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

[GaryTaylor]

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

Such as whom?

 

[Bezant]

Such as whom?

I can’t remember their names.

 

[Marybeloved]

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.

I know this may be a bit too “out there” for some, but I used to be very interested in Carl Jung’s discovery of the functioning of the human psyche and its relationship with objective reality through eight functions of reasoning/judgment and perception/receiving information.

They were: Judgment by either logical principles (he called this function Thinking) or values (he called this feeling); and Perception of sensory information (he called this sensing) or connections between them (he called this intuition). They all are introverted or extroverted versions so that there are eight functions in total of how the human mind perceives and judges reality.

I brought this up because I’ve come to gradually become convinced of the influences of these functions between many East-west divides in approaches, be they East (like Buddhism/Hinduism) verses Western rationality and even East vs West in Christianity.

What you described above- Latin emphasis on clarity and universality of truth is exactly what Jungians would call the functioning of Introverted Thinking! And I’ve noticed its centrality in Thomas Aquinas thought and much of Catholicism’s approach (Latin Catholicism). This function leads you to find the most basic and universal principles and stretch them to their furthest logical implications, or apply the universal principles to their ultimate conclusion. Sometimes I wonder if the preference of this approach (in thinking) in the West and a different one in the East (possibly introverted intuition) may not be the reason we just fail to see eye to eye.

Even in this Jungian theory, people may fight forever over something they in reality do not disagree about. It’s like you and I are blind touching an elephant. I hold on to the tail and conclude it’s a rope-like creature, you hold on to the leg and conclude that its more of a pillar-like thing, then we spend years fighting and anathematizing each other over the real truth of the elephant.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I can’t remember their names.

So their Non Religious, “and” you can’t remember their name’s. But you argree with them? Sounds like they had a hugh impact on you.

What exactly is the point they are right on, can you remember that?

 

[Bezant]

Even in this Jungian theory, people may fight forever over something they in reality do not disagree about. It’s like you and I are blind touching an elephant. I hold on to the tail and conclude it’s a rope-like creature, you hold on to the leg and conclude that its more of a pillar-like thing, then we spend years fighting and anathematizing each other over the real truth of the elephant.

I don’t know much about psychology although it is interesting, how people approach the truth, especially in Eastern religions.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I know this may be a bit too “out there” for some, but I used to be very interested in Carl Jung’s discovery of the functioning of the human psyche through eight functions of reasoning/judgment and perception/receiving information.

They were: Judgment by either logical principles (he called this function Thinking) or values (he called this feeling); and Precipitation of sensory information (he called this sensing) or connections between them (he called this intuition). They all are introverted or extroverted versions so that there are eight functions in total of how the human mind preceives and judges reality.

I brought this up because I’ve come to gradually become convinced of the influences of these functions between many East-west divides in approaches, be they East (like Buddhism/Hinduism) verses Western rationality and even East vs West in Christianity.

What you described above- Latin emphasis on clarity and universality of truth is exactly what Jungians would call the functioning of Introverted Thinking! And I’ve noticed its centrality in Thomas Aquinas thought and much of Catholicism’s approach (Latin Catholicism). This function leads you to find the most basic and universal principles and stretch them to their furthest logical implications, or apply the universal principles to their ultimate conclusion. Sometimes I wonder if the preference of this approach (in thinking) in the West and a different one in the East (possibly introverted intuition) may not be the reason we just fail to see eye to eye.

Even in this Jungian theory, people may fight forever over something they in reality do not disagree about. It’s like you and I are blind touching an elephant. I hold on to the tail and conclude it’s a rope-like creature, you hold on to the leg and conclude that its more of a pillar-like thing, then we spend years fighting and anathematizing each other over the real truth of the elephant.

Interesting, Jung is interesting.

 

[MartinJordan]

First off Im an Asian Indian (Tamil) and my great-great grandparents were Catholic (that’s as far as I can go back to my family’s history - my paternal grandfather was born in 1884). Also 3 of my aunts are Catholic nuns from the Holy Family order and also one cousin.

We go for Mass daily. Non of my family members have jumped ship and we are very closely united and no issues with the Pope being Vicar Of Christ infact that is the glue that makes us respect the Church so much.

Reason enough for me to remain and choose Catholic.

MJ

 

[Bezant]

So their Non Religious, “and” you can’t remember their name’s. But you argree with them?

Why should my opinion be different if I remembered their names and if they were Catholic or Orthodox?

Sounds like they had a hugh impact on you.

What are you insinuating?

What exactly is the point they are right on, can you remember that?

In summary, that the Bishop of Rome had local influence, not a decisive, universal authority over the church, during the first few centuries of the Church.

