Feeling drawn towards Orthodoxy

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pacloc said:
Another meaningless post. Do you want me to respond to you, because I really don’t want to. I fear that you will think it means I don’t have responses to your poor stabs if I don’t though. I said nothing of the Church’s stance on contraception implicitly. No Orthodox Saint has ever permitted artificial contraception. If you would like to derail the thread to this subject, I suggest you start a new thread instead.

I hope others will agree that your not trying “to be gentle” comes off as being obnoxious. I also am probably too bold and I hope that others can forgive my weakness and see the points I try to make in spite of it.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to beg you to retort, as I can’t play both offense and defense. But a lot of your views on Catholicism seem to be pretty shallow misconceptions.

But if you want to “take your ball and run home”, that’s fine with me. To each their own.
 
Yes in this case I would like to. I think it would be best for both of us for now.
 
And to be clear again, I understand that in both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches, sadly the majority of parishioners do nothing close to what either Church teach as vital to the faith. I am talking about the minority in both cases. I understand that those that come to a forum to discuss things of God are probably in this minority, so I know that you take the faith more seriously than most. But even the mature in the Catholic Church do not have a bar that is set, but must make it up as they go. They may be lucky and so happen to have a parent or priest to help teach them the values that I was mentioning that the Orthodox consider vital to the faith, including prayer, fasting, and reading, but they might not. So yes we can attack each other on the average Catholic or Orthodox, but that doesn’t really get to the core of the Church they are a part of. In the Orthodox Church we would even say that these Orthodox who do not practice the faith are not really part of the Church fully.
 
pacloc said:
But even the mature in the Catholic Church do not have a bar that is set, but must make it up as they go. They may be lucky and so happen to have a parent or priest to help teach them the values that I was mentioning that the Orthodox consider vital to the faith, including prayer, fasting, and reading, but they might not.
Click to expand...
These things are very present in the Catholic faith. And they’re basic. I read about these very things in my RCIA. They’re part of actually being Catholic.
In the Orthodox Church we would even say that these Orthodox who do not practice the faith are not really part of the Church fully.
Click to expand...
The age-old question of “How much is enough?” Every faith has it.
 
Last edited:
pacloc said:
Can you show me some examples of where Roman Catholic Churches teach fasting and prayers for preparation for communion
Click to expand...
We covered that in my instruction. Some instruction may be lacking, but not all is.
pacloc said:
I was also talking about how there are no services before the Mass to prepare. It seems that they have either done away with the “Vigil” service that is done in Orthodox Churches or never had this custom which I highly doubt.
Click to expand...
I think all abbeys would have vespers. As for the typical parish they do not seem to have them. It is unfortunate, but we also need more priests.
pacloc said:
I went to the best Catholicism had to offer in my City and heard all kinds of heresy, unintentional heresy, but it clearly shows the allowance for individual interpretation to be taught.
Click to expand...
Almost any homily given on the Blessed Trinity has inadvertent heresy. But other than that I don’t hear heresy. I don’t think the average Catholic does either.
pacloc said:
And finally, if you say that the Roman Catholic Church does not need to keep close to the ancient practice to be authoritative, you clearly are at odds with how we as Orthodox believe. To not keep the ancient practices is to cease to be part of the Church. A Theologian is one who prays, and one who prays is a Theologian.
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by ancient practice. If you mean having the sacraments then yes, you need to keep to that, as Catholics do. If you mean having specific words for a Liturgy then you don’t.
 
Vonsalza said:
The age-old question of “How much is enough?” Every faith has it.
Click to expand...
That is what the Judgment is for. A priest might know the signs that things are not looking good for his sheep, and try to warn them. We as fellow servants do not know about others’ spiritual condition, and not even full our own, so we should be in fear and beg for God’s mercy as often as we can. This doesn’t change the fact of what I stated though. Those that do not practice the Faith are not fully part of the Church, because the Church is the Body of Christ which is Holy.
 
I understand and I get where you are coming from. I just left the Episcopal Church for the LCMS. The LCMS is messy in some parts and in some parishes (church growth movement, non-liturgical worship, absence of law/gospel preaching, lack of reverence for the Sacrament of the Altar, etc.), but it was a trade I deemed worth it. My parish is pretty solidly confessional and liturgical and I am so thankful for my local parish. Honestly, these are struggles that pretty much every traditional liturgical church is dealing with in some fashion or form, especially in America. The Episcopal Church has become so messy that one could write a book on it and I’m not sure it can ever come back. I say that with no sense of pride or self-righteousness, but with great sadness.

To get back on track, as exnihilo said, just make sure you are aware of the ‘warts’ of Orthodoxy before you jump. It sounds like you are very sincere and I have no doubt you are doing the research. I wish you blessings on your journey and I hope my cautions are taken in a way that is not meant to discourage you.
 
exnihilo said:
Almost any homily given on the Blessed Trinity has inadvertent heresy. But other than that I don’t hear heresy. I don’t think the average Catholic does either.
Click to expand...
Yes this is the type of heresy I was speaking about I suppose. The priest was claiming that Jesus Christ did not know that He was God or the Son of God for the years leading up to the age 12. But you can undo so much of the whole point of Christianity and the Incarnation by not understanding some very important basics. Believe it or not, the Fathers taught that the knowledge of these revealed truths on the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, as small as they really are in comparison to their great unknowability, were vital for all Christians to learn, and to deviate from them was a very large sin. So it is wiser to not speak than to speak about these things incorrectly. Martyrs were killed for standing for doctrines that people today don’t even know about. St. Maximus the Confessor had his hand and tongue cut off because he would not stop preaching against the heresy that Christ only had one will. Others died for the same cause.
 
