But when you translate Christs words to Peter in the Gospel of Matthew to mean that suddenly Peter and his successors have this divine control over the whole church, things get a little weird. You are putting the very fate of the church into the hands of one single man, who by his very nature, shares the same sinfulness as Adam did. Humans are sinful, all of us, and to claim that somehow the Papacy is specially protected is not something I can find a good solid argument for. Either from the writings of the early church fathers, or scripture. After all, we either have free will like Adam and Eve, or the Pope has some special providence that again I can’t find any reference material for.
The Orthodox Church views changing the dogma of the faith differently, they believe that only in ecumenical councils, with the Primate of Rome attending, can the dogma or the teachings of the church be modified. I think that’s a good thing, because having one person other than Christ making those kinds of changes is terrifying. On the other hand, as Devin correctly points out, without Rome, the Orthodox Church has not made any dogmatic changes since 1032.
There has been all manners of bad things that have come from both the Catholics and the Eastern Churches, and it seems that some don’t want the schism to end, I’ve already run into that nonsense on the EO side, and I won’t stand for it. But I am stuck in the middle, so I have to choose what is right. I have to work where I want to worship, and give freely of my talents. And it sucks, this is not a fun place to be. I’m tired of polemics, apologetics who don’t concede anything, or worse, take history out of context to bolster their case.
So who is right? Neither in my opinion, or at least fully. When you involve mankind in anything holy, they screw it up, its our very nature since Adam and Eve took the first bite. I don’t believe that either side can show with full certainty that they are the ‘One True Church’, they will claim it, boy will they claim it. But Johns words live in my heart, test all things by the spirit, don’t be easily deceived.
After all my study, listening, thinking, praying. I believe that the Orthodox have a closer handle on what the Apostles handed to them, I don’t think they are perfect. My hope is that East and West can unite, with Rome as the primate of the bishops, and the ancient churches living in unity. But until that time, I’m a man caught in the middle.
I will only truly be satisfied when I finally get to meet Christ face to face, then and only then will I trust another human being fully with my salvation. That’s no small thing, given that literally everyone thinks THEY have it right somehow. So for my own part, I have to weigh the options, and then make the choice that I believe God is telling me to make. What irritates me is when people assume that they are the only ones who know the full truth, because in that sense the words of St Paul could not be any clearer:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.(1 Corinthians 13 ESV)
I have definitely found a more comfortable, loving environment in the Orthodox church, if I can just get past the alien nature of their liturgy and pious nature, I’ll be set
Come quickly Lord Jesus and fix this mess.
-Paul-
Answering Devins Question Part 1…
In my last post about crossing the river to begin my journey to the Orthodox faith, Devin asked this question:
“But if you became Catholic while believing that the Catholic Church was in error in one or more of her doctrines, that perhaps reveals that you never fully accepted that God has guided and is guiding her into all truth. Do you believe that God is guiding the EO Churches, protecting them from error in their doctrines? Not accusing, not trying to trap you, just curious.”
It’s a great question, and I mulled it over for quite a while before answering, partly because I wanted to make sure I gave an honest response, and partly because I had to stop and go back and think about my (our) reasoning.
I left the Evangelical world in 2008, and Michelle was not far behind. We are wired differently, she can let things slide that drive me up a tree, it makes a good combination for a long stable marriage. When I began too question things that we were being taught in church, she knew where I was headed, but was never really bothered over the inconsistencies like I was. It took her a while longer to reach the point of simply giving up and going Apostate.
A year later we started looking again, tired, empty hearted, but still believing. We wanted to find a good solid, biblical church home, what ensued was a very difficult period for us, where we tried all the major flavors of the evangelical world. We ended up in the Anglican church for a while, but finally came to the conclusion that there wasn’t enough oversight and structure. We loved the people, but we had concerns with how things were run, so we stopped going to church altogether for a while.
When we finally ended up at the doors of the Catholic Church, we were worn out, emotionally drained, and very cautious. After our first mass (which was the feast of the Annunciation, the worst thing a cautious Mary fearing protestant should see on their first visit). We met with the RCIA director at the largest parish in town a few weeks later, and then two days later the first RCIA of the year was being held. We took that as a sign of providence, because we had been debating about if we should even go and ask about RCIA. That started a long 9 months of study, struggles, questions and endless discussion.We stopped receiving communion, and did everything that was asked of us.
