Good evening, orthodox brothers. I am having a hard time with my faith since I am considering becoming orthodox, but everytime I consider it I find something that states that the Catholic Church is superior and the founded by Christ. Like this message, can you guys tell me how an orthodox one would ask? This is a massage on a catholic page that explains why a certain guy thinks catholicism is better than the orthodox church:
"I was a cradle Orthodox, then lapsed Orthodox and even aggressive atheist and finally I converted to Catholicism two years ago. My conversion to Christianity is related to a book I read that dealt with Marian apparitions (Lourdes, Fatima etc.) I will not describe how this happened, which is interesting in itself, but how and why I chose the Catholic Church instead of the Orthodox after of almost two years of discernment. -I was starting to read everything I could from both sides. I admit that initially I was impressed by the private revelations given to Saints Catherine of Siena, Faustina, Emmerich and many others, even though I learnt that they didn't belong to the deposit of faith of the Catholics. -I was really amazed with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, its consistency and coherence, truly mind-blowing material. Also I found some papal encyclicals penetrating and even prophetic. I couldn't find anything equivalent from the Orthodox side. -The Orthodox confessed the teachings of the first seven Councils (others said eight, or even nine if we include the Constantinople ones, it is a bit confusing to be honest). I wondered, why no more Orthodox Ecumenical Councils? The Catholics instead, seemed to have the ability to hold new Councils up to this era. -As I was reading about issues of disagreement (Filioque, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, essence/energies distinction etc.) I realised that the Orthodox side very often oversimplified and even misrepresented the arguments of their opponents. Perhaps the Catholics didn't always fully understand the Orthodox objections, but at least they tried to be fair, that was my impression. Furthermore, I tended to agree more with the Catholics. -Regarding social teachings, the issue of divorce was very important regarding my final decision. Also I agreed with the Catholic stance on contraception. It seemed to me that the Orthodox were occasionally influenced by the Protestants (even without realising it) but it was difficult to detect because of the terminology they used. On the other hand the Catholics seemed less vulnerable. -At some point I came to the conclusion that it makes sense to have a Pope as the head of the Church. -I loved the Catholic devotions (e.g Sacred Heart). Even some Latin Catholics believe that they are outdated, sentimental, superficial or whatever. I don't agree, I think they are wonderful and have very deep theological meaning (read Haurietis Aquas for example) -The adoration of the Blessed Sacrament was a true revelation to me, it is incredible. I love icons, I love statues of Our Lord and Our Lady, they are very helpful in prayer but I have no words to describe adoration. I think only Latins and Maronites have this devotion -The existence of different rites in the Catholic Church, I considered this as a sign of catholicity. The Orthodox Church on the other hand seems exclusively Byzantine. -The rather uncharitable stance of some of the Orthodox and, I hate to say this but I believe it is true, their spiritual pride. According to influential Orthodox writers, the Catholic saints are either influenced by demons, or delusional, or at best good people with excited. Imagination. They wouldn't even allow the possibility of existence of non-Orthodox saints. My objection was that this wouldn't prove that the Orthodox is not the true Church, it could only prove the extent of Mercy and Glory of God. I'm not implying that we should start to venerate the saints of each other just to be polite, I hope you understand my point. I prefer the more balanced position of the Catholics. -My general impression was that the Catholic Church was probably the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. If not I thought, then there is none and Jesus lied which is a blasphemy. The Orthodox seemed more like a local Church. -Something a bit more personal, when I first attended a Catholic Mass, especially at the point of doxology where the priest raised the Body and Blood of Christ and said “Through Him and With Him and in Him...” I felt something very profound, that I truly worshipped God. I'm sure the Orthodox do the same when they say (in Greek) “Prosxomen ta agia tois agiois” but I had never experienced it myself. -Regarding deification/divinization or theosis. I discovered that Catholics teach the same thing (even during Mass when the priest pours water in the wine). Their description may be different, they talk about uncreated grace in another way, the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in the soul of the just, the gifts of the Holy Spirit etc. but I think that the faith is the same. The created sanctifying grace was a bit difficult concept to understand ,but after reading a book by Arintero (The Mystical Evolution of the Church) I came to appreciate its usefulness, it is not as described