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

[ZDHayden]

Please tell me why? I received an answer to go to a site, and I did…oh, my dear Lord…we tear ourselves apart, regarding man made theories of who did and thought this or that…there are many reasons why we are separated in the belief in Christ, but I see envy and power, control and manipulation of scripture, too. At this rate, there will never be reconciliation of all Christians in Christ!

I am a bit confused by what you mean after the initial question. That, and I just gave a hyperactive pug puppy a bath.

 

[Bev17243]

I am a Protestant I don’t think Protestant Christianity is true ?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=604653&page=2

From my vantage, everything comes down to the credibility of the Church and that can be directly measured by the credibility of the founder.
Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were founded by Christ. This lends great credibility to both and of course, almost all doctrines are the same.
So what about the split. When the Eastern Churches left Rome, about 30% of the Church went into schism. Subsequently, 30% of those Eastern Churches returned to Rome as the Eastern Rite Churches

Its hard to say that Rome is in schism with the East, given those numbers.
here is a look at the numbers today:
adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity.

As for the point that we need to reunite. Making this more difficult of course, is that their is not one orthodox church to work with, there are many.​

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=559107&highlight=gurneyhalleck1&page=5
See post #69 and post #70
Should I check out a Russian or a Greek church first?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gurneyhalleck1
The Orthodox could’ve lived side by side with Catholics and the filioque and leavened bread and all the other things,
I’m not so sure of this… to put it mildly.

Since the original thread is about Russian or Greek, here’s my own experience with the Russian EOC. I met a Russian woman back in 2004, and I went with her to the ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) service. One of the first things I learned that all New Calendar Churches are “not really Orthodox”. There are three other Orthodox churches in the city (New Orleans, Louisiana) I was living in, namely a Greek EO, an Antiochian EO, and the Basilian Fathers’ church which serves both the EO and WO Divine Liturgy, but those were “apostate”, “not really Orthodox”, as far as ROCOR was concerned. Thus, the community made up of Russians and others (including a guy of Greek heritage - but he subscribed to the Mount Athos version of Greek Orthodoxy, which is Old Calendar) rather drove more than 100 miles and 3 hours to the nearest ROCOR church two states away in Alabama, because that was “truly Orthodox”.

The number one problem was that these other churches (the local “apostate” churches) accepted the New Calendar. But also, the fact that they had pews, and that the Greek one (also the Antiochian one, I seem to remember) had musical instruments, were critical offenses to Orthodoxy. The Russians insist on no pews, no musical instruments (only human voice). And the ROCOR priest told his parishioners not to attend those other EOC except in special cases when there was no access to a “truly Orthodox” Old Calendar church, and not to present themselves for Holy Communion in the New Calendar (Greek, Antiochian) churches.

Since the benign-looking differences like pews and musical instruments are so major to the Russians (not to mention the Calendar!) that they will break communion with fellow EO over those issues, I came to understand that they will only naturally reject communion with the Catholic Churches, over other issues such as the filioque, unleavened bread, and beardless clergy in the Catholic Churches.

See here:
orthodoxchristianity.net/…c=21910.0;wap2

these are some of the issues I’m dealing with at the moment. I agree with most RC doctrine but find the Mass(in my local churches) resembles Protestant church service, with guitar bands and I just can’t stand it. I love beauty of EO liturgy but the issues that you have mentioned are def ridiculous, in my opinion

 

[Nicea325]

Irrelevant argument. I have nothing to do with the legitimacy of the papacy.

Irrelevant argument according to you. Of course you have nothing to do with legitimacy of the papacy why would you?

 

[GaryTaylor]

these are some of the issues I’m dealing with at the moment. I agree with most RC doctrine but find the Mass(in my local churches) resembles Protestant church service, with guitar bands and I just can’t stand it. I love beauty of EO liturgy but the issues that you have mentioned are def ridiculous, in my opinion

Perhaps you should try the Extrodinary Mass and not the Ordinary your attending.

Peace

 

[Nicea325]

I’m saying that if I can find salvation and holiness in Orthodoxy, why would I struggle with the things I described above?

It is understandable,but what many forget time and time again, Christ founded His Church for the sinner. So the current affair of any church today or 1,000 years ago is not a new revelation. Problems have existed and will continue. I do not focus on all the issues because my faith is based on Christ,not the errors humans create or cause within the Church. Precisely why as Catholics we have a church governed by officials. Humans are not perfect and precisely why our conversion to Christ is on-going throughout our lives.