I wanted to quit more than once, I loved the people, but there was no deep study or discussions (I did what study I could, but had not strong mentors who could answer theological questions). There where bright spots to be sure, but it seemed that they were more concerned with how we felt, rather than teaching the true orthodoxy of the church. When we started to get near confirmation, I asked a very pointed question about what we where agreeing too. I was told that all I needed to believe in was the Apostles Creed, that was all that was required. I tried in vain to get my fingers on the confirmation text the Church was using, but there was a desire on the part of the administration to keep those details safe until the day of confirmation.
I was very frustrated more than once with need to keep things secret from us, when we where accepted as candidates, I asked repeatedly what the ceremony contained. I was told it would ruin the surprise, I would have quit then if not for my wife. I take oaths very seriously, and it still gets under my skin that I could not get direct and solid answers to my questions. When we sponsored our candidates I made sure that nothing was held back from them if they wanted to know, I know that the Church means no malice. But these things matter, and with all the dangerous religious garbage out there, being fully open about ceremonies and details is crucial in my opinion.
When we finally got to confirmation, I was a nervous wreck. More than once I wanted to bolt, and had it not been for my wife, and my need to once again take communion, I would have avoided the whole mess. I wanted to enter into the Church quietly, without fanfare, and begin to serve. But I was forced into a large, crowded ceremony (which for me is a hard thing to deal with), with no idea what was going to happen. I could not find out what I was going to be asked to agree too, or the scope, and by this time I just wanted it over with.
So on Easter Sunday 2011, we did everything we were asked, and against what my head was telling me, I agreed to be confirmed into the Catholic faith.
A year later I still have mixed feelings about that day, all I wanted was someone to sit down with me and explain what was about to happen in detail, go over what I was agreeing too. And to make sure that all my questioned where answered, but there where so many in our group, that simply never happened. I tried to move more than once to our local parish RCIA where I could get more personal attention, but my wife wanted to stay, so I stayed.
What I realize now is that I would have probably never gotten those answers, the Church uses a program that is geared towards feelings, or what I call “Touchy Feely Nonsense”, and it strays from hard Orthodoxy. Bibles where trucked in for the class, and then taken away, as if we had never seen one before. The whole thing felt like a government training program geared to the lowest common denominator, I’m not trying to be unkind, it’s just hard to explain how bad it was for us. Making matters worse was that getting an appointment with a priest was nearly impossible, the Church has a serious shortage, and one priest for a parish of 10,000 parishioners is just nuts! I met with Deacons when possible, but when you start asking technical questions about salvation, original sin, free will, and things like monergism and synergism. Well you get some pretty strange looks…
So did I have questions when I joined?, yes a number of them in fact. But after reading Francis Beckwith’s book on his conversion, I took his same idea which was if the Church got the big things right, then the little ones would fall in place. Never once where we handed the Dogma of the faith, and told this is what is required to be a Catholic. Those kind of hard discussions sadly never happened, I’m not sure I would have joined or not, but it would have made me more comfortable with the whole process.
Michelle and I talked a great deal before we entered into the Church, we were so bruised and worn out, that we needed to become part of something. We LOVED the liturgy, the reverence for the Eucharist, and all the trappings. And I couldn’t break her heart and bail at the last minute, so at the time it seemed like the best of all options to simply join. And I actually have not regretted it, I’ve grown by leaps and bounds in the faith, I love our parish and the Catholic way of life.
But I never stopped digging for answers, and the more I dug, the more I started to find things that didn’t seem right. Papal Infallibility, the assumption of Mary, and immaculate conception being made dogma (all within the last 14o years or so). The Churches stand on contraception and Natural Family Planning, liturgical nonsense that takes place even still today. When I started to seriously look into the Orthodox faith, I learned more about my Catholic faith, than I did from the Catholics. And I started to see that so much of what the Orthodox church believed, aligned with what my studies had told me.
So I’m now in the process of leaving, not because I want to, but because if I don’t, I can’t say I’m being honest with myself. I love the Catholic Church, I really do. But there are things I just can’t sit by and ignore anymore, and for me personally, I’m either committed to it fully, or it’s just going to be painful because I’ll know in my deepest parts that I simply don’t agree.
