Catholic converts to Orthodox

  • Thread starter Thread starter bmaz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not to speak on behalf of this specific priest, but as a matter of general observation, any Orthodox priest willing to say that the EO and Catholic churches are the same Church probably would not apply that belief towards many Protestants. Two-lung theory, although heavily criticized in EO, seems to be popular with some priests.
 
It’s exactly this behaviour of superiority some here show against the orthodox churches that makes me think of leaving here again.
 
This is exactly what I think the Roman Catholic Church thinks about the Orthodox. My biggest problem with the Orthodox is that many books I have read about Orthodoxy has this underlying anger at the Catholic Church. I don’t really see that in books from the Catholic perspective about the Orthodox, however I think there are wounds on each side of the issue. I think there is much of the Orthodox teaching that seems right to me, or I have a better understanding of some things. It is succinct. The newest version of the Catholic Catechism seems like it is too complex and you practically need an interpreter to understand some of it.
 
The Holy Spirit may guide the counsels, but it doesn’t follow that the people making the winning arguments are always right or hold more authority than the other voices.
Click to expand...
The ecumenical councils are infallible in doctrine. It is why we aren’t Arians or Iconoclasts or Modialists or literally any other heresy. If the Holy Spirit, who is GOD HIMSELF, guides the councils, then it would follow that the winning arguments are right. Why would God let error fall into the Church? Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity and also GOD HIMSELF, said in Matthew 18:18, that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. Error being accepted as true dogma is the gates of hell prevailing. Therefore, it would follow that the Ecumenical Councils, which are used to destroy heresies, are right. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit would strike the heretics who won dead. Eastern Orthodox, the people whose liturgy you like (just go to a Byzantine Catholic parish) regard ecumenical councils as infallible.
 
alice24 said:
It’s exactly this behaviour of superiority some here show against the orthodox churches that makes me think of leaving here again.
Click to expand...
That’s the nature of the internet for you. A lot of people who are a lot more accommodating toward folks they have differences with in person, sometimes have a bit of difficulty communicating in the written form.
 
He was definitely saying that the Catholic Church had a valid priesthood and sacraments. I know that in places like the middle east and eastern Europe there is a lot of intercommunion between Byzantine Catholics and Eastern Orthodox or other Eastern Catholics and Oriental Orthodox.

ZP
 
UltimateChikorita said:
The ecumenical councils are infallible in doctrine. It is why we aren’t Arians or Iconoclasts or Modialists or literally any other heresy. If the Holy Spirit, who is GOD HIMSELF, guides the councils, then it would follow that the winning arguments are right.
Click to expand...
No, because our doctrine develops through the ecumenical counsels. It would be that the Holy Spirit guides the discussion, where ambiguous points of the faith are made less ambiguous THROUGH the discussion.

The Orthodox faith has much more ambiguity in her doctrines because she is a conservative religion, fearful of change. orthodoxwiki.org has a lot of sections on doctrines in which they have to explain multiple schools of thought. “Well, here are the arguments. You can believe any one of these and still be Orthodox.”

The reality is that early Christianity was far more ambigious in its teachings than it is today. Debates over the nature of Jesus weren’t a fight between the people who were right and the people who were wrong. They were debates caused by ambiguity leading to multiple opinions. As such, these debates are about looking at the evidence for arguments. EVERYONE has something to offer. If it’s a good debate, EVERYONE learns. And the truth becomes clearer, the doctrine becomes clearer through the discussion.

If we imagine the bishops are like “I’m right. You’re wrong. I need to out number and overpower you.” then we’re not talking about anything remotely resembling what could be adequately described as ecumenical or a counsel. We’re not acknowledging the apostolic authority of all bishops. We aren’t recognizing the virtue of humility at all, for it’s very prideful to think you have nothing to learn from people you disagree with.

I suppose you could say that I’m attracted to things Orthodoxy has preserved that we’ve lost. We have something to learn from their conservatism. I’m turned off by any group that lacks humility to learn. I think the temptation is to view the faith as a relic which is constantly threatened with decay. I see the faith as a living plant. Our job is to cultivate it’s development and every member of the Church plays a role in that.
 
