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

[fred_conty]

To put it very simply, I believe that Orthodoxy has preserved the patristic faith more fully than the Catholic Church, which has developed significantly over time.

Quote from:
home.comcast.net/~acbfp/topten.html

Which Is The Tradition?
In the village of Omsk all was not well in the local Pokrov Parish. Every year, during Lent, at ‘Blessed art Thou, O Lord, teach me Thy statutes’, half of the congregation would make a metany at the waist, and half would make a full prostration. The little metanists would start whispering sharply, ‘No! No! From the waist!’ To which the great metanists would hiss back even louder, ‘Wrong! Full prostration! Who are you following, the Devil?!’ And fistfights would break out and the service could not even be completed.

Finally the war-weary parishioners decided to ask their priest, Fr Veniamin. ‘Batiushka, what is the tradition? In Lent, at “Blessed art Thou”, do we make a little metany, or a great metany?’ Knowing the rancour attached to the dispute, poor Fr Veniamin trembled, grew pale, then fainted dead away and fell backwards.

So next they went to the Skete of the Forerunner, and asked Fr Onouphry: ‘Batiushka, we want to know, we have a terrible argument at Omsk–what is the tradition? Because half the people say to make small metanies at “Blessed art Thou” now, and half say great metanies. And we start fighting, terrible, terrible. So, tell us, what is the Tradition?’ Seeing the ferocity in their faces, poor Hieromonk Anatoly simply fainted dead away.

Then someone shouted, ‘Let’s go to Elder Ioann and ask him!’ It was a marvellous idea. Surely the elder’s answer would bring peace, for he was respected by all, a native of Omsk, and his hoary 94 years guaranteed a knowledge of what the old tradition had been.

So a large crowd gathered at the elder’s dacha on the outskirts of town. Some 15 men from both sides entered the dacha, and found frail Elder Ioann lying on his bed. As he struggled to draw himself up and offer tea, they cut him off: ‘Elder Ioann, you have to help us! What is the Tradition? Every year in Lent, at “Blessed art Thou, O Lord”, half of the people at Pokrov make little metanies, and half the people great metanies, and we start to argue, and the service doesn’t even finish because of the fistfight!’ Then Elder Ioann said firmly, in his voice shaking with age, and with tears streaming down his joyful face, ‘That… is… the Tradition!’

When I showed this joke to my Russian date (born and raised in Russia), she especially appreciated the part about “Who are you following, the Devil?!” That is very authentically Russian and Orthodox, according to her.

When I first told her about Eucharistic miracles in the Catholic Church, and she harshly replied “Don’t bring the Devil to the chalice!” - meaning don’t even mention your Catholic stuff in the same sentence with the Eucharist of the EOC -, I was shocked, but not so much after I learned more about the Russian psyche, so well illustrated by the joke above.

I briefly did consider converting to Eastern Orthodoxy at that time. Since I grew up in Romania, a country which is at least 80% EO, I asked about the Romanian EOC. My Russian acquaintances first asked, are the Romanians Old Calendar or New? When I said, New, that was all they needed to hear. Yup, Heretics - that was the answer. They didn’t even ask whether the Romanian churches had pews or no pews, musical instruments, or if the Romanian priests have beards and wear cassocks. No, they are damned New Calendar heretics - regardless of anything else.

After this, I started to think more about my native city in Romania, and how there were two (2) EO churches in my meighborhood, one Romanian and one Serbian. I mean, we have Catholic churches where they celebrate Sunday Mass in three languages like Hungarian, Romanian, German, they didn’t need to build separate Hungarian Catholic, Romanian Catholic, German Catholic churches. And there’s a Catholic pilgrimage site not far from my native city where they celebrate Mass in 5 languages and more, no need to build 5 or more different churches for all the nations. So, why did the Romanians and the Serbs need to build 2 separate churches, within 100 meters (300 feet) of each other? Well, you see, the Serbians are Old Calendar, but the Romanians are damned heretics.

