Choosing between Orthodoxy and Catholicism -- how and why did you do it?

[Bezant]

I’m curious, for those of you who converted to Orthodoxy or Catholicism (from whatever) – if you knew about both, what led to your final choice over the other?

 

[graceandglory]

I’m curious, for those of you who converted to Orthodoxy or Catholicism (from whatever) – if you knew about both, what led to your final choice over the other?

I was going to be Eastern Orthodox. I attended orthodox parishes for about a year, did not even consider Latin Catholic. I researched a ATON, especially on sacramental theology, primarily the sanctity of marriage, and believe that the Magisterium and Tradition supports the Roman Catholic Church, and that the Church in Rome is the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic CHurch. I believe the RC is more evangelical, and more faithful to the original. I also had a difficult time belonging in any of the Orthodox churches in America, as they are so ethnocentric. Jesus prayed that we may all be one. I think the RC does a better job being universal. Forgive my triumphalist attitude; I’m working on it.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I am teetering between Catholicism and Orthodoxy at the moment. I am reluctant to become Orthodox for a number of practical reasons, most prominently because I rarely can even get within a few blocks of an Orthodox church.

But I also have a problem with the lack of unity of the question of contraception. The Catholic Church unanimously denies the use of contraceptives for contraceptive purposes. That is, it strives to avoid the sin of Onan, to keep the first commandment God ever gave - “Go forth and multiply” - and to welcome Christ into the world whenever He wishes to come. For Christ said “Whosoever shall receive this child in my name, receiveth me; and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth him that sent me. For he that is the lesser among you all, he is the greater.” (Luke 9:48, DRB) To contracept at all is to deny God’s souls the right He gave us in becoming incarnate. Contraception, especially of the abortifacient sort which is on top of this grave murder, has always been considered a sin as far as I know.

But while many Orthodox Churches to condemn contraception, some of these Churches are in communion with Churches that, albeit in limited, guided circumstances, allow non-abortifacient contraception.

This, and I do not see how the Church of Rome’s dogmas contradict Constantinople. I feel it’s only a matter of time and humility before Catholicism and Orthodoxy reunite, because the two are absolutely compatible with each other.

NOT that Rome does not have her problems. I find the Ordinary Form of the Mass to be… how to say… spiritually bland in comparison to the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom. (The Extraordinary Form is also probably superior to it.) I do not think the OF is invalid… but, as I see it, the OF is like milk for feeding spiritual neophytes, while the Divine Liturgy is more substantial food on which growing Christians thrive. I feel I have, so to speak, “outgrown” the OF. I want something more substantial and closer to Heaven.

 

[Tomek]

I’m curious, for those of you who converted to Orthodoxy or Catholicism (from whatever) – if you knew about both, what led to your final choice over the other?

I’m a revert to Catholicism. I was raised a cultural Catholic, lost the faith around 14, turned to atheism, and eventually delved into Islam. When I finally accepted the reality of Christ, I knew it came down to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Initially I was leaning towards Orthodoxy, but I knew I never gave Catholicism a fair shot. Since I was so torn, I decided it would be better to choose one and risk being wrong, than being stuck in limbo. So I decided I would give Catholicism a year of my time. For one year I would learn the faith I never really cared for, and practice it as my ancestors did. In this journey, I was really amazed to learn how much substance Catholicism has. It’s all very well thought out! There is a lot of support from scripture and tradition for the Petrine Primacy, Papal authority, and other doctrines. But more importantly, I began to discover the rich and very deep spirituality of the Catholic way (something I thought never even existed!)

Remember, the grass always seems greener on the other side of the fence… until you cross over and you realize you’re on fake grass

 

[graceandglory]

But I also have a problem with the lack of unity on the question of contraception. The Catholic Church unanimously denies the use of contraceptives for contraceptive purposes.
.
.
But while many Orthodox Churches to condemn contraception, some of these Churches are in communion with Churches that, albeit in limited, guided circumstances, allow non-abortifacient contraception…

This was the clincher for me too. I might not have been as clear as you in my post. I did see and read of a wide acceptance and practice of contraception. Also was offended by a line in Fredericka Matthewes Green’s book that joked about nobody voting Republican. In all the orthodox books I read, I saw nothing about engaging the culture with the gospel.

 

[Nine_Two]

I have much the same story as others who posted here, except I made a different choice. I explored the Orthodox faith and the Catholic faith. I had tremendous difficulty with the position of the pope, and the tendency to dogmatising things that didn’t particularly need dogmatising.
Reading about the Church Fathers I came to see the Early Church as being based around the Councils.

