"Why I didn't convert to eastern orthodoxy"

[Insubres]

Anyone interested in giving a rebuttal of this article?

It seems like a mostly sound argument except for a few things, the last three paragraphs in particular which are just trash as far as I'm concerned. He rehashes the very tired old claim that Orthodoxy is falling apart, confused and suffering from liberalization when from personal experience I think anyone claiming such is blatantly lying (I feel confident that there's not an organized movement for woman priestesses - nor has there ever been a giant liturgical puppet divine liturgy for a few things...). Also the "nationalism" bit, he seems to, like a lot of people, confuse the fact that someone can't speak English or speak it well with them thinking the church is only for their ethnicity.

The part that I think is somewhat convincing is the stuff about the idea of ecumenical councils being true by whether or not everyone accepts them. Like, if at any time prior to the council of Florence anyone tried to say the Bishops were all wrong and the laity right I think they would have been ignored.

 

[gzt]

Interesting article, but I think it fails the obvious test of "Who cares?" We don't accept that the papacy has this role. We do know, somehow, despite his insistence that we don't, what councils to believe and what orthodoxy is. I don't think we're ever told anywhere that we have to have some way of incontrovertibly knowing about the Church's infallibility and how it's exercised, which he thinks we does and is the crux of his argument. How do we know? Eh, well, we do, you can take it or leave it.

 

[Insubres]

Interesting article, but I think it fails the obvious test of "Who cares?" We don't accept that the papacy has this role. We do know, somehow, despite his insistence that we don't, what councils to believe and what orthodoxy is. I don't think we're ever told anywhere that we have to have some way of incontrovertibly knowing about the Church's infallibility and how it's exercised, which he thinks we does and is the crux of his argument. How do we know? Eh, well, we do, you can take it or leave it.

"Who cares?" Is people that are trying to find the truth. A laissez-faire attitude to the issue doesn't really inspire confidence...

 

[E.C.]

I'll get to this later, but for the moment...

Also the "nationalism" bit, he seems to, like a lot of people, confuse the fact that someone can't speak English or speak it well with them thinking the church is only for their ethnicity.

The same thing was very true of the Roman Church in this country no more than a century ago with Catholics from Italy, Poland, Ireland, France, Ireland, Croatia, etc; with people who spoke only their respective languages and not English. They only learned English due to the forced Americanization of the Roman Church in the USA that was going on at the time.

Heck, even today their are RC churches where the priest may not speak English and only speak Spanish. Is that to mean that Catholicism is only for the Spanish speakers? That is something that the author needs to consider is his same gripes, however directed towards his own Church.

 

[icxn]

These intellectuals. Do you believe Christ because of His logically sound and eloquent propositions? Isn't His holiness that won our hearts? How did you fail to perceive the holiness that is in Orthodoxy, in her Saints?

I'm not addressing you Insubres. I'm just trying to point out the categorical fallacy of this guy. He asks, "Does Orthodoxy make sense?" Well, is our religion about making 'sense?' Isn't it all about making Saints?

I'm not saying that truth is not important. I'm just pointing out that ultimate criterion of truth is goodness. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is not to be found in philosophical arguments but in holy souls.

 

[MKJ]

These intellectuals. Do you believe Christ because of His logically sound and eloquent propositions? Isn't His holiness that won our hearts? How did you fail to perceive the holiness that is in Orthodoxy, in her Saints?

I'm not addressing you Insubres. I'm just trying to point out the categorical fallacy of this guy. He asks, "Does Orthodoxy make sense?" Well, is our religion about making 'sense?' Isn't it all about making Saints?

I'm not saying that truth is not important. I'm just pointing out that ultimate criterion of truth is goodness. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is not to be found in philosophical arguments but in holy souls.

This sounds very good, but what worries me about it is that it is very close to what Mormon missionaries who visited me recently said.

Of course, one could easily argue that they fail their own test, Mormonism isn't in fact good.

But many people seem to find it compelling - there are a lot of Mormons out there. So I wonder, how is what you are saying different from that? I am not sure that it is wrong for people to ask for more.

