Staying Orthodox

[CJtheSearcher]

As some of you may know, I grew up Seventh Day Adventist and converted to Catholicism back in 2008 when I was going through recruit training at Parris Island, South Carolina. I was RC until 2012, when I was received into the Orthodox Church via the OCA (December 16, 2012 to be exact).

Since then, as some of you may know, I returned (briefly) to the RCC early last year for various theological reasons. I then made confession to my local Orthodox priest back home and returned to Orthodoxy (for, again, theological reasons).

Fastforward seven months later: I'm living in China, and in the Orthodox Church. But, I still feel the 'tug' to return once for all to Catholicism. Making a decision between Orthodox (or Catholicism) versus Protestantism is quite easy since Protestantism has no historical legs to stand on. However, when it comes to choosing between Orthodoxy and Catholicism things get quite 'tricky'.

Both Orthodoxy and Catholicism have historical and apostolic legs to stand on. Theologically I stand with the Orthodox church (otherwise I wouldn't be here!) but I see problems in our ecclesiology among other things (things that would take quite a while to explain here, so I'll refrain from doing so). Btw, if you'd like to have a more private chat about my different theological feelings please PM me.

So...WITHOUT MAKING THIS AN ANTI CATHOLIC THREAD, could you all tell me why you remain Orthodox, most especially if you are a convert from Catholicism? Perhaps there are others like me that remain Orthodox but still feel a tug to Catholicism. I hope to hear from you if you read this thread!

Again....DO NOT LET THIS BECOME AN ANTI CATHOLIC THREAD PLEASE.

 

[GregConstantine]

for me its the papacy. The RC's position on the papacy is historically and theologically untenable.

Also, remember that Protestantism didn't come out of a vacuum. It came out of a problematic historical and ecclesiastical position of Rome. What is wrong with protestantism is ultimately what is wrong with Rome, notwithstanding her apostolic and historical legs.

 

[CJtheSearcher]

for me its the papacy. The RC's position on the papacy is historically and theologically untenable.

Also, remember that Protestantism didn't come out of a vacuum. It came out of a problematic historical and ecclesiastical position of Rome. What is wrong with protestantism is ultimately what is wrong with Rome, notwithstanding her apostolic and historical legs.

I agree completely (though I STILL find myself wavering back and forth between pro papacy and not-so-pro papacy). The weird thing is: when I briefly returned to Rome it was because of the papacy. When I decided to return to Orthodoxy...it was mainly because of the papacy. Oh what a weird weird position to be in.

Btw, are you former RC?

 

[truefiction1]

Balance is why I remain Orthodox. In its Theology, in its ecclesiology, and in its life it veers neither too far to the left nor too far to the right. Such is the Way of all those who are enlightened.

 

[aChildOfMary]

Forums like this one is really not the place for you to visit and air your pro and cons for Wether or not you should become catholic or stay Orthodox especially given your bumpy theological ride so far in your life.

If you ask this here they will just try to win you over with their propaganda and so will we do if you post at OBOB.
Also be aware that Internet are the trolls home, this goes for me aswell.

Don't do anything more about your choice until you've prayed about it and made a final decision.
This isn't like Protestantism, you know the kind of Baptist one week and Methodist the next.
This is more like a marriage and neither the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church deserves this treatment.

I know I may sound harsh and please forgive me for that, but to me it really sounds like you should really think this thru Before you choose.


good luck in your journey and peace be with you as you eventually make your final decision.





Pax Christi
aChildOfMary

 

[GregConstantine]

We don't have propaganda, we have the truth of Jesus Christ. If anyone claims any ecumenical nonesense, then you are implying that God, Christ, and the writers of the Scriptures are liars.

Sorry if I sound harsh...

 

[Anhelyna]

Child of Mary - you are quite correct - this is a question upon which you should not attempt to comment , and nor will I.

Neither of us are living in China so we are not isolated from our Church.

What we should be doing is praying for him - and that I do

 

[gzt]

So you were Catholic for four years, Orthodox for a little less than two years, Catholic for a few months, and Orthodox again for 7 months, and you're thinking about switching again. So what are you looking for?