Last edited:
According to your logic, Nestorianism, a heresy the EO don’t even accept, isn’t a bad thing. The Dogmas the councils define aren’t infallible.
If we imagine the bishops are like “I’m right. You’re wrong. I need to out number and overpower you.”
Click to expand...
Arian Bishops far outnumbered non arian bishops during the Arian heresy. However, it’s a weird coincidence that the view we now have about Arianism prevailed despite them being the majority of bishops. Early Christianity was more ambiguous, but as the HOLY SPIRIT, GOD HIMSELF, guided the Church, the dogma kept getting more and more exact. That’s why EO doctrine is more exact than first century thought, but less exact than Catholic doctrine, which has had more ecumenical councils after Nicaea II. EO have tried to have more ecumenical councils, such as their Fourth and Fifth Councils of Constantinople, but they weren’t accepted as ecumenical by the EO because their laity kept rejecting them, due to Orthodox not having a patriarch with the power as given by Jesus in Matthew 16:19 to bind and loose stuff.

tldr: EO only have that many schools of thought due to only accepting the first 7 ecumenical councils as authoritative
 
I am a confessional Lutheran looking at both EO and RCC.
I am very attracted to the EO, but they seem to be like the Protestant denominations when it comes to
artificial birth control and Divorce. Did you have an issue with those when you left the RCC for the EO?
I tend to think the RC are right on that(as no Christian denomination accepted artificial B.C before 1930)
On the other hand, I’ve always struggled with some of the Marian apparitions, (I realize you don’t have to believe them to be a faithful R.C.) and think the Orthodox have such a more balanced view of Mary, better than either Protestants or Catholics. And I really struggle with things like Papal Infallibility, I like the EO conciliar way of Church leadership much better.
My brother and his wife started RCIA a few years ago and dropped out due to too much liberalism in that parish(They are Reformed) I told them to try to find another parish.
 
Last edited:
I see you’ve answered some of my questions here.
I respect the RC way of handling divorce/remarriage but I think the EO is much more pastoral.
Also, the Bishop is the minister of the sacrament of marriage if I’m correct, right?
Whereas in the Latin church the couple are the ministers of the sacrament with the priest officiating.
That is why an investigation needs to be done to see if it was ever a sacramental union.
In the East, it is the priest or Bishop who ministers the sacrament, correct?
 
Last edited:
Yes it seems that today this is how it is viewed. The Priest under the authority of the Bishop administers the Sacrament of Marriage in the Orthodox Church.
 
Vanny said:
but they seem to be like the Protestant denominations when it comes to
artificial birth control and Divorce
Click to expand...
?!
Just because we don´t have a dogma for any possible issue doesn´t mean it is ok.
 
Ok, it really is important to understand, and no, not because I want you to choose the EO, but because I see this understanding here often - “The EO don´t have a rule for XYZ, so they are not clear in it, they are too soft…etc”.
Yes we don´t have a document for all orthodox churches about birth control, but we have soo many priests, documents, etc talking about.
The personal contact is in our tradition still far more important - and morally bounding - than an official paper. When I visist the orthros at my parish, we sit all together and eat afterwards and we do talk about such themes, as well as we have to confess our sins - and we are asked to confess sexual sins, too. Does this lead to false decisions? Sometimes, maybe. Does unpersonal dogmaticism lead to false decisions? Sometimes, maybe. We have different ways to deal with moral guidance.
The EO have a differnet understanding of marriage, because we believe in the mysterion, not the actual legal defined sacrality as existent in the meaning of the latin sacramentum. For further information, read more about this, because it´s fundamental. Many differneces start here.
Having no general setted in stone rule doesn´t mean we are free to chose what we like morally.
 
I am free to contradict that which constitutes an opinion. What is the traditional manner in which Orthodox have been received into Roman Catholicism?
 
I’m the opposite.

Baptized Eastern Orthodox (GoArch) and converted to the Catholic Church. Categorized at first as a Byzantine Catholic but was swapped to the Latin-Rite.

Looking back I don’t know why I just didn’t go with Catholicisim - as an Eastern Orthodox, in my opinion, you can get most of what Orthodoxy has to offer without the national squabbles and backbiting if you go to a Byzantine Catholic parish (not to mention correction the weird “only 1 sacramental marriage but up to 3 marriages” and their allowance of birth control which does not match up with the Church Fathers)
 
Last edited:
I think it may vary based on the priest but I basically proved I was firmly catechized. Next appointment I met with a priest and a witnessing priest, recanted of both Eastern Orthodox and Protestant heresies, and then I was in, filed as a Byzantine Catholic, after which the priest (FSSP) requested from the Bishop I be put under Latin Canon Law (I didn’t ask for it, but it didn’t matter to be to be honest)
 
StAugustine said:
I am free to contradict that which constitutes an opinion. What is the traditional manner in which Orthodox have been received into Roman Catholicism?
Click to expand...
Generally, confession, sometimes reciting the creed (as in the receiving EC church, not the western modified creed), and the Eucharist. This applies to both laity and clergy.

But this wasn’t about individuals but rather the level of communion between churches. You can have a different opinion on this than the Pope teaches, but don’t expect to not be called on that in a Catholic forum when you assert your opinion as falsifying Papal teaching . . .

hawk
 
StAugustine said:
I am free to contradict that which constitutes an opinion. What is the traditional manner in which Orthodox have been received into Roman Catholicism?
Click to expand...
It really has varied. During the 2nd World War, Serbian Orthodox were received into the Catholic Church by baptism in Croatia.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top