J
Janks777
Guest
I believe that there is one Church …but which branch…ortho or cath.?? please help
- Status
N
Nine_Two
Guest
This is a question no one can tell you the answer to, you must arrive at it on your own. Read books written by apologists on both sides, I can recommend Kallistos (sometimes credited as Timothy) Ware’s “The Orthodox Church” for an overview of Orthodox Church history, and why it is the Church. There are however many more beyond that. Start with the preliminary though and then start looking deeper. Think of the issues you have with them, for example the idea of Papal Infallibility is one that really got me, I see no evidence of it in the early church, but I know at least one poster who has issue with the lack of doctrine on the topic of justification in the Orthodox Church.
Basically find the issues and then try to find the answers to them. Get both sides of the story from their own sources. Then you will have your answer.
Basically find the issues and then try to find the answers to them. Get both sides of the story from their own sources. Then you will have your answer.
R
rben20
Guest
Well I see that you are Orthodox/Protestant. Protestants I’ve encountered are much more accepting of the Orthodox when considering conversion. I think it has a lot to do it being easier to have the sacraments, liturgy, and tradition without accepting the dogmas or all those other problems you had with the Catholic Church as a Protestant.
Notice St. Peter and his uniqueness among the apostles in Scripture. Look at the line of Popes from St. Peter on. Look at all the councils held and see who accepts all of them and who has been present at all. Look at who has done the greatest evangelization and is truly all encompassing.
Pray and research. Talk to a priest or others who are knowledgeable in the faith.
Notice St. Peter and his uniqueness among the apostles in Scripture. Look at the line of Popes from St. Peter on. Look at all the councils held and see who accepts all of them and who has been present at all. Look at who has done the greatest evangelization and is truly all encompassing.
Pray and research. Talk to a priest or others who are knowledgeable in the faith.
C
ComeHome2Rome
Guest
I’m happy to help!
The answer is the Catholic Church!!!
And this is why.
Because the Pope’s role & authority is what the Catholic Church says it is.
John Salza’s book The Biblical Basis for the Papacy takes the reader from the Old Testament to the New Testament doing a excellent job in showing how the Catholic Church is 100% correct. scripturecatholic.com/johns_books.html
S
searn77
Guest
Also keep in mind that this is a Catholic forum so you will get a predominately Catholic answer. To get more of an Orthodox answer I would recommend you to ask this question at an Orthodox forum (pm me if you need help finding the main Orthodox forum as I’m not sure what this forum’s rule is concerning posting links to different forums). But this is a good place to hear the main reasons of why Catholics say that their Church is the one Church.
S
searn77
Guest
Wait… after re-reading your post I think I may be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that you believe there is one Church and you want to know if it’s the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church?
Or are you saying you believe that the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church are really one Church and you want to know which “branch” you should pick? Orthodox definitely reject this concept, called the branch theory, that says both Churches are a part of the one Church. I’m pretty sure the Catholic Church rejects the branch theory as well.
Or are you confusing the terms “Byzantine Catholic” and “Orthodox” as some Byzantine Catholics refer to themselves as “Orthodox in communion with Rome”? If this is the case, both the Byzantine Catholics and the Roman Catholics are a part of the Catholic Church and are in complete communion with each other so really it doesn’t matter which one you pick.
C
Contarini
Guest
In my opinion, the Orthodox have the stronger positions on most of the specific issues, including the question of how the Church should generally function. However, when the Orthodox claim that Roman primacy was simply a political matter, they are unconvincing. This creates a dilemma and I have no easy answers. (I use the dilemma as an excuse to remain Anglican–not something I recommend to others!)
I would say simply that the popular names of the two churches are telling: the Orthodox really have a better claim to be orthodox, while the Catholics really have a better claim to be catholic. (Note: one can’t simply argue from the names, as some Catholics on this forum do.)
From where I stand as an Anglican, catholicity is a lot more important than orthodoxy. So if I join one of the two, it will probably be the Roman Communion. However, my doubts about the full orthodoxy of the Roman Communion do give me pause–obviously if I became RC I’d have to accept that no RC dogma contradicts the orthodox Faith, something of which I am presently unsure.
