Converting to Eastern Orthodoxy

[Epistemes]

It’s funny - at a time when I could be reading the Dietrich Bonhoeffer books which I just recently purchased, I’m sitting here wondering what church I should belong to, which is especially funny due to the lack of discipleship I’ve given to Jesus or God, period. I’ve been willfully disobedient for nearly six months and am only now coming to terms with what that means for the next six months…if anything. I know I need confession, but more than confession I need to learn to tell myself “no” more often than I do!

Having recently read Hans Kung’s “On Being a Christian,” I’ve been motivated once again to follow Jesus. This time around, taking my lead from Kung, getting involved in ecumenism, attending to the similarities between the churches, would be a positive step in the right direction to leading a life similar what Jesus preached. It seems like all I’ve done in the past is read more and more books by Catholics for Catholics thus leaving myself entirely ignorant of the other churches, aside from my education in Byzantine Christianity which I picked up in undergrad. I decided the next natural steps would be to pick up some books by the other churches, which is why now am reading Bonhoeffer (whom I enjoy). With the imminent release of the Orthodox Study Bible, by the Eastern Orthodox who’s who, I decided it couldn’t hurt to learn how the Eastern Orthodox interpret Scripture.

My excitement for this version of the Bible has prompted me to join a couple of internet discussion boards, similar to CAF. I mostly wanted to find out about the release of the Study Bible and when I could expect it in the mail. I realized that my excitement for this Study Bible was mentally prompting me to utilize it as my primary Bible when it arrived!

Excuse me while I shift the focus of this post for just a bit…

I don’t especially like the papacy, I don’t particularly care for Benedict XVI, and if he ever pronounced anything *ex cathedra *then I probably would heed such a call. This isn’t just something I’m saying in the wake of my excitement for a Study Bible: it’s a general feeling I’ve always had. I recognize the importance of the papacy during particular historical periods, and perhaps my thoughts would be different had I joined the Tiber Swim Team during the pontificate of a Gregory the Great or John XXIII who were true sheperds of the sheep, but, as it stands, the primacy of Peter means zip, zero, zilch to me - and, trust me, I’ve read many of the apologetical arguments in defense of such primacy. Apologetics would do very little because I don’t think I ever carefully acknowledged the Pope. I doubt that I ever will.

Why did I endure RCIA all those months in order to become Catholic?

The beacon that governs Protestants is the Bible; the beacon that governs Catholics is the Magisterium; the beacon that governs the Orthodox is Tradition.

As I mentioned, during my undergrad years, I spent my time studying the roots of early Christianity - especially early Byzantine Christianity. The ante-Nicene Fathers right up through John Damascene formed the crux of my introduction to Christianity. Gregory of Nyssa’s “Life of Moses” remains, in my mind, one of the greatest spiritual treatises ever written. And so, when I reflect on what Christianity means to me, personally, it is the Tradition shared by apostles, the Fathers, the Mothers, and by the faithful today.

Catholics can also lay claim to this Tradition; but I honestly believe the Orthodox Church has preserved it far better than the Latin Church based upon my own studies. In fact, I’ve always felt in my heart of hearts that the Orthodox Church was greater than the Catholic Church. I knew by converting to Catholicism thatI wasn’t converting to the True Church…but it was close enough, right? In my discerning whether or not I wanted to be a Catholic or not, the realities of canon law, the papacy, or the Magisterium never occurred to me as things, in their own right, to consider.

Tradition is dangerous, though. I’ve spent far too much time on Islamic discussion boards harping about the dangers of traditionalism and how such traditionalism impedes modernization and essential progress that I think I would be a hypocrite if I allowed myself to let such traditionalism dictate my spiritual life. I personally feel that Vatican II may have been one of the greatest successes to happen within the Church. I feel proud to belong to a Church with an entirely more open, more democratic atmosphere than before - even though I would not personally know a “before.”

I remain Catholic because I remain tied to my parish, the people there who know and recognize me, and those who even care about me. And I remain Catholic because I realize that I’m not a traditionalist, even though I paradoxically love Tradition. And, lastly, but most weak of all, I remain Catholic because there is no astounding Orthodox community close to me.

In truth, ever since reading Kung’s book, “On Being a Christian,” I can identify why I want to be a Christian - but I can no longer identify why I want to be Catholic because as much as I’m opposed to traditionalism, I’m equally opposed to authoritarianism.