by many Orthodox authors that they should do their research first before accusing the “Papists”. -As I was learning more about both sides I discovered their liturgical books. As a Catholic I can still pray occasionally using Greek Orthodox sources (like the Paraklitiki which is my favourite) along with the Divine Office. -The Filioque is certainly an important doctrinal issue. I did not consider the Orthodox position heretical, but I prefered the Catholic description. It ensures I think the distinction between the Son and the Spirit along with the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. Apart from the doctrinal dimension, I'm fond of the spirituality that is built around the love between the Father and the Son and I could find it implicitly expressed in John 17 and elsewhere. -Another issue that is raised by the Orthodox (who always try to find more differences and to exaggerate the existent ones) is the essence/energies distinction. I'm not saying that the Orthodox view is heretical (as it has been already mentioned Palamism is not condemned by the Catholic Church as far as I know). My problem with the teachings of Gregory Palamas is that I couldn't really understand it. Sometimes I thought it was true but trivial, sometimes I thought it was contradictory that led to unnecessary confusion. If there was no Creation at all, would be still uncreated energies? Are there uncreated energies between the Divine Persons ad intra? If we don't know anything about the essence of God, how do we know that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are consubstantial? How can we understand the “I AM” using the Palamite teaching? I thought the Latin concept of Actus Purus concept does a pretty good job in this regard, why should we introduce a teaching that possibly contradicts it? If the essence of God is beyond any knowledge, then also there is no possibility of real communion with the Trinity or the essence is something above the Divine Persons. Plus, why should make any pronouncements about God Himself based only on our relationship with Him? This is a bit creature-centered view of God. I think the uncreated energies have become a fetiche to many Orthodox that may undermine the real relationship with the Spirit and the Word. II understand that my objections or questions may seem naïve to some Orthodox but I prefer the scholastic concept of totum sed non totaliter, which re-affirms we will see God as He is,as a whole but not wholly (the transcendence of God is not questioned), infinitum sed non infinite. Sorry for the long post, I could have written much more though, bottom line: I'm very happy I became a Catholic. God Bless, Christos."
I am not doing proselytism but just I am trying to figure this out. If you think it is not appropriate, forgive me, but I really want to know how things are with these churches.
"I was a cradle Orthodox, then lapsed Orthodox and even aggressive atheist and finally I converted to Catholicism two years ago. My conversion to Christianity is related to a book I read that dealt with Marian apparitions (Lourdes, Fatima etc.) I will not describe how this happened, which is interesting in itself, but how and why I chose the Catholic Church instead of the Orthodox after of almost two years of discernment. -I was starting to read everything I could from both sides. I admit that initially I was impressed by the private revelations given to Saints Catherine of Siena, Faustina, Emmerich and many others, even though I learnt that they didn't belong to the deposit of faith of the Catholics. -I was really amazed with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, its consistency and coherence, truly mind-blowing material. Also I found some papal encyclicals penetrating and even prophetic. I couldn't find anything equivalent from the Orthodox side. -The Orthodox confessed the teachings of the first seven Councils (others said eight, or even nine if we include the Constantinople ones, it is a bit confusing to be honest). I wondered, why no more Orthodox Ecumenical Councils? The Catholics instead, seemed to have the ability to hold new Councils up to this era. -As I was reading about issues of disagreement (Filioque, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, essence/energies distinction etc.) I realised that the Orthodox side very often oversimplified and even misrepresented the arguments of their opponents. Perhaps the Catholics didn't always fully understand the Orthodox objections, but at least they tried to be fair, that was my impression. Furthermore, I tended to agree more with the Catholics. -Regarding social teachings, the issue of divorce was very important regarding my final decision. Also I agreed with the Catholic stance on contraception. It seemed to me that the Orthodox were occasionally influenced by the Protestants (even without realising it) but it was difficult to detect because of the terminology they used. On the other hand the Catholics seemed less vulnerable. -At some point I came to the conclusion that it makes sense to have a Pope as the head of the Church. -I loved the Catholic devotions (e.g Sacred Heart). Even some Latin Catholics believe that they are outdated, sentimental, superficial or whatever. I don't agree, I think they are wonderful and have