The hardest part for me has been putting my wife back through another long search, I feel terrible. It was so painful the last time, she has been very stern about not just jumping ship. But the more we have talked the more she has come to realize that there are issues we would need to compromise on, and so she has followed me on this new journey.
So there it is, in all it’s dark glory. We are on a new journey, and the Orthodox church is like entering an alien landscape, they even cross themselves the opposite of Catholics! We have done two vespers services, and it’s not getting any easier. What helps is that everyone is a convert and knows exactly what we are going through, people have shown us so much love and patience, that it takes the edge off (but not by much yet). So my heart knows this is the right thing, but my head is screaming “RUN YOU IDIOT, RUN!!!”
Blessings.
-Paul-
Rivers Old and New
Last night, Michelle and I had the extreme pleasure of spending an evening sharing Vespers, faith, questions and much laughter with Fr. Mark Fenn and his Wife Michelle, of the Antiochian Orthodox Church here in Boise.
We learned a great deal about the Orthodox faith, a lot of questions were put to rest, I learned some things that floored me, and we felt loved and welcome. From the moment we tentatively walked through door (late as usual), we were made to feel at home. We had never attended vespers, it was other worldy, simple, austere, and moving.
When Vespers ended Fr. Mark sat with us and gave us a lesson on how the Orthodox faith is structured, showed us around the Sanctuary, and answered a lot of questions, his wife Michelle was headed over to the Russian Orthodox church to see parishioners who where celebrating a baptism. That was my first shock, that parish members from one Orthodox church would go visit the other one, when I inquired, I was told all three Orthodox parishes in town consider themselves all one faith. That’s certainly different than the divisions I had read about.
Fr. Mark, was beyond gracious and patient, showing love and compassion to our questions. Later in the evening his wife Michelle came back by, and the four of us discussed the faith. Both answering questions and concerns with grace, it was very moving for us. One thing that we have missed in the Catholic faith, is loving fellowship. It’s something that Protestants get right (when it’s not out of balance, it’s a wonderful thing), and something that we have missed for a long time. That’s not to say that Catholics are cold, they aren’t. We have met some warm and wonderful Catholics. But let’s be honest, in our experience Catholics by and large don’t really open up until you have been around them a while, we felt like interlopers for the first 4 months or so at our Parish.
What we found last night, was the one thing that we felt was missing from the Catholic faith we have been part of for a couple of years now, that is Grace. Not some conceptual, theological term, but real, down to the core, loving Grace. Let me give you an example, in the Catholic Church, if you miss a day of obligation (mass on Sunday, or certain calendar events) on purpose, you have committed a Mortal sin, and you must seek reconciliation or your very soul is in danger. Orthodox don’t think you should be missing Mass, but they aren’t about to declare you in mortal danger of losing your soul if you skip a service.
Another difference that we keyed in on, is that both Faiths do confession, but the Orthodox treat it less mechanically than the Catholic faith does, in fact your priest becomes your confessor. Getting to know you at a very personal level, and confession becomes a tool to not only forgive sins, but to help your faith grow. Reconciliation for us has been more mechanical, you go, confess, are forgiven, do your penance and off you go. It’s vastly more intimate in the Orthodox faith, part of that could be that the Catholic Church is in dire need of priests.
For the first time, I found someone saying, what I had found in the bible, and the early church fathers. There was a foundation that was built on love and grace, and it flowed into every word spoken. Michelle has been hesitant about this direction, but has allowed me to follow the truth and see where it lands us. She’s still wants to search things out more, and we both still have more questions that need to be answered.
But I’ve finally found the shore I was looking for, I’m sure of it, my heart settled in for the first time last night, there are more questions to be sure, but no more deep nagging ones. I love the Catholic Faith, I will always be in love with the faith of Rome, I can’t express that enough. I wish with all my being that the Schism of 1032 could be repaired, because the Orthodox could benefit from Catholics, and the Catholics could learn so much from the Orthodox faith. But there are things about the Catholic Faith that are just so unnecessary, the dogmatizing of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, the legalistic nature of the catechism, infallibility. The reactionary nature of the Church to contraception, while endorsing Natural Family Planning (and yes, I mean in the sense of using it as contraception).