 

[dcointin]

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.

I’m not sure what you mean by “point the error of the Vatican”. Do you mean to talk instead about errors that the Vatican has made, or to inform the Vatican of the errors I mentioned?

I’d be interested in hearing your evidence that the sex scandal is smaller in the Catholic Church than any other. What horrifies me and most others I’ve discussed this issue with isn’t that priests were sexually abusing children, but the way it was handled by church authorities, who would not report the crimes to the police and transfer the priests to other diocese where the abuses would continue.

I’ve visited a number of parishes in my area, and I’m giving you my personal experience. I live in St. Louis, so if you’d like to recommend others to me that might change my opinion I’m certainly open to visiting them.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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:

I hear you, I was raised in the TLM V-I. However, I do attend the Ordinary Mass for there’s a Catholic Chrurch very close to me. I find no issue with it. In fact I find its refreshing that there are Black, White, Spanish and Asian in Church together, let alone an ethnic variance. I still belong to my original Parish though, and enjoy attending on Christmas/Easter for sure.

I haven’t seen the guitar situation since the 70’s. Most of the churchs are older here though.

The idea of a pretty mass Gregorian Chants, and Cathedrals, Vatican City etc. All very nice. You know what I often think of when that becomes the point of debate? The Apostles. They had a valid Mass in the back room of who-ever would have them in their home. The sacrement could be administered anywhere by a Ordained Priest, Old Age Homes, Hospitals etc.

So yes its personal preference for sure, as far as those issues are concerned.

As far as not defining or defining? I guess some would prefer not have issues defined by the Magisterium. I’m not one. I want to hear and know everything. In fact I’ll call Fr Mitch at 1-800 EWTN if I have a question.

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m not sure what you mean by “point the error of the Vatican”. Do you mean to talk instead about errors that the Vatican has made, or to inform the Vatican of the errors I mentioned?

I’d be interested in hearing your evidence that the sex scandal is smaller in the Catholic Church than any other. What horrifies me and most others I’ve discussed this issue with isn’t that priests were sexually abusing children, but the way it was handled by church authorities, who would not report the crimes to the police and transfer the priests to other diocese where the abuses would continue.

I’ve visited a number of parishes in my area, and I’m giving you my personal experience. I live in St. Louis, so if you’d like to recommend others to me that might change my opinion I’m certainly open to visiting them.

Google the statistics on the CC scandel as opposed to anywhere else.

You bought the point up of V-II with no elaboration. Perhaps you can elaborate?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Rome starting listing it centuries later? You sure? St.Irenaeus did it between 170-195 A.D. 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.

It is quite possible that the bishops of Rome up until the fourth century drew sufficient authority and prestige from the fact that their residence was in the capital of the Empire. Thus it was unnecessary to invoke, in each case, the Petrine origin of their see. The idea that the Apostles were, above all, others, the teachers and masters sent by the Lord to preach the Gospel throughout the world was equally well rooted in Rome as it was universally accepted in the East. It is for this reason that the first Christians were not accustomed to designate an Apostle as the first bishop of the see where he had implanted the faith. The one who was considered the first bishop was the one who had been ordained by an Apostle.

This custom was equally the practice in Rome. This becomes clear from the first list of the Roman Bishops which was composed by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who died as a martyr in 202. Irenaeus attributed the foundation of the Church of Rome not only to Peter but also to Paul and he wrote:
After having founded and established the Church, the holy Apostles confided to Linus the charge of the episcopate . . . his successor was Anacletus and after him, in the third place from the time of the Apostles, the episcopate was entrusted to Clement, who had seen the Apostles. Clement’s successor was Evaristus and Evaristus was followed by Alexander. Then as the sixth bishop after the time of the Apostles there was Sixtus and after him, Telesphorus, famous for his martyrdom. In turn there was Hyginus, Pius and Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus and was followed by Eleutherius who, at the present time, occupies the episcopal see as the twelfth bishop since the time of the Apostles.
According to this list, it is clear that the Bishop of Lyons did not count Peter among the number of the bishops of Rome. It is possible that Irenaeus had used as his source the list of Hegesippus which was older; all the same, it is possible that Hippolytus of Rome made use of the list of Irenaeus. In this regard, the fashion in which Eusebius, in his Historia ecclesiastica, treats the question of the apostolic succession in the cities whose sees had been founded by the Apostles is particularly instructive. He attributes the foundation of the bishopric of Rome to St. Peter and to St. Paul, of Alexandria to St. Mark, and of Antioch to St. Peter, but he does not put the Apostles at the head of the list of bishops of these cities. For him, the first bishop of Rome was Linus, the first of Alexandria was Annianus and the first bishop of Antioch was Evodius.