very deep theological meaning (read Haurietis Aquas for example) -The adoration of the Blessed Sacrament was a true revelation to me, it is incredible. I love icons, I love statues of Our Lord and Our Lady, they are very helpful in prayer but I have no words to describe adoration. I think only Latins and Maronites have this devotion -The existence of different rites in the Catholic Church, I considered this as a sign of catholicity. The Orthodox Church on the other hand seems exclusively Byzantine. -The rather uncharitable stance of some of the Orthodox and, I hate to say this but I believe it is true, their spiritual pride. According to influential Orthodox writers, the Catholic saints are either influenced by demons, or delusional, or at best good people with excited. Imagination. They wouldn't even allow the possibility of existence of non-Orthodox saints. My objection was that this wouldn't prove that the Orthodox is not the true Church, it could only prove the extent of Mercy and Glory of God. I'm not implying that we should start to venerate the saints of each other just to be polite, I hope you understand my point. I prefer the more balanced position of the Catholics. -My general impression was that the Catholic Church was probably the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. If not I thought, then there is none and Jesus lied which is a blasphemy. The Orthodox seemed more like a local Church. -Something a bit more personal, when I first attended a Catholic Mass, especially at the point of doxology where the priest raised the Body and Blood of Christ and said “Through Him and With Him and in Him...” I felt something very profound, that I truly worshipped God. I'm sure the Orthodox do the same when they say (in Greek) “Prosxomen ta agia tois agiois” but I had never experienced it myself. -Regarding deification/divinization or theosis. I discovered that Catholics teach the same thing (even during Mass when the priest pours water in the wine). Their description may be different, they talk about uncreated grace in another way, the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in the soul of the just, the gifts of the Holy Spirit etc. but I think that the faith is the same. The created sanctifying grace was a bit difficult concept to understand ,but after reading a book by Arintero (The Mystical Evolution of the Church) I came to appreciate its usefulness, it is not as described by many Orthodox authors that they should do their research first before accusing the “Papists”. -As I was learning more about both sides I discovered their liturgical books. As a Catholic I can still pray occasionally using Greek Orthodox sources (like the Paraklitiki which is my favourite) along with the Divine Office. -The Filioque is certainly an important doctrinal issue. I did not consider the Orthodox position heretical, but I prefered the Catholic description. It ensures I think the distinction between the Son and the Spirit along with the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. Apart from the doctrinal dimension, I'm fond of the spirituality that is built around the love between the Father and the Son and I could find it implicitly expressed in John 17 and elsewhere. -Another issue that is raised by the Orthodox (who always try to find more differences and to exaggerate the existent ones) is the essence/energies distinction. I'm not saying that the Orthodox view is heretical (as it has been already mentioned Palamism is not condemned by the Catholic Church as far as I know). My problem with the teachings of Gregory Palamas is that I couldn't really understand it. Sometimes I thought it was true but trivial, sometimes I thought it was contradictory that led to unnecessary confusion. If there was no Creation at all, would be still uncreated energies? Are there uncreated energies between the Divine Persons ad intra? If we don't know anything about the essence of God, how do we know that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are consubstantial? How can we understand the “I AM” using the Palamite teaching? I thought the Latin concept of Actus Purus concept does a pretty good job in this regard, why should we introduce a teaching that possibly contradicts it? If the essence of God is beyond any knowledge, then also there is no possibility of real communion with the Trinity or the essence is something above the Divine Persons. Plus, why should make any pronouncements about God Himself based only on our relationship with Him? This is a bit creature-centered view of God. I think the uncreated energies have become a fetiche to many Orthodox that may undermine the real relationship with the Spirit and the Word. II understand that my objections or questions may seem naïve to some Orthodox but I prefer the scholastic concept of totum sed non totaliter, which re-affirms we will see God as He is,as a whole but not wholly (the transcendence of God is not questioned), infinitum sed non infinite. Sorry for the long post, I could have written much more though, bottom line: I'm very happy I became a Catholic. God Bless, Christos."
I am not doing proselytism but just I am trying to figure this out. If you think it is not appropriate, forgive me, but I really want to know how things are with these churches.