Those and many other inconsistencies have nagged at me for a long time, I don’t have all the answers I need just yet, but after last night I discovered what my study had told me was so, that the Orthodox have held TIGHTLY to the original teaching of the Apostles. They haven’t added onto it, or constructed a bunch of rules around it, they leave it as is. It’s what I hoped the Catholic Church had done, but I just don’t believe that anymore. I will always be Catholic, just not a practicing Roman Catholic any longer. I setup a meeting next week too sit with the Vicar and tell him my intentions to join the Orthodox faith. Michelle is holding out to see how it all plays out, but she told me to follow my convictions.
I started the process, there’s no turning back now.
And I get to be a Catechumen again (still not sure about that), and learn a whole new way of practicing my faith (I can’t even pronounce the Philokalia right, so I have A LOT to learn). It’s a little scary, and a whole lot exciting. I didn’t cry when we got Confirmed in the Catholic Faith, mostly because by that time I was so worn out from all the nonsense that was RCIA. But I teared up this morning in Mass, I’m going to miss the beauty of the Mass. However I’m looking forward to being accepted into the Orthodox faith.
Then I can finally say that my journey has taken me from one side of the Christian faith, to the other. From many shores to a select few, and finally to one…
Pray for me as I row to another shore…
Blessings
-Paul-
Looking East
I’ve been searching for a very long time, the journey has been wonderful and terrible, all at the same time. Michelle has settled into the Catholic way of life, and we have been faithful to the agreement that was made on the day of our confirmation. So much has changed in the last 7 years, children growing up, leaving, sometimes on different paths than we would have chosen. Our time in the Evangelical Wilderness made us much wiser than when we first arrived there, but we still have a long, long ways to go.
Our faith has changed as well, what was once acceptable in our evangelical beliefs, are now the very things we shy away from. We have also taken the time to educate ourselves, and submit to the teaching of others. I will never know enough for me to be fully comfortable with my faith, but that is the way my maker wired me, I accept it and live with it everyday. As I have mentioned before I have been studying the Orthodox faith for some time now, the more I read the more it dawns on me just how common sense most Eastern Orthodoxy theology is. My one regret is that the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox can’t fix the schism of 1032, it has caused me a great deal of consternation.
There are so many things that the two churches agree on, that it seems silly they can’t find some way to heal the rift and go back into mutual communion. But then one reads the declarations of Vatican I, and Vatican II and you realize that Rome for all it’s beauty missed the mark on infallibility, divine authority of the papacy (not primacy mind you) pushing a belief that one cannot find in the early church. Add to that the dogma of the immaculate conception, the consumption of Mary, the Filoque, and the liturgical abuses since Vatican II, the legalistic nature of the churches teaching, and you begin to realize the actual scope of the problem.
I’ve been looking East for a time now, and the one thing that has kept me away is that by the canon of the Catholic Church, I cannot take communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Frustrating, but I did agree to follow the teaching of the Catholic Church (by the way that agreement, does not cover my objections and questioning). So now to experience the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy, I have to play a shell game, take communion at my local parish (because, it’s a mortal sin to not take weekly communion), the rush over to share in the liturgy at my local Orthodox Church. To even experience their liturgy means that I have to juggle schedules, because I can’t miss weekly mass.
However, tomorrow night we are heading over to share in the Saturday Night Vespers service. The Fr. was gracious and offered to meet with us before service and go over questions that we both have. So we are going to dip our toe in the pool, meet with the good Fr. and begin to get a feel for where this is all leading. I will do a more detailed post on why I’ve been looking east for so long, and why I’m slowly coming to realize that it may be where we needed to be all along.
I want to make a couple of points very clear so there is no misunderstanding, Michelle and I both love the Catholic Church. We love the liturgy, the sacraments, and being part of the church family. But I have always had some reservations, and as I have dug into the past, some have gone away, but a small important set have stayed. Some have been game changers for me, that doesn’t mean I intend to bash Catholics in any way shape or form. I just have core issues that I disagree with, I have not found any apologist who can make an airtight case on those issues. Maybe I’m looking in the wrong places, but in my own studies, I’ve concluded that some things just aren’t as clear as they are made out to be. The one thing that drew us into the Catholic faith was the idea of a centralized leadership, coming from the evangelical world where everyone makes up their own rules, and dealing with mainlines, who have no real structure or control over their parishes, the Catholic model makes so much sense. The Papacy IS in the early writings of the church fathers, but it’s different than what we have today, but the Bishop of Rome has had a seat of primacy since first century AD.