 

[icxn]

This sounds very good, but what worries me about it is that it is very close to what Mormon missionaries who visited me recently said.

Of course, one could easily argue that they fail their own test, Mormonism isn't in fact good.

But many people seem to find it compelling - there are a lot of Mormons out there. So I wonder, how is what you are saying different from that? I am not sure that it is wrong for people to ask for more.

Reading the life of an Orthodox Saint should make the differences very apparent. I would recommend "Saint Nektarios the Saint of our century" or "Father Arseny - 1893-1973 - Priest, Prisoner, Spiritual Father." There are way more - Elders Paisios, Porphyrios and Mother Gavrilia come to mind - but I don't want to overwhelm you with names.

 

[gzt]

"Who cares?" Is people that are trying to find the truth. A laissez-faire attitude to the issue doesn't really inspire confidence...

It's less of a laissez-faire attitude as a critique of the relevance of his question. I'm not saying "who cares about this article and the discussion of Catholicism vs Orthodoxy?" I'm saying, "Who cares about this specific question, that of how we know the Church is infallible and what the Church says about its infallibility?" I argue that it's not an important question even for those who are interested in Catholicism vs Orthodoxy.

 

[gzt]

To me, an infallible argument against Catholicism is that they don't commune infants. I know, they've gone back and said that, theologically speaking, there isn't anything wrong with it, so the eastern rites of the Catholic Church are allowed to do it, but, well, they don't commune infants. And that's just wrong. On an existential level. I think this is a far more satisfying argument than claiming that Orthodoxy is nonsensical because it's hard, in just one page, to delineate exactly how we know that the Orthodox Church speaks infallibly.

 

[katherine2001]

These intellectuals. Do you believe Christ because of His logically sound and eloquent propositions? Isn't His holiness that won our hearts? How did you fail to perceive the holiness that is in Orthodoxy, in her Saints?

I'm not addressing you Insubres. I'm just trying to point out the categorical fallacy of this guy. He asks, "Does Orthodoxy make sense?" Well, is our religion about making 'sense?' Isn't it all about making Saints?

I'm not saying that truth is not important. I'm just pointing out that ultimate criterion of truth is goodness. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is not to be found in philosophical arguments but in holy souls.

I agree with you, ixcn. Churches that came from the Reformation are victims of the time in which the Reformation took place--during the age of reason. Being able to understand things is key to being able to believe it. I say this having grown up Baptist. However, God is way beyond us--how in the world are we going to understand Him totally? Do we really want to? After all, if we totally understood Him, then we can control Him.

Also, you can understand things intellectually and not have it make any difference at all in how you act. I know people who have memorized lots of the Scriptures and know them well, but they don't show any of the fruits of the Spirit that the Apostle Paul talks about. Just check out the General Theology board (and some of the other boards in the Theology section). There are people on that board who know a lot of the NT, but they treat anyone who disagrees with them like garbage (in fact, I have put several of them on ignore). One of the things that really appealed to me about Orthodoxy when I first started attending is that there is a real emphasis on holiness and striving to live as Christ taught us to and to take all that the Scriptures say seriously (no picking and choosing what we want to believe and then ignoring huge sections that we don't like). I actually saw the fruits of the Spirit exhibited in the priests I encountered, especially the love, compassion and gentleness. I had never experienced that before to be honest with you.

 

[buzuxi02]

The article in the link has many grave errors. For instance the author believes the word catholic means universal. This is false, catholic is from the greek - kata and holos. it means whole and complete or according to the whole. It signifys the totality and fullness of the faith. If the Fathers wanted to signify universality they would have used the word oikomene instead.