Peace

 

[Cavaradossi]

Irrelevant argument according to you. Of course you have nothing to do with legitimacy of the papacy why would you?

Indeed, so comment on the argument, not the one making it. The papacy today is not in line with the papacy of the first millennium. How do you respond to this charge?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Theological and historical matters aside, one big factor for me was the state of the modern Catholic Church. Since Vatican 2, there’s been a widespread corruption of the liturgy, world wide sex abuse scandal, and emphasis on social justice and liberality that I find absolutely unacceptable. I’ve attended mass at a number of different local parishes, and most of the time I’m so put off that I have to struggle not to walk out. Now to be fair some parishes are more traditional, but they’re a small minority. The one parish that I believe I could become a Catholic at is the Tridentine liturgy parish which is traditional.

Whats corrupt in the Liturgy? Perhaps instead of broad sweeping claims you could point the error of the Vatican?

Statistically the sex scandal is smaller in the Catholic Church than any other aspect of humanity or Christianity, a fact. It draws “attention” because it is the CC.

Some are more traditional? I think you should check your local phone directory.

 

[Nicea325]

Indeed, so comment on the argument, not the one making it. The papacy today is not in line with the papacy of the first millennium. How do you respond to this charge?

I believe I and others have said plenty for centuries,so why rehash anything? Is that going to change anything for you?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Indeed, so comment on the argument, not the one making it. The papacy today is not in line with the papacy of the first millennium. How do you respond to this charge?

What change perhaps you could be more specific. Here’s a couple quotes from YOUR church.

The wonderful theory of the EO, “Oh we don’t need to define anything”

I would like to know what is the orthodox canon regarding the “original sin.” The following statements confuse me:

Father Michael Azkoul states that God punished man only once for the original sin by introducing death, and the original sin wasn’t transferred to the next generations.

He says (on the OCF website): “The Church does not accept the idea that the Mother of God was born with the (inherited) guilt of Adam; no one is …”

On the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto’s page there is a totally different statement:
“Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve’s.”



Traditionally speaking I’d say you are lost. We might have continued to define. You forgot what the Bible states. And that of St Paul, Romans and Corinthians?

St Augustine?

And the answer on Original Sin per the EO is?

 

[Nicea325]

What change perhaps you could be more specific. Here’s a couple quotes from YOUR church.

The wonderful theory of the EO, “Oh we don’t need to define anything”

I would like to know what is the orthodox canon regarding the “original sin.” The following statements confuse me:

Father Michael Azkoul states that God punished man only once for the original sin by introducing death, and the original sin wasn’t transferred to the next generations.

He says (on the OCF website): “The Church does not accept the idea that the Mother of God was born with the (inherited) guilt of Adam; no one is …”

On the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto’s page there is a totally different statement:
“Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve’s.”



Traditionally speaking I’d say you are lost. We might have continued to define. You forgot what the Bible states. And that of St Paul, Romans and Corinthians?

St Augustine?

And the answer on Original Sin per the EO is?

But according to many EO the CC has drifted apart from “orthodoxy” and “Traditions” of the early church?

 

[Cavaradossi]

What change perhaps you could be more specific. Here’s a couple quotes from YOUR church.

What my Church says is irrelevant. The papacy was not an infallible institution before 1870. The papacy did not have supremacy until after the first millennium. How do you explain these changes?

The wonderful theory of the EO, “Oh we don’t need to define anything”

I would like to know what is the orthodox canon regarding the “original sin.” The following statements confuse me:

Father Michael Azkoul states that God punished man only once for the original sin by introducing death, and the original sin wasn’t transferred to the next generations.

He says (on the OCF website): “The Church does not accept the idea that the Mother of God was born with the (inherited) guilt of Adam; no one is …”

On the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto’s page there is a totally different statement:
“Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve’s.”

Traditionally speaking I’d say you are lost. We might have continued to define. You forgot what the Bible states. And that of St Paul, Romans and Corinthians?

St Augustine?

And the answer on Original Sin per the EO is?

First off, you are wrong. The bible does not ever teach what St. Augustine taught on original sin. St. Augustine was simply speculating, and he got it wrong. That’s fine, plenty of the fathers were wrong on plenty of issues. The problem is that you seem to believe that the fathers are some sort of infallible source of information, after the scriptures.