 

[mardukm]

I translated from Coptic Orthodoxy to Catholicism, but I did not convert. I have never rejected Orthodoxy, but I do reject what Orthodoxy teaches ABOUT Catholicism, and what Orthodoxy teaches ABOUT Catholicism is false. Catholicism does not contradict Orthodoxy. Therefore, I am Orthodox in communion with Rome.

On the matter of the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law, I find there is just as much legalism in Orthodoxy as there is in Catholicism. It’s a matter of perspective. I don’t think one should choose one over the other based on that perception, though it is certainly a powerful SUBJECTIVE factor.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t know much about psychology although it is interesting, how people approach the truth, especially in Eastern religions.

I was telling Marybeloved on another thread I found myself confronted with the truth through my own education in psychology. I was Catholic but lukewarm. I was employed here at Daytop which was founded by a Catholic Father. Basically we were teaching the faith without using the terminology of Bible, Religion, etc. But the concepts and virtures.

It just all hit me in the moral-ethical realm at one point. Once you reach a truth, you know its the truth. From their it became very spiritual, and took on a completely different level of meaning.

I don’t think the EO is a untruth, very much the contrary. I view them as Brothers in Christ. I have no contempt for people in general.

You know if look at Matthew and the geneology of David, 14 generations before David and 14 after to Christ, than to Saint Peter. There’s a lot of sinners in their. The Lords will is not how we assume it works. So to say this will happen or that will never happen. Miracles and Saints is what the Lord sends when change is his will. Time is not of essense to God only to us my brother.

Secular powers exist to purify/sancify Gods people. It confronts them with the question “Who do you say I am” Regardless of how difficult the situation may be, the Lord wants to know where you stand. For sure. In fact I’m convinced the diabolical disoriention exist between the churchs just for that reason. Till Gods will is done “first” it will remain, because no evil exists without God allowing it too.

 

[Marybeloved]

It just all hit me in the moral-ethical realm at one point. Once you reach a truth, you know its the truth. From their it became very spiritual, and took on a completely different level of meaning.

My friend, I understand EXACTLY! what you mean . I used to say to myself some years after discovering Catholicism, that there’s something in us, some type of compass that recognizes truth (universal truth) when it finds it, and this is exactly how I personally experienced this. Everything comes together in a moment of absolute clarity- Jungians, I later discovered, would call this thing in me that recognizes universal truth when I synthesize it, Introvered thinking.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Why should my opinion be different if I remembered their names and if they were Catholic or Orthodox?.

CC or EO isn’t my thinking. Non-religious, and the fact you can’t support your claim with evidence. Basically its talk.

What are you insinuating?.

Read above

In summary, that the Bishop of Rome had local influence, not a decisive, universal authority over the church, during the first few centuries of the Church.

Ah but we’ve already established that ECFs disagree with you, and none support your claim above, as you stated you read the ECFs when I stated I have them on-file if you would like to read them. So stated you did but seem to yet disagree. So my question again is where is the proof from the ECFs. Can you supply one such document which dates before 300-AD that Rome St Peter is not the governing body of Christianity?

In other words do you have anything but your own thinking? I would simply like to read it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

My friend, I understand EXACTLY! what you mean . I used to say to myself some years after discovering Catholicism, that there’s something in us, some type of compass that recognizes truth (universal truth) when it finds it, and this is exactly how I personally experienced this. Everything comes together in a moment of absolute clarity- Jungians, I later discovered, would call this thing in me that recognizes universal truth when I synthesize it, Introvered thinking.

There you have it,

 

[Marybeloved]

On the matter of the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law, I find there is just as much legalism in Orthodoxy as there is in Catholicism. It’s a matter of perspective. I don’t think one should choose one over the other based on that perception, though it is certainly a powerful SUBJECTIVE factor.

Indeed. Plus I’d wonder if there’s little legalism then why are our sacraments (Catholics) not valid? Also, much of what people call legalism Latin Catholics would see simply as truth- perhaps truth whose implications on us and our lives we may not like, but truth nonetheless.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Bezant,

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.

I propose that you have perhaps a Low Petrine understanding of ecclesiology. The thing that primarily differentiates Low and Absolutist Petrine ecclesiology, on the one hand, from High Petrine ecclesiology, on the other, is that Low and Absolutist Petrine advocates view ecclesiology in terms of the body in competition with the head, or vice versa, while High Petrine advocates view ecclesiology in terms of a the union of head and body. If a Low Petrine advocate finds a few examples of the head bishop being corrected, they immediately conclude - “Ahhh, the head bishop has NO authority, but only has a primacy of honor.” If an Absolutist Petrine advocates finds a few examples of the body or members of the body being corrected by the head, they immediately conclude - “Ahhh, the head bishop has absolute authority in the Church, and the other members have no say in anything.”