Secondly the author has a strange notion that the east hasnt had an ecumenical council since 787 a.d. because a roman pope needs to be present to confirm it. None of the 7 ecumenical councils were confirmed by a pope. The most notable example was the actions of Pope Vigilius at the 5th ecumenical council. His legates presented an 'ex cathedra' statement supporting the three chapters and condemning to the pain of excommunication anyone who would denounce these writings as nestorian. The council condemned the pope instead! The pope's name was dropped from the diptychs. A few months later Pope Vigilius repented, thus being reinstated into the diptychs. Thanks to CCEL.ORG here is an excerpt from the Decretal of Pope Vigilius to Patriarch Eutyches. This decretal is the epistle which Pope Vigilius wrote to the EP saying how he now accepts the descision of the 5th council and that he erred:

'Wherefore on account of our desire that you, my brothers, should know what we have done in this matter, we make it known to you by this letter. For no one can doubt how many were the discussions raised on account of the Three Chapters, that is, concerning Theodore, sometime bishop of Mopsuestia, and his writings, as well as concerning the writings of Theodoret, and concerning that letter which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian: and how diverse were the things spoken and written concerning these Three Chapters. Now if in every business sound wisdom demands that there should be a retractation of what was propounded after examination, there ought to be no shame when what was at first omitted is made public after it is discovered by a further study of the truth. [And if this is the case in ordinary affairs] how much more in ecclesiastical strifes should the same dictate of sound reason be observed? Especially since it is manifest that our Fathers, and especially the blessed Augustine, who was in very sooth illustrious in the Divine Scriptures, and a master in Roman eloquence, retracted some of his own writings, and corrected some of his own sayings, and added what he had omitted and afterward found out. We, led by their example never gave over the study of the questions raised by the controversy with regard to the before-mentioned Three Chapters, nor our search for passages in the writings of our Fathers which were applicable to the matter....And further we annul and evacuate by this present written definition of ours whatever has been said by me (a me) or by others in defence of the aforesaid Three Chapters.'

Orthodoxy has indeed held pan-orthodox councils since 787 a.d.
In the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs addressed to Rome in 1848, it speaks of the 8th ecumenical council which condemned under anathema any addition to the Creed. All patriarchates including Rome were present in this council of 879-880 and accepted its decrees. This council also declared an earlier synod held in 869 a.d. as a robber council.

Rome accepted the 879a.d. council as ecumenical till the 11th century, but dropped it after they officially inserted the fillioque permanently into the creed. At that time the legitimate and canonical council of 879 a.d. was dropped from their records. Instead they rehabilitated the robber synod and retroactively and out of the blue started calling the robber synod of 879 ecumenical. Today it is this robber council which they recognize as their 8th, even though history demonstrates the scandal of thid roman flipflop.

A series of councils held in the 13th century over the essence/energies of God is also a pan orthodox council binding on the church.

 

[laconicstudent]

There actually is a response to this article by a Presbyter Laurent Cleenewerck, on Orthodox Answers. An Orthodox Reply to “Why I Didn’t Convert to Eastern Orthodoxy - by Rev. Pr. Brian Harrison (Roman Catholic)"

 

[Ignatius21]

What think ye of this description of "primacy" given by an Orthodox commentator, here in this "com box" discussion?

What Does The Prayer Really Say?»Blog Archive » Dropping “Patriarch of the West” and changing titles of Roman Basilicas to “Papal”

It seems to address the issues about ecclesiology brought up in the "This Rock" article, or at least some of them.

 

[Josiah14]

Does it seem suspicious to anyone else that someone would have to explain why the DIDN'T convert??? Whatever it is must be pretty convincing if you have to publish an explanation as to how you can convince yourself and others that something isn't true.

 

[Ignatius21]

Does it seem suspicious to anyone else that someone would have to explain why the DIDN'T convert??? Whatever it is must be pretty convincing if you have to publish an explanation as to how you can convince yourself and others that something isn't true.

I believe a cornerstone of all Catholic and Protestant apologetics, is that each is the other's only alternative. This makes things really simple. If you're a Catholic and you can convince a Protestant that (for example) sola scriptura is wrong, then obviously Catholicism is the ONLY logical landing place for the Protestant. Alternatively, if you're Protestant and can convince a Catholic that the monarchial papacy developed over time using documents that have been exposed as forgeries, then the papacy is shot and the only logical landing place is Protestantism--any sect would be preferable to the papacy.