 

[Bezant]

I’m a revert to Catholicism. I was raised a cultural Catholic, lost the faith around 14, turned to atheism, and eventually delved into Islam. When I finally accepted the reality of Christ, I knew it came down to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Initially I was leaning towards Orthodoxy, but I knew I never gave Catholicism a fair shot. Since I was so torn, I decided it would be better to choose one and risk being wrong, than being stuck in limbo. So I decided I would give Catholicism a year of my time. For one year I would learn the faith I never really cared for, and practice it as my ancestors did. In this journey, I was really amazed to learn how much substance Catholicism has. It’s all very well thought out! There is a lot of support from scripture and tradition for the Petrine Primacy, Papal authority, and other doctrines. But more importantly, I began to discover the rich and very deep spirituality of the Catholic way (something I thought never even existed!)

Remember, the grass always seems greener on the other side of the fence… until you cross over and you realize you’re on fake grass

Thank-you for sharing your story Tomek. And I definitely agree about the grass. I always tell people on the forums who talk about leaving the Church that a dislike for Catholicism is not a good enough reason to convert to X.

 

[Bezant]

But I also have a problem with the lack of unity of the question of contraception. The Catholic Church unanimously denies the use of contraceptives for contraceptive purposes. That is, it strives to avoid the sin of Onan, to keep the first commandment God ever gave - “Go forth and multiply” - and to welcome Christ into the world whenever He wishes to come. For Christ said “Whosoever shall receive this child in my name, receiveth me; and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth him that sent me. For he that is the lesser among you all, he is the greater.” (Luke 9:48, DRB) To contracept at all is to deny God’s souls the right He gave us in becoming incarnate. Contraception, especially of the abortifacient sort which is on top of this grave murder, has always been considered a sin as far as I know.

But while many Orthodox Churches to condemn contraception, some of these Churches are in communion with Churches that, albeit in limited, guided circumstances, allow non-abortifacient contraception.

Actually, contraception is one issue of a few where I think the Orthodox have it right. I find it difficult accept Catholic sources saying that most contraception is sinful enough to put the soul in danger. But if the Orthodox Church is so inconsistent about contraception, I understand how it could be frustrating.

This, and I do not see how the Church of Rome’s dogmas contradict Constantinople.

Yes, especially Purgatory and the Filioque.

I feel it’s only a matter of time and humility before Catholicism and Orthodoxy reunite, because the two are absolutely compatible with each other.

I’m not so optimistic, although I can definitely see mutual polemics coming to an end.

NOT that Rome does not have her problems. I find the Ordinary Form of the Mass to be… how to say… spiritually bland in comparison to the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom. (The Extraordinary Form is also probably superior to it.) I do not think the OF is invalid… but, as I see it, the OF is like milk for feeding spiritual neophytes, while the Divine Liturgy is more substantial food on which growing Christians thrive. I feel I have, so to speak, “outgrown” the OF. I want something more substantial and closer to Heaven.

Divine Liturgy is definitely uplifting and inspiring on a different level than the OF altogether – however, I like that the OF has a bit more participation from the laymen.

 

[Bezant]

I have much the same story as others who posted here, except I made a different choice. I explored the Orthodox faith and the Catholic faith. I had tremendous difficulty with the position of the pope, and the tendency to dogmatising things that didn’t particularly need dogmatising.
Reading about the Church Fathers I came to see the Early Church as being based around the Councils.

Some of the scriptural and practical arguments for the pope are convincing, however, I agree with you that historically the Orthodox argument seems more accurate.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I agree with you that historically the Orthodox argument seems more accurate.

More accurate about exactly what?

Then why are Eastern Rite Orthodox choosing to be in communion with Rome, world wide?

 

[Nine_Two]

Some of the scriptural and practical arguments for the pope are convincing, however, I agree with you that historically the Orthodox argument seems more accurate.

I just don’t see it. I can see how individual lines on their own can be convincing about Peter being leader over the others, but even if one accepts that, you have the problem that there is no reference in scripture to his successor.

I do understand the issue many Catholics have with the Orthodox Church, that there is no final source for a definitive teaching on a given topic, yet I think this is a side effect of the Orthodox insistence on the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. This leads to many rules requiring council with a spiritual father to figure out how it should be applied, rather than a one size fits all text giving you the answer.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I just don’t see it. I can see how individual lines on their own can be convincing about Peter being leader over the others, but even if one accepts that, you have the problem that there is no reference in scripture to his successor.

