Why should I be Orthodox instead of Catholic?

[Leevo]

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

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?

 

[Leevo]

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.

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.

 

[Leevo]

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).

Ill PM you as soon as I can man. I can't thank you enough. I need to have 15 total posts before I can PM though, so Ill try to get that done and contact you.

 

[aChildOfMary]

Eventually it's about your heart, where does it feel like it belong you know?
I'm not going to prozetylate here at TAW because its against the rules and disrespectful to the Orthodox believers here, but I feel compelled to share my own experience for a minute and hope this doesn't seem like prozetylation of Catholicism.

Well I converted to Catholicism and I have to admit that theologically I'm very close to Orthodoxy, but as I went to DL at a Russian parish I quickly found out that I'm western and while the eastern caracteristics of the liturgy was beautiful I just felt so distant and it was to alien for me.

it was very intimate and the priest blessed me like five times with holy water even though I tried to just observe the liturgy.
I felt like I walked into some sort of sect and to be honest I felt sick to my stomach while being there (haha, on top of everything I struggle with social anxiety, LOL.).

So if a western Ritus of the Orthodox Church had existed I would most likely have been Orthodox, but I feel so much more at home in an Catholic Church because as I said I prefer to be left alone during mass or DL and I felt intruded while attending DL.

Of course this is my experience and I have absolutely no reason to claim that this is how DL is elsewhere so my advice is for you to attend DL regularly and see yourself.
it's really beautiful and as I said their theology is at least for me very compelling so visit and tell me back will you?


God Bless you and keep you on this exciting journey of faith.

 

[ArmyMatt]

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.

indeed he should have some authority, we don't dispute that the Pope should have some. the problem is that his authority was never over the other bishops. he had his territory that was his to govern, and had the high place as first amongst the bishops. the problem now is that he left the Church, so his high place of honor and status as the first among equals passed to Constantinople. the only clergy that has direct jurisdictional headship over the Church is Christ, who is our Chief Priest.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So if a western Ritus of the Orthodox Church had existed I would most likely have been Orthodox,

you know that Orthodoxy in the states has a Western Rite

 

[GregConstantine]

"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.

 

[E.C.]

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.

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.

Or to use a real world situation: the manner in which the Polish and German popes have handled the widespread sex abuse cases in Ireland, Canada and the US have been all but disastrous.
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.
Yet, in 2008 with the war between Russia and Georgia the first high level of dialogue between the two nations did not happen between politicians: it happened between the patriarchs of Russia and Georgia who in turn urged their respective presidents to work for peace. It is not perfect, but it is better than the wars in Central America.

Whatever "theology" is behind papal supremacy it must be flawed. Ever since that doctrine appeared, and as a direct result of the power struggle between the pope and Charlemagne, there have been no fruit to bear from it.

 

[aChildOfMary]

"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.

That's true, but everyone say what they teach are the only truth so I guess in the end it's a persons own aknowledgement of truth which ultimately decides.

But ey, I do agree with you that feelings shouldn't be emphasized to much that's something isn't it

 

[aChildOfMary]

you know that Orthodoxy in the states has a Western Rite

I did not know that, thanks Army

 

[dzheremi]

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.

To be fair, when then-Pope John Paul II visited Nicaragua in the early 1980s and found priests there shilling for the Sandinistas, he told them they could either choose to serve the Church or the political movement, but they couldn't do both. It may not be much, but reprimanding priests to their faces isn't nothing.

Pictured: "Liberation theology" priest Ernesto Cardenal (and Minister of Culture under the ELZN government) kneels before JP II for a blessing, gets a lecture instead.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

Without even getting into any of that there's just no evidence of the Church operating with an 'infallible pope of Rome' mentality until very recently. When questions arose Councils were called. Councils the pope never even attended, but sent delegates to. In at least one case I can think of those delegates tried to force the council to follow directives of the pope, and the rest of the council told them to sit down and shut up, basically. The councils were presided over by the emperor more often than the pope.

That, and the fact that at least one pope I can think of off the top of my head has been declared a heretic by a Council just closes the door on the idea that the Early Church ever believed anything like Papal Infallibility.

And the inability of the pope to force Constantinople to not have jurisdiction over lands that the Pope wanted to have oversight of during the Byzantine Empire sort of kills the idea of Papal Supremacy.

The functioning of the Early Church just kills any idea that there was any idea of the contemporary notions of the pope before the schism, and the practice of Theology as done by the Fathers preclude any idea of the development of doctrine as contemporaneously espoused by Rome. After the schism, with nobody to hold them in check, they just developed strange ideas which have become doctrine and dogma.

 

[prodromos]

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?

I've PM'd you mine. Send me a brief email and I'll reply with the book

 

[ArmyMatt]

you might also like some of these articles of Catholics who converted to Orthodoxy

http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/category/latest-stories/non-orthodox-christians/roman-catholics/

I know you are not Catholic, but this can show you what they saw and why they left Rome.

 

[gzt]

There are two things, to me, that are suggestive:

1. Orthodox commune infants.
2. No guitars in Orthodox liturgy.

#1 indicates that we have a deep understanding of the dominical commandment to "let the little children come to me". I just have severe trouble understanding how you can do otherwise. Babies are people too. They need God just as much as the rest of us. There can be no reason to exclude babies from communion.

#2: no comment needed.

 

[~Anastasia~]

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!

 

[Leevo]

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.

 

[Leevo]

Also. if anyone wants to see my post over at catholic answers, to see what their responses are and offer rebuttals, here is the link. I have to seperate .com, because it wont let me post links

forums.catholic. c o m/showthread.php?t=946950

 

[~Anastasia~]

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: http://www.christianforums.com/f247/ 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!

 

[Leevo]

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!

Thanks man! I'll check them out!