So for now I remain an ecumenical Anglican who would like all Western Churches to move closer to the Orthodox doctrinally and liturgically, and at the same time desires and prays for the union of all Christians with Rome.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Hi Edwin,
You know this better than I, but as I understand it catholicity means ‘according to the whole’ or something similar, and some say that best means ‘universal’ in the context of our religion, while orthodox means ‘right opinion’ or correct belief. Both churches, or course, claim to have both.
But things must look different to me than to you, as I see it being correct is the reason and basis for teaching authority, which is the church. In other words, it comes first, it is primary.
So truth and unity are both immensely important, and we want both, but when the chips are down and we are faced with the ugly reality of the human condition and differences of opinion, truth trumps unity every time. It has to be that way.
We should be One in Christ, but to be One as Jesus and the Father are One we need to be united in Truth. To me right belief is of primary importance.
I find your comment interesting.
You know this better than I, but as I understand it catholicity means ‘according to the whole’ or something similar, and some say that best means ‘universal’ in the context of our religion, while orthodox means ‘right opinion’ or correct belief. Both churches, or course, claim to have both.
But things must look different to me than to you, as I see it being correct is the reason and basis for teaching authority, which is the church. In other words, it comes first, it is primary.
So truth and unity are both immensely important, and we want both, but when the chips are down and we are faced with the ugly reality of the human condition and differences of opinion, truth trumps unity every time. It has to be that way.
We should be One in Christ, but to be One as Jesus and the Father are One we need to be united in Truth. To me right belief is of primary importance.
W
WetCatechumen
Guest
I say ditto because “Catholic” to me is almost a synonym of “Orthodox”. To me, Catholic means that it’s in accordance with the whole of right Christian belief and what the apostles taught always and everywhere.Hi Edwin, I find your comment interesting.
You know this better than I, but as I understand it catholicity means ‘according to the whole’ or something similar, and some say that best means ‘universal’ in the context of our religion, while orthodox means ‘right opinion’ or correct belief. Both churches, or course, claim to have both.
But things must look different to me than to you, as I see it being correct is the reason and basis for teaching authority, which is the church. In other words, it comes first, it is primary.
So truth and unity are both immensely important, and we want both, but when the chips are down and we are faced with the ugly reality of the human condition and differences of opinion, truth trumps unity every time. It has to be that way.
We should be One in Christ, but to be One as Jesus and the Father are One we need to be united in Truth. To me right belief is of primary importance.
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
Here are the logical reasons for being Catholic. This is an article by convert Brian W. Harrison, who also has logical reasons for not being Protestant or Mormon. He is now a Catholic priest and theologian.
Orthodoxy’s Fatal Flaw,
Why I Am Not Eastern Orthodox
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp
Jim Dandy
Orthodoxy’s Fatal Flaw,
Why I Am Not Eastern Orthodox
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp
Jim Dandy
H
Hesychios
Guest
Ideally, that would be the case, and if that was how it actually was I would be supportive.
However the Roman Catholic church, in it’s striving for ‘universality’ is (sad to say) becoming something of a big tent.
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes. There’s some debate about the meaning of “catholic,” and many Orthodox theologians argue that it has nothing to do with geographical or cultural universality.Hi Edwin, I find your comment interesting.
You know this better than I, but as I understand it catholicity means ‘according to the whole’ or something similar, and some say that best means ‘universal’ in the context of our religion, while orthodox means ‘right opinion’ or correct belief. Both churches, or course, claim to have both.
I suppose the point that I would make is that I’m a lot more worried about cutting ourselves off from other Christians than I am about drawing too broad a tent. That’s essentially what I mean by juxtaposing catholicity and orthodoxy. Obviously one doesn’t actually wish to sacrifice either, but in practice we often have to choose which one we are going to be more worried about.
And I would put it exactly the other way round. Again, I’m not speaking of sacrificing truth for unity, but starting with a concern for unity with all who believe in Jesus and defining the necessary limits of orthodoxy in a way governed by that concern.
I worry that we Anglicans go too far in this direction. What appeals to me about the RCC is that they do insist on doctrinal purity, but at the same time have developed ways of talking about those outside the strict boundaries of the Church that officially recognize the presence of elements of the Church there. The Orthodox “we don’t know where the Church is not” is not good enough, from my perspective. I do know that the Church is in some sense present among Protestants. I want a fuller unity with the historic Church, but I’m not willing to kick away the ladder by which I have got this far (Protestantism). That is one of my most basic religious intuitions–take that away, and I would have little reason to be a Christian at all.