At some point, you know, you need to make a decision and stick with it. Grow where you're planted.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

I used to be Roman Catholic.

As Greg said, a big reason for me is the papacy. There's no evidence for it, IMO, and the more Church History I'm taught (at an, admittedly, Orthodox seminary) the less sense the Roman Catholic version of history holds out. A drop of doubt about Tertullian's listing of the early popes, coupled against the stuff I've seen (which I quickly forgot about, remembering only that it existed) that the idea of a monoespicopacy in early Rome is wrong, brings huge doubts into the idea of an early papacy.

But there is the Roman Catholic idea of revelation of doctrine. That could save their doctrine of the papacy. However I don't believe the Fathers support such an idea. They do support a development of doctrine, but their arguments allow little deviation. It's tough to explain, but I think you can get the gist of it if you read them. They believe in a development tied intrinsically and very closely to earlier beliefs and very strict logic. Roman Catholicism allows much more liberal application of logic and so much more innovative doctrines.

So I cannot accept the papacy as an early belief of The Church, based upon the first person accounts I've read and the actions of the early church. I also cannot accept the gradual revelation of doctrine of Roman Catholicism which would allow the development of the papacy. The scholastic method utilized, I find non-Patristic. Add to this the count of other doctrines which I do not believe are supported patristically or Biblically (though they have their Biblical arguments, I just don't think they're true) such as Mortal vs. Venial sin, indulgences, 'promises' attached to prayers, holy days of obligation, the idea of inheriting a "Rite", the filioque, and other such things.

Finally there's the attitude of contemporary Roman Catholicism, which is so far removed from ancient Christian tradition. The hymns, the vestments, the contemporary Ordo, the architecture, the iconoclasm, facing the people, the loss of popular piety. These all speak, in my opinion, to a lack in the center of Roman Catholicism.

I do sometimes get an itch for some good ol' Western Christianity, but when I do I find that Western Orthodoxy satisfies that itch far, far more truthfully than contemporary Roman Catholicism. The Western Orthodox hymns, Ordo, icons, architecture, chants, prayers, these all resonate with me, and that I think says something about them as well (or maybe just myself, depending on your opinion).

 

[dzheremi]

As I've heard it said, eventually you have to put the books down and pick a street. It seems as though you're vacillating between the two because you see that they both have historical claims to continuity with the early Church. This is true, but so do others you are not considering, right? You are not choosing between the RC, the EO, the OO, and the Nestorians, right? So clearly comfort in historical claims can only take you so far in deciding where you should be. You must also consider theology, Christology, ecclesiology, and all the other things that we are to take seriously as Christians. You say you are theologically with the EO -- okay, then why not stay there? Judas was with Jesus and the disciples, but it did not save him in the end. What matters is not just who was there first, but who has stayed faithful. It is the person who runs the race to the finish that wins the prize, not the person who was first out of the gate but then wandered off somewhere in the meantime.

Not to mention that all the historical claims and backing in the world mean very little if they do not inform the current, everyday practice of the faith, i.e., what people actually do. Rome is a very old and venerable Church, to be sure, but what is there in it that compares to Orthodox spirituality? Where is their Agbeya/Horologion that is said by everyone and shapes their daily life? Where is their Synaxarion, and how does it play a part in their services? How do they keep to their traditional chant forms and iconography? Do they fast? I bring these all up because they are much more immediate in the life of a given church (whether we are talking about Rome or any other Church) than the somewhat academically-focused way you seem to looking at this issue. Historicity is important, and cannot be ignored, but it is not the whole story. On the day of judgment, I highly doubt that anyone will be saved by saying "My Lord, I read all the right books!" What happened to having the faith of a child? That's what we should all be working towards, no matter what church we belong to.

 

[GregConstantine]

you make some excellent points dzheremi. Especially about how the RCC lives out it's life as a Church. It is old, it has apostolic roots, but its theology and how it expresses the faith now is very far away from how it is expressed and practiced in the Orthodox Church, which is also the early Church.