Secondly, none of this has anything to do at all with the fact that the papacy has changed since the first millennium. Give me a sufficient answer on the changing papacy (either a concession or a rebuttal), and then we can argue about original sin, if you would so like.

 

[Bev17243]

What change perhaps you could be more specific. Here’s a couple quotes from YOUR church.

The wonderful theory of the EO, “Oh we don’t need to define anything”

I would like to know what is the orthodox canon regarding the “original sin.” The following statements confuse me:

Father Michael Azkoul states that God punished man only once for the original sin by introducing death, and the original sin wasn’t transferred to the next generations.

He says (on the OCF website): “The Church does not accept the idea that the Mother of God was born with the (inherited) guilt of Adam; no one is …”

On the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto’s page there is a totally different statement:
“Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve’s.”



Traditionally speaking I’d say you are lost. We might have continued to define. You forgot what the Bible states. And that of St Paul, Romans and Corinthians?

St Augustine?

And the answer on Original Sin per the EO is?

Gary, I don’t think anyone here should be having hostile debates about which side is right(and I’m not refering to you alone). From where I am at-each side has issues that they will not agree on and they can debate it until the cows come home but nothing is going to change until all of us threat each other with respect as brothers and sisters in Christ.
I have read many books on both EO and RC and while I agree with what lot of things you said, I’m afraid there are issues on both sides of the fence, so to speak.

 

[Nicea325]

What my Church says is irrelevant. The papacy was not an infallible institution before 1870. The papacy did not have supremacy until after the first millennium. How do you explain these changes?

First off, you are wrong. The bible does not ever teach what St. Augustine taught on original sin. St. Augustine was simply speculating, and he got it wrong. That’s fine, plenty of the fathers were wrong on plenty of issues. The problem is that you seem to believe that the fathers are some sort of infallible source of information, after the scriptures.

Secondly, none of this has anything to do at all with the fact that the papacy has changed since the first millennium. Give me a sufficient answer on the changing papacy (either a concession or a rebuttal), and then we can argue about original sin, if you would so like.

The papacy was not an infallible institution before 1870

Really? The papacy (an office) last time I checked St.Peter wrote two epistles long before 1870. So Peter was fallible?

 

[GaryTaylor]

No in fact your wrong, and the Quotes by Augustine could be read, I have that also…

And I wouldn’t respond to that either, in fact its embarrasing. But the OP is choosing between??? Pehaps the lack of ability to supply any shread of evidence, let alone define such a simple concept of Original Sin Ought to tell ya something.

But the entire problem with this thread from post one till here. Is not one shread of evidence has been supplied to support “anything” stated by the EO…pure speculation and talk. Broad sweeping statements based on “zip” for fact. Statements like “well I read a non-religious book” but I can’t remember the name. Theres a point of discussion for ya:thumbsup:

Then get mad and want to talk about rude and snippy, and have a group therapy session.

Wow I’m blown away at this entire discussion.

And I have the quotes, but if I post another 100 as I have. What good would it do, thus Bible. Or you can read New Advent on “Original Sin”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary, I don’t think anyone here should be having hostile debates about which side is right(and I’m not refering to you alone). From where I am at-each side has issues that they will not agree on and they can debate it until the cows come home but nothing is going to change until all of us threat each other with respect as brothers and sisters in Christ.
I have read many books on both EO and RC and while I agree with what lot of things you said, I’m afraid there are issues on both sides of the fence, so to speak.

I agree, however, as long as this is a “free for all” on the Catholic Church with no support of evidence, but “Well I think”. Well I think a lot also:shrug:

Just Sayin, Thats a two way street.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Really? The papacy (an office) last time I checked St.Peter wrote two epistles long before 1870. So Peter was fallible?

St. Peter was not a pope (by which I assume you mean the bishop of Rome). In the earliest listings of bishops, they never included the apostles as bishops of such and such city (the assumption being that the apostles were traveling and ordaining bishops in all of the cities they visited). It was only centuries later that Rome started listing Peter as its first bishop, in an attempt to seal its apostolic status. The first ‘popes’ by the way, were in Alexandria. And let us be honest, Peter denied Christ; he was surely fallible.

 

[Bev17243]

Whats corrupt in the Liturgy? Perhaps instead of broad sweeping claims you could point the error of the Vatican?