Here’s my problem with the Orthodox position in a nutshell, based on what you have said here:
You have a perfectionist idea of what unity in truth would mean (unity as the Blessed Trinity is One). That’s fine as a goal, but when you start out with the assumption that only that level of unity matters, so that anything that lacks this fullness of unity in truth is ecclesiologically meaningless, then you’re simply violating everything that I have experienced as a Christian this far. There is no way I can accept this position, because it would make nonsense of the path that has brought me to the point where I think either Catholicism or Orthodoxy must be the true Church.
Edwin
M
mark_a
Guest
That’s a great observation and here’s an article that explains it:
catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9504fea1.asp
C
Contarini
Guest
You may find this very convincing, but if my own reaction is anything to go buy, you would do well not to cite it to those not already convinced of the truth of Catholicism.
From my perspective, this article is a pretty good incentive to become Orthodox. Fr. Harrison’s glib and shallow treatment of the issues makes it harder to take the Catholic perspective seriously.
You would do much better to recognize the work of Fr. Aidan Nichols. But then, if you do that, people will encounter inconvenient truths such as the fact that the traditional Roman Mass was from the first largely inaccessible to the people, in contrast to the Byzantine Liturgy. Still, I think that Fr. Nichols’ approach is in the long run more convincing to a serious inquirer as well as more honorable and intellectually rigorous.
Edwin
D
dzheremi
Guest
The “This Rock” article seems to protest a bit too much (no pun intended). Viewed from the East, the journey of Evangelicals to Rome (which certainly also does happen) could be summarized similarly, and to much the same effect (that is to say, not much to those outside of the already convinced). I am not an Evangelical, but I am seriously and prayerfully exploring Orthodoxy, so I can say that from my own perspective as someone who is undertaking such a journey now that simply saying “they made up their minds already; they’re taking the easy way out” is completely wrong.
It is not easy at all, and to brush people off in that way because they have looked at the same evidence and come to different conclusions than you does your own church communion no favors.
It is not easy at all, and to brush people off in that way because they have looked at the same evidence and come to different conclusions than you does your own church communion no favors.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Absolutely, I think anyone who would describe their own conversion experience (to anything) needs to review their choice. I know for my part that I felt like I was being torn in half by multiple rival traditions, even after I’d “picked” the Orthodox Church. I have known others though who seemingly jumped into it, they did not last long.
M
milkbar
Guest
I didn’t see anything shallow about it. It was meant to be a magazine article, not a book; the amount of information it could contain was therefore already limited. The article presented the information well, within the confines of the format.
Do you take issue with any of the facts? Is it true there can be no Orthodox councils called? How are they to battle issues like contraception and abortion from a central position of unified authority?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
If no Orthodox councils can be called someone should inform those currently taking part in the planning for a council to be held in 2013.
That’s exactly the issue with the article. It only looks at issues on the surface, that is it is shallow.
Yes he only has limited room, but if those are his actual reasons he never looked very far into Orthodoxy.
We have had plenty of success in battling issues within the church. You’ll notice we don’t have a mass movement to bring in female clergy, for example. Just because we don’t come to the same answers your church did doesn’t mean we’re wrong. The Catholic Church has already been forced to back off married clergy as something that is absolutely forbidden, as well as backing of ALL contraception (including NFP) is bad to the current position.
To repeat: Article shows shallowness of thought.
A
Augustus24
Guest
Choose the best of both worlds. Eastern Catholic!
But seriously, why do you limit yourself to Orthodox and Catholics, why not Oriental Orthodox like the Armenian Apostolic Church. They also descend from the Apostles?
But seriously, why do you limit yourself to Orthodox and Catholics, why not Oriental Orthodox like the Armenian Apostolic Church. They also descend from the Apostles?
D
dzheremi
Guest
Who is your question addressed to, Augustus? I ask because I am involved in a very deep study of the Coptic Orthodox Church: Learning the prayers, the hymns, the liturgy (St. Basil, anyway), the synaxarium, the Agpeya, etc.
- Status