The High Petrine view, in contrast, understands that the authority established by Christ is a collegial authority, where the head and body work together as one - in some instances, you may find that members of the body needs correction by the head; in other instances, you may find that the head needs correction by the body. All that is par for the course in High Petrine ecclesiology, and one need not accept the polar extremes evident in Absolutist Petrine (which always views the body in subjugation to the head) or Low Petrine (which always views the head in subjugation to the body) views. Since you percieve ecclesiology as a contest of competing authorities, it is understandable that you might interpret the situation as you did - that Rome had little authority early on and only claimed greater authority later. As a High Petrine advocate, I would view the reality simply as one in which the supreme primatial authority of the head bishop was not used that much in the early centuries, but perhaps became more drastically needed in later centuries. It does not mean that the supreme primatial office did not exist in early centuries, nor that it was only created in later centuries. For indeed, there has always been a collegial authority established by Christ (head and body working TOGETHER).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ZDHayden]

I will look at what quotes I can find. I need to study Greek, but since this is Christmas break, I should be able to come to some conclusion by the end of these three weeks.

One issue I have found already is that if I Google search “church fathers on papacy” the first two or three pages are almost entirely Catholic apologetic sites and thus will only give those quotes which support their position.

I shall attempt to find either a neutral collection or at least an Orthodox collection. I must do this as I have not the funds to purchase a compendium of the writings of the Church Fathers.

I shall return periodically as and if I happen to find anything.

 

[Rdunbar123]

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

Please provide the “many” quotes from Fathers outside of Roman influence which show the type of authority the Pope today claims. I know the Ecumenical Councils are after 300 AD, but only power the canons give the Pope is the power to order a new trial for a deposed bishop if appealed to. He never had the power to interfere in another Bishops jurisdiction or to appoint bishops outside his patriarchy. Much of the modern form of electing and installing Bishops in RC church came after 1870 and Vatican I. also there is no mention in scripture about either the Bishop of Rome or Peters successors being in complete control. Both sides can quote Fathers all day and usually the same one for both sides of an argument. They do not hold absolute authority as do the First councils(truly Ecumenical) or Scripture. I was a practicing RC who became interested in Orthodoxy and Papal authority when i started puzzling over why Peter was not the spokesman and author of the decision of the first real council in Acts 15

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I consider myself as still in the process of making that choice. I like both, very much.

I accept the Roman Catholic position on the papacy, the filioque, and the charismatic movement.

However, I do believe the Orthodox are more moderated in things like saint veneration - sometimes I see the Catholic Church as going to far, especially with regards to Marian veneration. I’ve stated this on various occasions.

I also appreciate the Orthodox concept of* oikonomia*, and declining to explain certain divine mysteries that are exactly that - mysteries.

Culturally, I consider myself closer to the Catholic Church. It is more in my heritage. That’s not a reason to pick one group or another, but admittedly it does influence my thoughts. I’m embarrassed to admit it, but it is true. I like the whole “Latin culture” of the Roman Rite.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Please provide the “many” quotes from Fathers outside of Roman influence which show the type of authority the Pope today claims. I know the Ecumenical Councils are after 300 AD, but only power the canons give the Pope is the power to order a new trial for a deposed bishop if appealed to. He never had the power to interfere in another Bishops jurisdiction or to appoint bishops outside his patriarchy. Much of the modern form of electing and installing Bishops in RC church came after 1870 and Vatican I. also there is no mention in scripture about either the Bishop of Rome or Peters successors being in complete control. Both sides can quote Fathers all day and usually the same one for both sides of an argument. They do not hold absolute authority as do the First councils(truly Ecumenical) or Scripture. I was a practicing RC who became interested in Orthodoxy and Papal authority when i started puzzling over why Peter was not the spokesman and author of the decision of the first real council in Acts 15

I don’t think even the Catholic Church claims that the Pope can exercise “absolute” control. I think that is a misconception that flows from a complete and mistaken simplification of the Papacy. Please don’t view this as an attack on you. That is not my intention.

However, there is an indication from the Church Fathers that Peter, or the “Chair of Peter” (the Papacy) has a certain kind of authority with respect to the other Churches. Perhaps it wasn’t as strong as it is today, but it was there nevertheless.s

"…On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" - St Cyprian.

This is one example. I’m not going to start posting a host of quotes, because we will argue endlessly over the meanings of those quotes. However, it seems to me that Cyprian here suggests that the Papacy has a certain kind of “final authority” over matters of faith.
I do think the Catholic position can be validly established.

Whether the Orthodox have justifiable grievances, though, is another matter. Any sort of future unity between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (may the Lord grant it!) necessitates the Pope accepting a reduction in his influence. And I don’t think the Pope would reject that.

 

[BrianH]

I wonder why Oriental Orthodoxy is not in the equation? Not to distract from the thread but I visited one of their churches once and found it so beautiful and their apostolic claims are not any different than the other two.