Fr. Francis Dvornik in Byzantium and the Roman Primacy

 

[dcointin]

Google the statistics on the CC scandel as opposed to anywhere else.

You bought the point up of V-II with no elaboration. Perhaps you can elaborate?

I thought it was obvious in this context. The liturgical “reforms” that occured after Vatican II, such as the priest officiating toward the people, lay eucharistic ministers, social gospel hymns, contemporary worship, non traditional church architecture, etc. The OF liturgy itself is the creation of a committee, not a living tradition.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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.

Roman 5:12-21 Corinthians 15:22. Read New Advent on Original Sin and you will see St Augustines.

Perhaps this Father has it wrong? What do you think? Where is the doctrine of the EO on Original Sin, I’d like to read it?

This is what the Father stated…“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.”

I do see something wrong with it as does the remainder of the world. And I’m not representing your church and have no desire to. I’m just pointing out “error” as you are.

 

[Bev17243]

Quote from:
home.comcast.net/~acbfp/topten.html

Which Is The Tradition?
In the village of Omsk all was not well in the local Pokrov Parish. Every year, during Lent, at ‘Blessed art Thou, O Lord, teach me Thy statutes’, half of the congregation would make a metany at the waist, and half would make a full prostration. The little metanists would start whispering sharply, ‘No! No! From the waist!’ To which the great metanists would hiss back even louder, ‘Wrong! Full prostration! Who are you following, the Devil?!’ And fistfights would break out and the service could not even be completed.

Finally the war-weary parishioners decided to ask their priest, Fr Veniamin. ‘Batiushka, what is the tradition? In Lent, at “Blessed art Thou”, do we make a little metany, or a great metany?’ Knowing the rancour attached to the dispute, poor Fr Veniamin trembled, grew pale, then fainted dead away and fell backwards.

So next they went to the Skete of the Forerunner, and asked Fr Onouphry: ‘Batiushka, we want to know, we have a terrible argument at Omsk–what is the tradition? Because half the people say to make small metanies at “Blessed art Thou” now, and half say great metanies. And we start fighting, terrible, terrible. So, tell us, what is the Tradition?’ Seeing the ferocity in their faces, poor Hieromonk Anatoly simply fainted dead away.

Then someone shouted, ‘Let’s go to Elder Ioann and ask him!’ It was a marvellous idea. Surely the elder’s answer would bring peace, for he was respected by all, a native of Omsk, and his hoary 94 years guaranteed a knowledge of what the old tradition had been.

So a large crowd gathered at the elder’s dacha on the outskirts of town. Some 15 men from both sides entered the dacha, and found frail Elder Ioann lying on his bed. As he struggled to draw himself up and offer tea, they cut him off: ‘Elder Ioann, you have to help us! What is the Tradition? Every year in Lent, at “Blessed art Thou, O Lord”, half of the people at Pokrov make little metanies, and half the people great metanies, and we start to argue, and the service doesn’t even finish because of the fistfight!’ Then Elder Ioann said firmly, in his voice shaking with age, and with tears streaming down his joyful face, ‘That… is… the Tradition!’

When I showed this joke to my Russian date (born and raised in Russia), she especially appreciated the part about “Who are you following, the Devil?!” That is very authentically Russian and Orthodox, according to her.