And we haven’t left yet, we are just exploring to see what the Orthodox have to offer, to find out first hand, rather than learning it from a book. Its a pattern we have done before, the difference this time is that we have done a great deal of research to get to this point, so we have a good solid understanding of what we are looking for. But boy did it take a long time!!!
Blessings…
-Paul-
And in this corner
I’ve been thinking about writing this piece for a while, but I’ve also been reluctant to let it all out. But given the current political climate in the nation, the state of the church and the fact that it’s an election year, I might as well step into the fray.
Let’s start with the Obama administration, I have never seen more idealistic, deaf and frankly out of touch administration than this one. The Constitution seems to have no meaning, they will do anything to push their socialist agenda. So why anyone is surprised that they have used the HHS to push their contraceptive mandates on to church run organizations, is beyond me. All the signs were there during the election, all one had to do was do a little digging, and yet people voted with their emotions rather than their mind. The part that angers me the most is Catholics who voted for Obama, in my opinion they got what they deserved. We attended a meeting on Catholic ethics at our parish, and got a lecture from a bunch of old anti-war hippies about their anti war stances. These are the same people who still have Obama stickers on their cars, I simply can’t understand how you could still support someone whose goal is to restrict your religious freedoms, and still go to Mass.
But the Catholic church that exists in the United States is a shell of what it once was, we have been overtaken with the current psychology of the modern age, and are more concerned about not offending our laity than we are with the truth. We don’t even teach real orthodoxy any more, its all a mixture of light theology and emotionalism. As I’ve stated before, I’ve learned more about the Catholic faith from Orthodox writers than I have more Catholic ones. I’ve been reading the council of Trent, and found it interesting that there is a section devoted to Catechesis and it’s administration. Why are we not following that today?, why are we not back to the Sunday School model and taking the time to make sure the laity are instructed in the elements of our faith? Instead of praise bands, and coffee hours, let’s push instruction and education. We should not be afraid to teach people the basics of philosophy and apologetics, how else are we going to reach the world unless we have laity who are confident and KNOWLEDGEABLE about their faith?
I may disagree with certain points of Catholic Orthodoxy, but I love the Catholic church. It has brought stability to my faith and my life, but because I love it, I can see the faults and want to make it better. However I never became Catholic with the idea that I would mindlessly agree with every point the church teaches, I know there are some who would admonish me for that. But God gave me a mind for a reason, and when I see something I can’t agree with, I’m not going to lie to say otherwise, to do so would be to lose any self respect I have. I can’t stomach believers who become robots, echoing back everything the church teaches them without thought.
We are in the process of dumbing down the population of this country, I don’t know how to put it any other way, or even be polite about it anymore. I work for a utility, on any given week I am submitted to the most mind numbing, paradoxical thinking I’ve ever seen in my life. Everything is spoon fed to the workforce, the company spends an enormous amount of resources selling their agenda to their own employees. After a while people just go numb, you can’t win, you can’t argue, so you just have to suffer through it. And they wonder why people are apathetic, maybe it’s because instead of treating them like the professionals they are, you treat them all as if they are the lowest common denominator. A case in point is that we as employees had to sit through a week long class on performance in our culture, for me the experience bordered on a new age religion, we where bombarded with pop psychology, told to take the material home and have our family’s evaluate us ( request I refused and ultimately won, but only after getting the ‘it changed my life’ lecture from the instructor). We got the special privilege to hear managers tell us how this program changed their lives, their marriages and their family’s. It was so much like a religion that one gentlemen extolled the virtues by reciting the Evangelical mantra of reading your book everyday and practicing what it taught, it was honestly the same EXACT speech I heard for years in the baptist faith. The difference was this was a company mandated program. The ultimate goal was to make people accountable, but when it came time to do yearly goals, instead of practicing the very system they spent millions on. They spoon fed it the workforce, and wasted time making sure everyone was ‘aligned’. The irony is that had the program worked, simply stating what the goals where and that you are expected to meet them this year, would have been enough. Which is how it used to be done.