I do understand the issue many Catholics have with the Orthodox Church, that there is no final source for a definitive teaching on a given topic, yet I think this is a side effect of the Orthodox insistence on the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. This leads to many rules requiring council with a spiritual father to figure out how it should be applied, rather than a one size fits all text giving you the answer.

The scripture doesn’t need to define St Peters successor. Does scripture need to mention Constantinople? What page is that on? The documents are at the Vativan with proof of St Peter’s 2-following successors, and a solid case has been made for the third.

Your second paragraph contradicts your first. And thats exactly how such wonderful ideas such as Contraceptives are approved at the EO. One size does fit all with Doctrine/Bible. Since when should a Priest have the authority to chance doctrine for personal issues?

 

[Bezant]

More accurate about exactly what?

The Catholic argument tends to be that the pope led the Church from the very beginning. Instead it seems that the pope had little authority, at least in the first few centuries, outside of Rome. And from what I’ve read Rome didn’t claim papal authority until the 7th (?) century.

Then why are Eastern Rite Orthodox choosing to be in communion with Rome, world wide?

You mean the Eastern Catholics? I don’t know much about their historical motivations to Rome.

 

[Marybeloved]

The Catholic argument tends to be that the pope led the Church from the very beginning. Instead it seems that the pope had little authority, at least in the first few centuries, outside of Rome.

How sure are you about your underlined sentence above?

 

[Bezant]

How sure are you about your underlined sentence above?

Convinced.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Catholic argument tends to be that the pope led the Church from the very beginning. Instead it seems that the pope had little authority, at least in the first few centuries, outside of Rome.

You mean the Eastern Catholics? I don’t know much about their historical motivations to Rome.

Yes Eastern Rite is my point.

And no my brother the ECFs all the way from 1,2,and 3rd century agree that Rome. St Peter is the church authority which resolves disputes. In fact show me “one” which contradicts this from before Constantinople. The issue became the Temporal Rulers control over Constantinople which Rome refused to go along with after 3XKings controlling Constantinople, then forcing their will on Rome. Constantinople held that Rome didn’t have the authority to elect a Pope at that point on their own. Which is incorrect. That was the first schism in short

I have a few ECFs quotes on file {and there are many} if you would like to read them, they are “all” in agreement. Before 300-AD the foregone conclusion was Rome was the final say on any unresolved issue’s. I have not seen one partristic writting prior to 300 which states anything but this.

Peace

 

[Marybeloved]

Convinced.

Really? Because Ive been engaged with discussions by Orthodox who do say that Rome had authority outside Rome but insist that it was more of a practical custom than by connection to st. Peter’s chair. I guess my confusion would be about what you mean by the term “little” authority outside Rome.

 

[Bezant]

I just don’t see it. I can see how individual lines on their own can be convincing about Peter being leader over the others, but even if one accepts that, you have the problem that there is no reference in scripture to his successor.

I do understand the issue many Catholics have with the Orthodox Church, that there is no final source for a definitive teaching on a given topic, yet I think this is a side effect of the Orthodox insistence on the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. This leads to many rules requiring council with a spiritual father to figure out how it should be applied, rather than a one size fits all text giving you the answer.

We find that frustrating, I think, because we tend to stress clarity and the universality/absoluteness of truth. I appreciate that the Catholic Church is generally consistent, in contrast to Protestantism, which as a whole is anything but, although not everything is so black and white.

 

[Bezant]

Really? Because Ive been engaged with discussions by Orthodox who do say that Rome had authority outside Rome but insist that it was more of a practical custom than by connection to st. Peter’s chair. I guess my confusion would be about what you mean by the term “little” authority outside Rome.

Better said, a decisive, exclusive authority over the universal church at the time.

 

[Bezant]

Yes Eastern Rite is my point.

And no my brother the ECFs all the way from 1,2,and 3rd century agree that Rome. St Peter is the church authority which resolves disputes. In fact show me “one” which contradicts this from before Constantinople. The issue became the Temporal Rulers control over Constantinople which Rome refused to go along with after 3XKings controlling Constantinople, then forcing their will on Rome. Constantinople held that Rome didn’t have the authority to elect a Pope at that point on their own. Which is incorrect. That was the first schism in short
I have a few ECFs quotes on file {and there are many} if you would like to read them, they are “all” in agreement. Before 300-AD the foregone conclusion was Rome was the final say on any unresolved issue’s. I have not seen one partristic writting prior to 300 which states anything but this.

Peace

I’ll read them, but most of the non-religious sources I’ve read support the Orthodox view, which seems to make more sense.