When I first told her about Eucharistic miracles in the Catholic Church, and she harshly replied “Don’t bring the Devil to the chalice!” - meaning don’t even mention your Catholic stuff in the same sentence with the Eucharist of the EOC -, I was shocked, but not so much after I learned more about the Russian psyche, so well illustrated by the joke above.

I briefly did consider converting to Eastern Orthodoxy at that time. Since I grew up in Romania, a country which is at least 80% EO, I asked about the Romanian EOC. My Russian acquaintances first asked, are the Romanians Old Calendar or New? **When I said, New, that was all they needed to hear. Yup, Heretics - that was the answer. They didn’t even ask whether the Romanian churches had pews or no pews, musical instruments, or if the Romanian priests have beards and wear cassocks. No, they are damned New Calendar heretics - regardless of anything else. **After this, I started to think more about my native city in Romania, and how there were two (2) EO churches in my meighborhood, one Romanian and one Serbian. I mean, we have Catholic churches where they celebrate Sunday Mass in three languages like Hungarian, Romanian, German, they didn’t need to build separate Hungarian Catholic, Romanian Catholic, German Catholic churches. And there’s a Catholic pilgrimage site not far from my native city where they celebrate Mass in 5 languages and more, no need to build 5 or more different churches for all the nations. So, why did the Romanians and the Serbs need to build 2 separate churches, within 100 meters (300 feet) of each other? Well, you see, the Serbians are Old Calendar, but the Romanians are damned heretics.

these kinds of issues are just plain sillyness to meBut if you think that’s bad, you should hear some of things that Patriach Kiril says

 

[Bev17243]

I thought it was obvious in this context. The liturgical “reforms” that occured after Vatican II, such as the priest officiating toward the people, lay eucharistic ministers, social gospel hymns, contemporary worship, non traditional church architecture, etc. The OF liturgy itself is the creation of a committee, not a living tradition.

yep, this is one of my issues with CC

 

[Nicea325]

yep, this is one of my issues with CC

Hmmmm…I thought it was about Christ?

 

[Bev17243]

Hmmmm…I thought it was about Christ?

not sure what you mean

 

[Nicea325]

not sure what you mean

Why would an issue such as “non traditional church architecture, etc” affect your decision to be Catholic? That is petty.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

GENERAL WARNING
For all threads dealing with the Orthodox Church.
Your threads will be watched closely and it is HIGHLY suggested we use charity and respect in posting.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I thought it was obvious in this context. The liturgical “reforms” that occured after Vatican II, such as the priest officiating toward the people, lay eucharistic ministers, social gospel hymns, contemporary worship, non traditional church architecture, etc. The OF liturgy itself is the creation of a committee, not a living tradition.

Whats the living tradition at the Apostles time? Who changed that?

The liturgy has never changed, it been translated. And that commitee is called the Magisterium, and when the Pope agrees with them as in V-II being an Ecumenical Council then it then becomes infallible.

Lay eucharistic ministers are Deacons, they don’t perform the consecration. I haven’t seen the laity do anything as such, you have?

What does Architecture have to do with anything?

There is no mistake in V-II. And I’ve extensively read it. The debates of kneeling not kneeling, receiving the Eucharist in the hand or not. I see no significance to it. In fact the Apostles received the Eucharist in their hands.

Mankind got ahead of himself and thought he knew more than the church. Thats all that happened.

And I thought that way, I grew up in V-I. Then I studied Pope Paul. Pretty hard to find fault, he was a “genius”. Pope Benedict XVI can’t find fault in his work. And he is one of the top 5-theologians in the world. Pope Paul was the advisor to Pope Pius XII. Pope John had a vision of the church without defining it, then passed away. Pope Paul was not bound to continue the V-II council at that point. However he had the ability not only to complete it but in two-years. And no-one has found fault in it. The only aspect is people get caught in a period of time, and don’t want it to change. And the church accomodated those also with the extrodinary mass.