 

[brigid12]

Today Catholic Answers Radio had on the priest traveling with Cardinal Schoenborn (I hope I spelled his name right). He grew up in the Orthodox church in the Ukraine, he was not allowed to be an Eastern Catholic. When communism fell in his country he converted and is very glad! He suggested to a caller who wondered about the early eastern fathers regarding papal primacy that they read a book on that by Bishop K. Ware (Orthodox), he even has writings confirming their belief in the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as early as the Didache! He says that is the main difference now between the Orthodox and Catholics (the filoque had been, but after really listening to each other over a number of years of dialogue, they found that they were meaning much the same thing). The other major difference is the Immaculate Conception, although he says that belief is implicitly there in their liturgies.

I would also suggest that, if there is one in your area, that you check out an Eastern Catholic mass. Maybe that is the reason you converted to Catholicism earlier.

I think that, if it’s not a ploy by ****** to get you not to think about Christ, that you need to decide what you believe and where you “fit” before thinking about ecuminism.:byzsoc:

 

[Epistemes]

I’m sort of shocked by the lack of replies to this thread. I’m not saying I composed all of the above to receive attention - but threads such as these typically do receive more attention!

Regardless, thank you **brigid **for your response. I composed something similar over at a fairly popular Eastern Orthodox message board, and somebody basically asked me to reflect on the sort of things which you ask me to do, as well - namely, where I spiritually fit. As he says, there must be a reason why I initially decided upon Roman Catholicism instead of Eastern Orthodoxy back when I did make the decision to convert.

I think the suggestion to concentrate on my own spiritual life before getting involved with ecumenism is probably the best advice I’ve heard yet!

 

[Stratiotes]

OK - a generalization is not good but it does seem to fit in many respects in my mind. Dr. Scott Hahn got me started thinking about this. He observed that most Protestant churches were rather Spartan in their interior and he attributed that to the fact that they had lost their mother. Mothers give us an appreciation for beauty and family unity and Protestants who tend to ignore Mary miss those attributes. On the other hand, when he realized he was going to convert and was deciding between Orthodox/Catholic, he observed that it was as if the Orthodox had lost their father…they had the beauty and all the attractions that a mother brings but they had not the logical discipline and preciseness of a father in their theology. I have returned to that analogy from time to time and it does seem to make a lot of sense.

I enjoy reading Orthodox theology but, there are times where it does tend to be rather “fluid” and not really saying much. The attempt to understand God for what he is not rather than for what He is seems opposite to my western-influenced mind. I’m not sure if that’s entirely a cultural issue or if it is a valid concern that you want to consider in your determination. Its something that helped me decide but, again, it may just be my cultural glasses in that particular point.

 

[Magicsilence]

In truth, ever since reading Kung’s book, “On Being a Christian,” I can identify why I want to be a Christian - but I can no longer identify why I want to be Catholic because as much as I’m opposed to traditionalism, I’m equally opposed to authoritarianism.

Epistemes,

Since the issue is, and always is, the papacy, perhaps I could pose something for you to chew on?

If the papacy is true, you know where to go.

If the papacy is not true, do you know where to go?

The Eastern Orthodox Church certainly possesses a great liturgy, and their reverence for the Eucharist is certainly much closer to what it should be in contrast to that found within some Catholic Churches.

But, there is also a Coptic Orthodox Church, part of the Oriental Orthodox Church branch, and the sometimes labelled ‘Orthodox’ Assyrian Church of the East. Moreover, throughout history various others schisms have broken from the Church.

Can one ascertain the ‘true’ Church through rigorous academic study? Is the truth of God’s Church reserved for historians?

Can you distinguish between the different Orthodox Churches? Why one over the other? Do you know their varied stances on Catholic baptism? Or their (potentially Semi-Palagian) views on original sin? Perhaps the distinction between mortal/venial sin (or the lack of).

Have you studied the complexities involved in their decision to allow contraception? Is their allowance of divorce and remarriage biblical, or a concession that has crept into a group of believers that split off from God’s Church?

Can you comprehend the evident honour and primary place the Bishop of Rome has always held, even if only with reference to the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils from an Orthodox point of view without being intellectually shady?

Peace and God Bless!