Case in point, I went to the Easter vigil a few years ago (my family is RC and someone was being baptized and confirmed). The first half of the service (the easter vigil portion) was great! it came close a few times to how we express the joy of the resurrection a few times. But then, they switch over to the regular mass and the contrast was jarring. When the priest gave his sermon, he said "happy easter!" I was like, no "Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!"?

 

[aChildOfMary]

you make some excellent points dzheremi. Especially about how the RCC lives out it's life as a Church. It is old, it has apostolic roots, but its theology and how it expresses the faith now is very far away from how it is expressed and practiced in the Orthodox Church, which is also the early Church.

Case in point, I went to the Easter vigil a few years ago (my family is RC and someone was being baptized and confirmed). The first half of the service (the easter vigil portion) was great! it came close a few times to how we express the joy of the resurrection a few times. But then, they switch over to the regular mass and the contrast was jarring. When the priest gave his sermon, he said "happy easter!" I was like, no "Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!"?

- Semantics

 

[GregConstantine]

No, I'm not a living example of what you describe. Please look up what the word propaganda means.

There is only one true Church, not two lungs, or whatever one wants to call it. To say otherwise is to imply the testimony of the fathers, the saints, the scriptures, and the very teachings of Christ Himself is some how wrong or deficient.

That is not a judgment on anyone, even myself or my fellow Orthodox brothers or sisters, or you.

But if you want to take it that way, then so be it. You can call me whatever you want.

 

[GregConstantine]

BTW, semantics are important and matter.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

Not to mention that all the historical claims and backing in the world mean very little if they do not inform the current, everyday practice of the faith, i.e., what people actually do. Rome is a very old and venerable Church, to be sure, but what is there in it that compares to Orthodox spirituality? Where is their Agbeya/Horologion that is said by everyone and shapes their daily life? Where is their Synaxarion, and how does it play a part in their services? How do they keep to their traditional chant forms and iconography? Do they fast? I bring these all up because they are much more immediate in the life of a given church (whether we are talking about Rome or any other Church) than the somewhat academically-focused way you seem to looking at this issue

This is very good. The comment about the Lives of the Saints strikes me - I used to wonder "Shouldn't we have more than just a mentioning of a saint on Sunday during Mass?" I appreciate that there are hymns to the saint on their day in Orthodoxy.

- Semantics

It's not semantics if he believes such an expression is a sign of a certain attitude in Roman Catholicism, one which bears keeping in mind when looking at the question.

I'd like to remind you of this being the Orthodox forum, and reiterate your fellow Catholic's comments to you about this thread.

 

[aChildOfMary]

I haven't once in this thread spoken out against the Orthodox Church and I fail to see how I've violated any of the rules regarding safe havens , but if I have offended anyone despite my lack of registering it I apologize.

I will withdraw from this thread now and I wish you all a blessed weekend.
peace be with you all.




Pax Christi
aChildOfMary

 

[GregConstantine]

you accused us of engaging in propaganda.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

To answer the OP, I remain Orthodox because I believe with all my heart that it is the Truth.

I appreciate the way the struggle to obey the Gospel is taught and applied to each one of us as needed. The analogy of the Church as Hospital, the Holy Mysteries as medicine, the prayers and fasting as our daily health - that really resonates with me in a way that other, more legalistic ways never could. The goal of our life in Christ is Communion with Him - nothing less!

Mary

 

[gzt]

I would just say that jumping back and forth and back is a very worrying thing. This is like marriage. You don't jump between spouses haphazardly. People have died rather than convert or died to convert. This is not a light thing. If you decide you do need to convert, I suggest you do so only after a long, sober reflection on it (of at least several months if not years) where you come to the conviction that it is the one thing needful and you must do it to save your soul. And then stay put. For at least several years. No matter what you do, you should have a long, sober reflection. Emotion and nostalgia are very misleading.

 

[MilesVitae]

you accused us of engaging in propaganda.

To at least give him the benefit of a doubt, I would keep in mind that he said the same of asking such a question in the Catholic forum.