The next day two friends and I walked to a new restaurant to get lunch, they had a greeter who’s job as far as I can tell, was to tell us how get in line to order the food. It made me sad that something like that was even needed, the place had good food and a great layout. But if I need someone to show me the obvious then, I shouldn’t be out wondering on my own. I despise restaurants that feel the need to ‘educate’ diners on how their menu works, listen… If your menu is so complicated that I can’t just order the food I want, then I’m going to go eat somewhere else. I don’t need a speech on how to order my frigging food, you have a menu, I order what looks good. What’s so difficult about that? Am I missing something?, are people really that clueless? I may not want to know the answer to that anymore…
So about this election, let me go out on a limb here and say that I would like to see a good old fashion AGNOSTIC run for president for once. I’m sick and tired of being subjected to the candidates weird religious beliefs and statements. Romney’s a mormon, which has it’s own set of special issues (though I’m told by mormon friends, that he’s a jack mormon at that). The others are all various faiths, but when we get into areas of faith and politics people just say and do stupid things. The media love to find those little tidbits and make mountains out of them, and when you have people like Santorum’s wife commenting that his winning is ordained by God, I just want to go hide somewhere. I’m not actually enthused about any of the current crop, I don’t know where the real conservatives have gone, but boy do I miss them. This whole faith and politics things is such a mess anyway, I argued with a baptist minister one time about single issue voters. He stated that he would never, based on principle vote for someone who supported abortion. I told him that you where never going to find someone to agree with every single thing you believe, these are men, you take the good with the bad. I don’t support abortion, but in reality the President can only effect the issue by creating an activist supreme court. Roe vs Wade, I don’t think, could stand up to a good honest analysis at that level. So I would in fact vote for someone who is soft on the issue, as long as they elect constitutional judges, and not activists to the bench. You can’t think single issue with politics, it’s never that simple. Given the current crop of clowns, I don’t see this country turning around for a long time.
Apple released new products this week, the new iPad is cool and all. But honestly there’s nothing there that would cause me to leave my current iPad2 and upgrade. They really needed something more than just the retina display, I’m wondering if they are still floundering from the loss of Steve Jobs?. I sure hope they can recover. I love my Apple T.V. and MIGHT buy a new one for 1080p, but until the movie industry pulls their heads out of their hind ends and realizes that we now live in a digital content age, I’m reticent to support any format. Everything’s so fragmented, Hulu only shows certain shows on the computer, but not a console. Apple won’t support Hulu, and half the studio’s won’t even release shows to a digital format. I would PAY to see Lost Girl on iTunes, but for some unknown reason SyFy has refused to do so. I don’t get it. Then they go after the internet, using the guise of stopping piracy. Piracy’s not the issue, the industry is filled with dinosaurs who at every technological turn have resisted change, and then once forced have benefited financially from that change. Instead they keep pushing systems where they can control their content and greedily charge you for every viewing, remember DivX, well now they have ultraviolet, which is worse in many ways. I predict that what is going to happen, is the same thing that happened with CD’s, the industry is going to dig in and the rest of the world will simply start producing media through digital outlets, leaving the traditional industry in the dust.
John Piper, the voice of the reformed mindset, and all around narsisistic know it all. Has once again attempted Theodicy regarding the Tornado’s in the midwest. For those who don’t know Theodicy is the attempt to explain how evil can exist with an Omniscient and all loving creator. As usual Pat Robertson opened his big mouth and blathered about it as well, it’s not enough that we live in a fallen world where bad things happen. But these self appointed morons run out and do their best to make the rest of us look like a bunch of nut cases. In Pipers case, his reformed theology means that God is in control of EVERYTHING (this is known as a determinism) and free will is an illusion. So he has to justify the tornadoes, you can read his latest blather here: Fierce Tornadoes and the Fingers of God I don’t understand why it’s not enough that people lost their lives, their homes, and entire towns where wiped from the face of the earth, on top of that you have to tell that God did it. Here’s an idea, maybe the WEATHER caused the Tornado and because people live in a area PRONE to tornadoes, they had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Bad things happen, if we are to represent the love of God then we should mobilize support, physical and moral to help those in need. Not blather on about some theological point that no one cares about.