Statistically the sex scandal is smaller in the Catholic Church than any other aspect of humanity or Christianity, a fact. It draws “attention” because it is the CC.

Some are more traditional? I think you should check your local phone directory.

if I am understanding him correctly he is refering to the fact that Mass became very modern in lot of churches which is not the case in EO. Personally, I have been in most RC churches in my area and almost everyone has very “modern” Mass with guitar bands and rock songs that are pretty much the same as Protestant church I used to attend. I was very dissapointed.
When it comes to EO churches in my area, I only have a couple to choose from and while I LOVED the liturgy, what I didn’t like was sort of rivalry between ROCOR and GOARCH where each one acts as if they are better(and holier) than the other. Russians and Greek seem to differ on issues like pews in churches, musical instruments, womens attire, diff between Old Calendarists/New Calendarists, Russians and Greeks even have different views on marriage and baptism. what I was put off by the most is that EO priest that I have met has a very anti-catholic stance where you mention RC and steam comes out of his ears. I’m not saying that everyone is like that but this is the kind of attitude that is quite common where I live.
And the last and not least, EO doesn’t define any dogmas which I have a big problem with because lot of their teachings sound very wishy washy to me:shrug: When I asked EO priest about haven and hell, his answer was that hell is when person is deprived from God’s grace and hell is really metaphorical, so when you die, who knows what’s gonna happen. His words, not mine.
I’m not here to offend anyone whether RC or EO but just recount my experience:tiphat:

 

[Bev17243]

I agree, however, as long as this is a “free for all” on the Catholic Church with no support of evidence, but “Well I think”. Well I think a lot also:shrug:

Just Sayin, Thats a two way street.

unfortunately, yes

 

[Cavaradossi]

No in fact your wrong, and the Quotes by Augustine could be read, I have that also…

And I wouldn’t respond to that either, in fact its embarrasing. But the OP is choosing between??? Pehaps the lack of ability to supply any shread of evidence, let alone define such a simple concept of Original Sin Ought to tell ya something.

But the entire problem with this thread from post one till here. Is not one shread of evidence has been supplied to support “anything” stated by the EO…pure speculation and talk. Broad sweeping statements based on “zip” for fact. Statements like “well I read a non-religious book” but I can’t remember the name. Theres a point of discussion for ya:thumbsup:

Then get mad and want to talk about rude and snippy, and have a group therapy session.

Wow I’m blown away at this entire discussion.

And I have the quotes, but if I post another 100 as I have. What good would it do, thus Bible. Or you can read New Advent on “Original Sin”

Or perhaps you just misunderstand what we mean by ancestral sin. Maybe you should just stick to representing the teachings of your church instead of disingenuously misrepresenting Holy Orthodoxy. Ancestral sin is simply the inheritance of this fallen world by subsequent generations of human beings. There is no contradiction between the two statements you posted. In a way, humans are not born with a personal mark (what some would call original sin), but in a state of being that involves the cosmos, yet in another way, it is correct to say that we inherit it.

As for the lack of evidence, the Orthodox are hardly the only guilty party. You reference Augustine on original sin and say it is consistent with the epistles, but have not posted anything from either Augustine or the epistles.

 

[Nicea325]

St. Peter was not a pope (by which I assume you mean the bishop of Rome). In the earliest listings of bishops, they never included the apostles as bishops of such and such city (the assumption being that the apostles were traveling and ordaining bishops in all of the cities they visited). It was only centuries later that Rome started listing Peter as its first bishop, in an attempt to seal its apostolic status. The first ‘popes’ by the way, were in Alexandria. And let us be honest, Peter denied Christ; he was surely fallible.

Rome started listing it centuries later? You sure? St.Irenaeus did it between 170-190 A.D
(Adv. Haer. 3:3:3; Eusebius, “Hist. eccl.” 5:6) enumerates the series from Peter to Eleutherius, which is not centuries later.

Peter admitted that he was a sinner, and we all know the story of Saul who became Paul. We know they were all sinners. How then, could fallible men write such inerrant documents as the books (NT letters) they authored? It is because they were guided by the Holy Spirit. GOD prevented them from writing error. GOD is the same yesterday, today, and forever. If GOD prevented these men from writing error, why then could He not do the same for the successor of St. Peter today?

Nope. Not attempts made by the CC,on the contrary,attempts made centuries by those who wish to deny it.