Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I have a small book which I have scanned called "Church, Papacy and Schism. A theological perspective" by Philip Sherrard. I can email it to you. I only ask that you not give copies away unless you buy the book yourself. I found it to be incredibly helpful. The only downside I found is that because Philip Sherrard lived in Greece for many years, he picked up the Greek habit of writing very long sentences
Welcome to TAW!
So, as an ex-Roman Catholic here let me way in with how I came to leave the Tiber: a study of history.
It all came down to which of the two Churches changed and which did not. I didn't need to look in the last 2,000 years, much less the last century, all I had to look at was the last sixty at how much the Roman Church changed!
Before Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church had a very visible presence in the world. Priests dressed in cassocks, nuns in habits, processions were big, and in the movie listings in the paper there was even a column from the bishops on which movies Catholics should watch and why and which they should avoid and why. Many restaurants would quit serving meat on Fridays during Lent because Catholics had that influence on society. The Hollywood Hays Code came into being from the 1930s-1950s because of Catholicism.
And what did they do? What did the mighty Roman Catholic Church do with all that history and positive influence? They traded it all in to be "modern" because that is where "development" lead them. That is what happened when Pope John XXIII opened the window to let the air in: the Roman Catholic Church crippled and fell.
Catholicism changed more in the last sixty years than Orthodoxy has in the last 200. The difference in Orthodoxy from 1815 to now is that there are more autocephalous Churches and the Liturgy is celebrated in more languages. If the Roman Catholic Church successfully Protestantized herself in a mere 53 years than how much did she change in the 961 years since the Great Schism?
That is why I left Catholicism and came to Orthodoxy.
Nah, I don't need it. I am not Eastern Orthodox, so I don't really need any of their apologia around, though from what I can remember it's good for situations like this. If I were investigating the EO from an RC background, I would read it.
PM me your address and I'll get it sent off to you next time I go to the post office (probably next week).
This answer helped me greatly man, it gave me quite a push towards Orthodoxy. However, I still can't shake the whole "Pope" thing. I cant shake the feeling that he should have some authority. Catholic Apologists make great arguments for it. And I have only seen a few against it.
So if a western Ritus of the Orthodox Church had existed I would most likely have been Orthodox,
The pope bit is quite a simple hump to get passed. When we look at the role of a bishop in a pastoral light, the culture of the bishop will inevitably be a factor in how he sees the situation, the world, theology, etc etc. To put it quite simply: what works to address pastoral issues in Italy may not work in India. Or the Congo. Or the Philippines. In fact, the way that Italian popes, or even an Argentine pope now, see the world and address pastoral concerns may even be disastrous for the faithful in the aforementioned areas.This answer helped me greatly man, it gave me quite a push towards Orthodoxy. However, I still can't shake the whole "Pope" thing. I cant shake the feeling that he should have some authority. Catholic Apologists make great arguments for it. And I have only seen a few against it.
"Eventually it's about your heart, where does it feel like it belong you know?"
Actually, no it doesn't. Not that one's feelings are unimportant, but they cannot be the deciding factor in really anything we do in life. They can be helpful sometimes, if one is mature and solid in their faith and life choices.
Ultimately, it is not feelings, but the Truth that is the deciding factor.
you know that Orthodoxy in the states has a Western Rite
Or how about Central America? There have been a few dozen wars between the countries in Central America just in the 20th century and what had the popes done to bring about peace in those countries? Nothing. Or how about dialogue and normalizing relations? Nothing. When did the pope tell his subordinate bishops in those countries "push your presidents to peace"? Never.
Hey man, that would be awesome! I won't give copies away. Noone I know is interested in this stuff anyway lol.
Should I PM you my email?
Welcome to TAW!
As far as the Filioque, I don't know if this will help but it made sense to me when I saw it after I already understood well enough to see the problem.
One thing is that, while all the Persons of the Trinity are God, we believe that the Father is the source. The Son is begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Here's an illustration
But if you have the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, it implies something like this
(Btw, the site those images came from is not helpful. It's just the closest I could find to what I saw before.
The first thing I usually think of in terms of whether or not Peter was infallible and/or had ultimate authority is - what about the council of Jerusalem in Acts? Peter did not prevail, James did.
And one of the most stark illustrations of development/changing of doctrine involves the Assumption of Mary. How is it that the Church has the Dormition of the Theotokos as a major feast, marked for centuries, and now the Catholic teaching is that she never really died?
There is more. I have such respect for my Catholic brothers and sisters that I do not like to point such things out for sport, but if you are seeking, it seems worth mentioning.
One thing I would say - give yourself time to look deeply into the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and don't rush into confirmation. If you become Catholic quickly and then decide to leave, well, I have seen a tremendous amount of pain and sometimes fear involved with abandoning the Pope.
To me, it is very subtle, and I'm not the best person to explain it, but really the view of God, grace, punishment, etc. is different between the Catholic and Orthodox, and that has been one of the main things that really opened my heart to God.
Again, welcome to TAW!
Hey man, thanks for the warm welcome!
Your answer was also really helpful!
I'm struggling with trying to let go of the infallibility of the pope.
I wish it were simpler. I have the Rite of Sending tomorrow and the Rite of Enrollment the next day.
It makes the whole thing more rushed, if I miss one of them, I have to take RCIA all over again. Due to me being not 100% convinced yet, I still think I should go through with confirmation too.
You're welcome.
Btw, just a kind of heads-up. You're almost there I think, but if you want to get a post count to post links, send pm's, and all that, an easy was is to go here: and post in a few counting threads.
I don't really know anything about joining the Catholic Church. If you miss one of those rites you have to re-take a catechism series? It just doesn't seem ideal, to be pressed to make a decision.
I do hope you can find all the answers you need.
God bless you!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?