It looks like spring is early this year, we ventured out twice this weekend to go to the driving range, I’m still as bad as ever. Some things never change, but I still enjoy playing Golf, so the love hate relationship will continue unabated. I’m hoping it says nice, and that spring comes early so I can get out more often, it’s been a dismal winter for some reason and I’m ready for some warmth and outdoor activities.
Time to go play… I feel better now
Peace
-Paul-
Now this is how you do it!!!
I’ve been interested for some time in the Orthodox faith, we considered the Orthodox church while still looking but at the time didn’t know any local parishes. One thing that has always bothered me is that if the Catholic (West or Latin) Church, had the same deposit of truth as the Orthodox or Eastern Church, then why the big split? They disagree on a number of theological and ecclesiological (study of the Christian Church) issues, especially around the Papacy.
Having read Steven Ray’s book on the papacy (Upon This Rock) I thought the issue was settled, at least it was for me. That is until I read the Apostolic Fathers for myself, and then started reading a book called “His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism Between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches” by Laurent Cleenewerck. Two things happened to my theology:
1. I did not find anywhere in the Apostolic Fathers a direct mention of the papal seat as we know it today, which was surprising to me given how much I have read from Apologists that the Church Fathers fully supported the divine and universal aspect of the see of Peter.
2. I started to question what I actually thought I knew, and began to realize that I really hadn’t done a good job in my study of the Catholic church orthodoxy, my RCIA class was so light on the topic that I was shocked to learn that papal infallibility was made Dogma in 1870 at the Vatican I council (I thought it was declared long before 1870, which is like yesterday for a church with 2000 years history).
I’ve been working my way through Cleenewercks book (he has the coolest name ever!), and what I have found is the RARE and I do mean RARE, apologist who actually presents and irenic argument to make his case. Michael Patton at Reclaiming the Mind taught me well that being irenic in arguing a point was always a much better option. The other night I picked up the book of a very famous Catholic Apologist and thumbed over the section on the pope, I was curious to see how he handled the issue when challenged. What I found surprised me, he quoted the writing of one of the church fathers, and the quote on it’s own would make anyone think that the father fully supported the universal power of the papal office. But the truth is that this church father actually challenged the universal and divine power of the roman bishop, but still held that the papacy was indeed founded by Christ through Peter. It’s a subtle point, but it makes a world of difference, because in the Catholic faith, the Papacy has been handed the keys the kingdom and has both divine and universal power over the Christian faith.
St. Augustine was famous for saying ‘Let the reader decide’, that is the irenic approach. Give a good accounting of both sides of the issue, and then leave it to the reader to make the right choice. But in today’s world of hack apologists, theologians with an axe to grind, there are few who are brave enough to follow that path. Instead they quote selectively and leave out any piece that would weaken their position, they do it both with Scripture and now as I’m finding out with the church fathers.
This is why I always look for apologists who are not afraid to say that their position in one area is weak, or that we just don’t know for sure. And I do everything in my power to avoid the current trend of learning scripture and orthodoxy through ‘feelings’, this morning after Mass, a couple was taking applications for a small group study, so we stopped by to see what they had to offer. It was a little workbook, that had you read some scriptures. Then you joined your small group and talked about how the scripture affected you…
REALLY!!
That’s what is passing for church approved study material?, I got my fill of that in the RCIA classes, where the last 45 minutes of each class was a question and answer session that allowed people to express their feelings! Because we all know that actually studying what the church believes is not nearly as important as how something moves me emotionally! What a pile of horse droppings, IF we are to be Catholic, then we should be TEACHING orthodox material. We should be instructing people in their faith, not asking if they feel all warm and fuzzy inside!
An interesting side note, we had a lady approach us today after service and introduce herself, she said she had noticed us attending for a while. She also commented that and her husband noticed that during the Our Father prayer we don’t hold hands, we told her that basically the GIRM (General Instruction for the Roman Missal, the rules of the liturgy) does NOT state that holding hands is part of the service, so we don’t do it. She said she and her husband do the same thing!, it was good to know that we are not alone in sticking the traditions as they are written…
Anyway…
So I’d like to give a huge Clink of the glass to Laurent Cleenewerck, who had the guts to write a book that seeks out the truth rather his opinion. I’m not Orthodox yet, but his book really has me going back and rethinking what I thought I knew, and THAT my friends is what good apologetics should do…
-Paul-