The translation was perfect in every country except the US and spots in hispanic. Thus the change this past November.

 

[dcointin]

Whats the living tradition at the Apostles time? Who changed that?

The liturgy has never changed, it been translated. And that commitee is called the Magisterium, and when the Pope agrees with them as in V-II being an Ecumenical Coucil then it then becomes infallible.

Lay eucharistic ministers are Deacons, they don’t perform the consecration. I haven’t seen the laity do anything.

What does Architecture have to do with anything?

There is no mistake in V-II. And I’ve extensively read it. The debates of kneeling not kneeling, receiving the Eucharist in the hand or not. I see no significance to it. In fact the Apostles received the Eucharist in their hands.

Mankind got ahead of himself and thought he knew more than the church. Thats all that happened.

And I thought that way, I grew up in V-I. Then I studied Pope Paul. Pretty hard to find fault, he was a “genius”. Pope Benedict XVI can’t find fault in his work. And he is one of the top 5-theologians in the world. Pope Paul was the advisor to Pope Pius XII. Pope John had a vision of the church without defining it, then passed away. Pope Paul was not bound to continue the V-II council at that point. However he had the ability not only to complete it but in two-years. And no-one has found fault in it. The only aspect is people get caught in a period of time, and don’t want it to change. And the church accomodated those also with the extrodinary mass.

I’m really not here to argue the merits of the modern OF mass. If you’re happy with it, then by all means attend it. I’m personally not because its spirit is foreign to Orthodoxy.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m really not here to argue the merits of the modern OF mass. If you’re happy with it, then by all means attend it. I’m personally not because its spirit is foreign to Orthodoxy.

Whats the definition of Orthodoxy, what quantifys that statement? What makes a Mass valid?

How can anyone suggest the Apostles were wrong and then assume a Mass which appeared in “Constantines” period is more correct than the Apostles? I’m missing the thinking through inversion.

By the same logic then the Catholic Church must correct about everything for they have have been the only one to evolve with time.

 

[dcointin]

Whats the definition of Orthodoxy, what quantifys that statement? What makes a Mass valid?

How can anyone suggest the Apostles were wrong and then assume a Mass which appeared in “Constantines” period is more correct than the Apostles? I’m missing the thinking through inversion.

By the same logic then the Catholic Church must correct about everything for they have have been the only one to evolve with time.

Have fun at mass!

 

[BellsMom]

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.

I’m normally just a lurker but I had to post that this is very interesting! I wrote down the authors name so I can try to find some his writings. It sounds fascinating. Thanks for posting it.

Happy Christmas to everyone!

 

[Bev17243]

Why would an issue such as “non traditional church architecture, etc” affect your decision to be Catholic? That is petty.

as I mentioned to Nicea in pm, its not about church architecture

 

[Madaglan]

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.

For me, the decision was to remain Catholic or become Orthodox. The RCC has done well in sending missionaries around the world (I think of the Jesuits). Many of the Protestant churches also have done well in setting up missions.

Ultimately though, I could not square Catholic (or Protestant) beliefs with the life of the Church of the first millenium. I also was not convinced that Vatican II, the New Mass, the New Springtime, etc. were of God. Before I became Orthodox, I felt the new Catholicism (Catholicism post-Vatican II) was quite chintzy compared with what was Catholicism only 40 years before: the majestic Tridentine Mass, Gregorian Chant, traditional spirituality and liturgy. I could not fathom how what long was the standard for Catholicism suddenly became considered backward, formalistic and outdated, and was even prohibited by the bishops of the Catholic Church.

Because of all these internal conflicts in the Catholic Church and for other reasons, I did not know if the Catholic Church were the Church; but I became convinced that the Orthodox Church is the Church, the Church which continues to proclaim and pass down the Faith of Peter and the Apostles. I had considered becoming Eastern Catholic by change of sui iurus church, but since I saw the Latin Church as either heterodox or deeply flawed in beliefs, I could not do this.