Most of the apologetics that come from Catholic Answers (and "This Rock" magazine) are aimed at fairly superficial arguments on the evangelical side. Other sites like Called to Communion go much deeper and interact with the actual historical Protestant arguments. But the common thread is that the Catholic apologists MUST enforce the paradigm that Rome is the only alternative, or else the best they can hope to do is to dislodge Protestants and send them out into space where they then must decide between Rome and Orthodoxy.

One reason I joined a Reformed denomination and threw in my lot with Protestants was that I read through, or listened to, tons of Catholic/Protestant debates. No matter the topic, the argument ALWAYS reduced to Magisterium vs. Sola Scriptura, even if not explicitly. And each side always spent more time attacking the other, than defending itself. And after being bandied around like a tennis ball for a while, I decided that the nagging circularities in Protestantism were less severe, overall, than the historical and logical flaws in the Papacy. I sort of threw my hands up and said "Well, I guess this is the best I can do." That was 5 years ago.

So I think this article is one of very few attempts to produce popular-level reasons why Catholicism is preferable to Orthodoxy. And if you can dismiss all of Orthodoxy with a sweep of your hand, like this guy did, then you can feel more assured that dislodged Protestants will come into your fold. And really, most of these people probably have spent years looking at ONLY Catholic vs. Protestant, and so the last thing on earth they'll want to do is to just jump into more debates and start the whole process over again. It will be enough that Orthodoxy looks weird to them, and they'll happily sail down the Tiber.

Just my 2 cents. Worth every penny.

 

[Josiah14]

I believe a cornerstone of all Catholic and Protestant apologetics, is that each is the other's only alternative. This makes things really simple. If you're a Catholic and you can convince a Protestant that (for example) sola scriptura is wrong, then obviously Catholicism is the ONLY logical landing place for the Protestant. Alternatively, if you're Protestant and can convince a Catholic that the monarchial papacy developed over time using documents that have been exposed as forgeries, then the papacy is shot and the only logical landing place is Protestantism--any sect would be preferable to the papacy.

Most of the apologetics that come from Catholic Answers (and "This Rock" magazine) are aimed at fairly superficial arguments on the evangelical side. Other sites like Called to Communion go much deeper and interact with the actual historical Protestant arguments. But the common thread is that the Catholic apologists MUST enforce the paradigm that Rome is the only alternative, or else the best they can hope to do is to dislodge Protestants and send them out into space where they then must decide between Rome and Orthodoxy.

One reason I joined a Reformed denomination and threw in my lot with Protestants was that I read through, or listened to, tons of Catholic/Protestant debates. No matter the topic, the argument ALWAYS reduced to Magisterium vs. Sola Scriptura, even if not explicitly. And each side always spent more time attacking the other, than defending itself. And after being bandied around like a tennis ball for a while, I decided that the nagging circularities in Protestantism were less severe, overall, than the historical and logical flaws in the Papacy. I sort of threw my hands up and said "Well, I guess this is the best I can do." That was 5 years ago.

So I think this article is one of very few attempts to produce popular-level reasons why Catholicism is preferable to Orthodoxy. And if you can dismiss all of Orthodoxy with a sweep of your hand, like this guy did, then you can feel more assured that dislodged Protestants will come into your fold. And really, most of these people probably have spent years looking at ONLY Catholic vs. Protestant, and so the last thing on earth they'll want to do is to just jump into more debates and start the whole process over again. It will be enough that Orthodoxy looks weird to them, and they'll happily sail down the Tiber.

Just my 2 cents. Worth every penny.

thanks for that post. Very insightful. I must admit, I avoided Orthodoxy for a long time because I knew adding it into the mix would just add another variable to my questions about the Church and take my already utterly confused mind into the realm of unknowable and complete perplexity. As it turns out, however, Orthodoxy didnt create problems for me, it solved them... But, then again, I found Orthodoxy by telling God "I give up, You show me."

