Catholic Interested in Orthodoxy

[ThePapist]

Hello,

I have recently been very interested in Orthodoxy. My journey from Protestantism led me a while ago to Catholicism which I believed to be the true Church established by Jesus Christ. Now as a Catholic, I feel that maybe I should check out Orthodoxy or eastern Catholicism to see if the Orthodox Church may be the true church established by Christ and from which the other schismed in 1054.

I understand the orthodox belief on the Filioque and am starting to doubt Catholic teaching on it but I'm not sure.

I know a major thing with Orthodoxy is that the bishops are equal and there is no Pope or Papacy over all the bishops. I am curious as to why this is when it is pretty biblical as to how Christ established the Church on Pope St. Peter.

Are there any converts to Orthodoxy from Catholicism on here that would like to tell me your journey or why you converted?

I feel really drawn in by the Orthodox spirituality and the eastern almost mysticism that goes along with it. I love the recitation of the Jesus prayer and carry a prayer rope in my pocket to always pray it in English, Greek, or Latin along with my rosary. I have also started reading some of The Way of the Pilgrim which has drawn me even closer to Orthodox spirituality.

I am really curious to about hesychasm in prayer and how to obtain this and what it entails seems fascinating to me.

If anyone has any advice on where to start studying or maybe some spiritual exercises to adopt or anything, it will be well appreciated. And, don't hold back any of your feelings toward Catholicism, I can handle it!

God bless!

 

[truthseeker32]

I know a major thing with Orthodoxy is that the bishops are equal and there is no Pope or Papacy over all the bishops. I am curious as to why this is when it is pretty biblical as to how Christ established the Church on Pope St. Peter.

What is evident is that Christ said he would build his church upon Peter. Beyond this there is room for debate and the Early Church Fathers have had various opinions about what Matt 16:18 means.

Roman Catholics assume that this is clearly evidence of the establishment of the Papacy, but there are several ways of looking at it. For example, an Orthodox Christian can believe that Christ did indeed build his church upon Peter, but believe that Peter had multiple successors, not just the Bishop of Rome. The evidence actually suggests Peter had multiple successors, since Evodius of Antioch and Linus of Rome are both successors of Peter.

Think of it this way: There is a king who has established a kingdom. When the kingdom was first established it was small enough to be overseen by just one king, but as it has grown the king has found it necessary to appoint other kings. These are all his successors and they will all have legitimate successors of their own. This is sort of like the Roman Empire that eventually had two emperors because of how vast it was.

 

[Knee V]

Hello there!

I was in similar shoes about 9 years ago (man, does time fly!). I hadn't quite been confirmed Catholic yet, but I had abandoned Protestantism (Reformed) for Catholicism. It was about this same time 9 years ago that I decided, just to be fair to both sides, that I decided to give the Orthodox a chance to tell their side of the story. 3 or 4 months later I attended my first Orthodox Liturgy, and that is where I have stayed.

We do have a "primacy" in Orthodoxy. That is a fundamental part of our ecclesiology. At all levels of the church there is a group of equals with one from among them acting as a "first among equals", from the parish level up to the level of the entire church. The Patriarch of Constantinople is our "first among equals", and has that honor of primacy. However, we don't take it any further than that, and we do not believe that any individual bishop or see is necessary for the church to be what it is. If Constantinople and its surrounding areas were to fall into error and not repent and we lost Constantinople, the Orthodox Church would still be what it is, and another Patriarch would become the first bishop.

There were many factors that led to Rome having her place of honor, and we do not believe that it is as simple as the RCC makes it out to be. It was not as simple as "Peter was given the keys, and he passed them down to Rome, and now Rome has the keys for the rest of time." Rome was the church where Peter and Paul, the two apostolic giants, were martyred. That in itself is a tremendous honor. Rome was also the capital of the Empire and the center of the known world. And as a result, when people were sentenced to be put to death for Christ, they were brought to Rome. And when peoole were martyred, they often confessed their faith publicly before dying. Thus Rome truly had the most "catholic" voice and confession of faith, as the church from all over the world assembled in Rome in martyrdom, and that lasted for for over 300 years. That is largely why, while heresiea rocked the East for centuries, Rome remained steadfast and suffered from very few uprisings of heresies. But we believe that is is historically dishonest to read the modern notion of "infallibility" back into the ancient historical record.

Ultimately, it was two main issues that led me to decide against Catholicism for Orthodoxy: the Creed and the Papacy. With the Creed, what initially struck me was not the particulars of the filioque clause itself, but that it was an instance of change. If the faith is supposed to be "once and for all delivered unto the saints," then how can I justify changing part of the faith, especially when the rest of the church refused to go along with it, and when that very See opposed the change in the past.

As for the Papacy, what initially got me to doubt Rome's understanding was learning that Peter ordained the bishops of quite a few cities other than Rome. If that is so, then how can Rome claim to be the sole successor to Peter? And if it is because Rome is where Peter lived right before he died, well then on what basis is that a criterion?

So I came to see that while Rome had a great history of defending Orthodoxy, she changed. And it was in Orthodoxy that I found the unchanged Apostolic faith.

 

[MilesVitae]

Hello Papist,

I'm not Eastern Orthodox myself - but, I'm in the same boat you are. I've been Catholic most of my life (I actually was Protestant first, like you, but I was so young when my family entered the RCC that I don't really consider myself a convert), but I am considering converting to the EOC. The primary issue for me, thus far, has been the Papacy. On that topic, a few books I've found good were The Primacy of Peter, ed. by John Meyendorff, You Are Peter, by Olivier Clement, and His Broken Body by Laurent Cleenewerck.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I am curious as to why this is when it is pretty biblical as to how Christ established the Church on Pope St. Peter.

well, when Christ called St Peter the rock after his confession of faith, a plurality of the Fathers say that the confession was the Rock, some said the Apostles as a whole, some said Christ was referring to Himself, and a small amount said it was St Peter. Orthodoxy generally follows the idea of the confession and the Apostles, that any Christians who confesses that Christ is the Son of God is the rock upon whom Christ will build His Church.

if you like podcasts, this has some good info http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxyheterodoxy

I am really curious to about hesychasm in prayer and how to obtain this and what it entails seems fascinating to me.

hesychasm is the practice that through inner silence and prayer, one can truly contemplate and experience God directly, often those who practice can be granted a vision of the Divine Light of God, and the Jesus Prayer recites itself in the heart on its own, even when someone is asleep.

glad you are here, welcome to TAW!

 

[buzuxi02]

The pentarchy is simply based on the administrative centers of the Roman empire as they existed between the 3rd and 5th century. These were the major cities of the Roman empire so the patriarchates are ranked according to that order. Ever wondered why Edessa is not in the ranking or why Jerusalem was added in the 5th century?