 

[Bessie]

When I became Catholic, my reasons were really clear to me. They were all about knowledge and apologetics, and they were in response to an experience I had in a Catholic church. I knew an awful lot. This is common in the west, people want to know their faith. This is why Catholics devote so much time to arguments and really, the same with Protestants. They both feel they have to justify themselves. My reasons for becoming Orthodox are a bit more complicated, but part of it had to do with the fact that I no longer wanted to put God in a box and I was finished justifying myself. With Catholicism, I got good at arguing, but I didn't really become a better person. With Orthodoxy, I feel that I don't know much at all, but I've seen the changes within myself. That's the only argument I need nowadays. I guess I've just changed my focus. So yeah, when I see an article like this my initial reaction is, "Who cares?" as well, but that doesn't truly mean I don't care, it means I care about different things.

 

[gzt]

There actually is a response to this article by a Presbyter Laurent Cleenewerck, on Orthodox Answers. An Orthodox Reply to “Why I Didn’t Convert to Eastern Orthodoxy - by Rev. Pr. Brian Harrison (Roman Catholic)"

This is a very good article that brings up very good points which directly rebut the argument for those who care about the argument.

 

[Ignatius21]

When I became Catholic, my reasons were really clear to me. They were all about knowledge and apologetics, and they were in response to an experience I had in a Catholic church. I knew an awful lot. This is common in the west, people want to know their faith. This is why Catholics devote so much time to arguments and really, the same with Protestants. They both feel they have to justify themselves. My reasons for becoming Orthodox are a bit more complicated, but part of it had to do with the fact that I no longer wanted to put God in a box and I was finished justifying myself. With Catholicism, I got good at arguing, but I didn't really become a better person. With Orthodoxy, I feel that I don't know much at all, but I've seen the changes within myself. That's the only argument I need nowadays. I guess I've just changed my focus. So yeah, when I see an article like this my initial reaction is, "Who cares?" as well, but that doesn't truly mean I don't care, it means I care about different things.

I found myself at the same juncture about 2 years ago, only on the other side--a head full of detailed knowledge, enough debate experience to pretty much prove to any average Joe that my position was correct (which really wasn't so much MY position as the Reformed position that made sense to me) or at least overwhelm him with data, and certainty that my theological beliefs made sense. But no real certainty as to whether they were true, and always a nagging doubt as to whether I really was in the church or not...if the Apostles walked into the place I called "church," would they even know where they were?

About the only thing I'm certain of now, is that I'll never be absolutely certain about these things, and if I wait until I've turned over every stone before settling somewhere, I'll just go nowhere. It almost seems like, if I'm not 100% certain that Orthodoxy rather than Catholicism is the true Church, it still would make more sense for me to settle in Orthodoxy. The beliefs and history better align with what information I have and my ability to discern truth so far, and besides, if I become Orthodox, Rome will tell me infallibly (since Vatican-II anyway) that I'm in a real church with a valid eucharist and legitimate apostolic succession. Heck, I can't lose! Either way I'm in a "lung," right?

 

[katherine2001]

wturri78, I agree with a lot of what you say. I was Baptist for 25 years. I know that I was miserable in a lot of ways. I had a deep feeling that I should be changing--something was telling me that Christ actually expects us to do the things outlined in the NT--both in the Gospels and the Epistles. I was too content to stay at the starting line and never go out and run the race that St. Paul talks about. If you did have thoughts about actually doing the things that Christ called us to do and mentioned it to anyone (including maybe to your pastor), you'd be accused of trying to win salvation by works. I think OSAS is very dangerous because it gives us a false sense of security--it is delusion.

Is it easy being Orthodox? It most certainly isn't. But at least I'm in the hospital that I need to be in to finally heal and become whole again. I don't have to try and figure it all out on my own, and this hospital has many treatments to help us that the Evangelicals don't know anything about. Also, again, I don't have to try and do it all on my own--I can honestly tell my priest the truth about me and what is going on and know that I am loved and that he will do all he can to help me (especially through prayer). I know that I understand the Scriptures much better since becoming Orthodox. They don't pick and choose their Scriptures and passages that didn't make sense before make sense to me now.