Last edited:
I have also heard of some Baptists making the jump to Orthodoxy. It’s just amazing that so many converts to Orthodoxy come from the Missouri Synod. It is apparently such a big deal that the Orthodox have written articles on it and it, like I mentioned previously, was covered at a confessional Lutheran conference. From what I understand, the folks that leave do so mainly because of the liturgy. I have yet to come into contact with one of these non-liturgical church growth parishes, but I know they are out there… shudder 🙂

I suspect that you are correct for the reasons they go to Orthodoxy over Catholicism. I imagine that the big stumbling blocks are, like you pointed out, the Papacy and the many dogmas.
 
Last edited:
We ought to be grateful that regardless of the denomination, people are coming to recognise the truth of the apostolic faith.

People are converting to Orthodoxy, and we ought to rejoice. They are coming to receive the sacraments, the deposit of faith, and the fulness of doctrine that they couldn’t receive in the Protestant community.

It is our job, now, to show the fulness of faith that they can receive and help shorten the schism that unfortunately exists between us. The Papacy is a divinely instituted office - so now we have this obligation to reconcile the West with the East.

Just remember that we are one family. The Orthodox are exemplary in their utter piety and reverence, and devotion to the truth of God.
 
im very pissed off, i got my father with parkinson, my mom injured her back, my uncle ALS …uffff. And i can not find the true chuch i mean im in RC but its too liberal…to many marxisim infiltrated i dont know what to do…i cry everyday
 
1.The Apostles Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome and commissioned successors there. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm1

My Reply: I don’t think any Orthodox deny this.

2.The successors of Peter and Paul at Rome have consistently asserted their authority over the entire worldwide church, which has been met with only sporadic opposition. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm
https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/6nu9nc/apologetics_1st_millennium_opposition_to_the_pope

My Reply: Sure, they have “asserted” this authority. The opposition has been far from “sporadic.” Most of the time, the other Apostolic Sees politely ignored Old Rome, as one does when a brother says something objectionable and offensive.

3.The tradition of the Eastern Orthodox is built primarily on the church of Constantinople. The “pentarchy” is a myth that was invented in the second millennium by Eastern Orthodox apologists.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/6phw3k/can_someone_point_me_toward_some_good_resources

My Reply: And the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church is the Latin Rite, steeped in it’s language and culture. A few other “Rites” have been picked up along the way, but let’s not pretend that there is some kind of parity. This argument is actually used by Non-Chalcedonian Christians (Copts, et al) against both us and you, in their saying that they alone have preserved the true diversity of practice in the early centuries. Asserting it was invented doesn’t make it so.

4.Constantinople’s only claim to apostolic succession is that Saint Andrew visited there. But that doesn’t distinguish Constantinople from any of the other cities that were visited by the apostles.

My Reply: This sort of nastiness is also directed against Antioch in Catholic polemics in trying to knock their claim as a Petrine See. I don’t think your Pope or anybody in your hierarchy disputes Constantinople’s ties to St. Andrew.

5.Constantinople had no significance for the first 300 years of the Church. Meanwhile the Bishop of Rome was settling church-wide disputes from the 1st Century.

My Reply: Old Rome was held in high esteem once. No Orthodox dispute this either. There is no need to try and tear down the Church of Byzantium (Constantinople’s predecessor).

6.Constantinople’s only claim to importance is that the Roman Emperor chose it as the new imperial capital in 4th Century. The Byzantines even stated this expressly as their justification for trying to elevate Constantinople to a patriarchate in the 2nd and 4th ecumenical councils.

My Reply: And Old Rome didn’t use it’s Imperial pedigree? If we want to play this game, Jeruselem should be the rightful first See (an argument could be made that perhaps that should indeed have been the case)
 
7.Rome correctly rebutted every first millennium heresy1. Constantinople fell for almost every first millennium heresy and had to be brought back each time by Rome.

My Reply: This is a very creative interpretation of History. Old Rome kept the faith, and the See of Constantinople did fall into Heresy at times. To say it had to be “Brought back by Rome” is stretching it, as it totally discounts the internal forces at work combatting the Heresy, as well the internal dynamics of the Empire. I would encourage a good reading of the history behind the intrigues in Constantinople, it certainly rivals anything you would read about Italian politics.

8.The first millennium Church universally acknowledged Rome as the head of all churches1.

My Reply: We acknowledge that Old Rome held the Primacy of place in the Great Synod of Churches. A primacy that could be likened to the Dean of the College of Cardinals. The problem comes in that Old Rome started to entertain ideas of supremacy, which is a whole different thing and rejected by the other Apostolic Sees.

9.Rome and Constantinople negotiated reunion at the Council of Lyon in 1274 and at the Council of Florence in 1439. Rome has continued to abide by the terms of these councils, but the Eastern Orthodox subsequently rejected both of them, and excommunicated the Roman Catholic Church and all who agree with it.

My Reply: These Councils were forced on the Orthodox by desperate Emperors trying to save an Empire that had Muslim Armies at Constantinople’s doorstep. Reunion was only a reality within the capital city itself, and even there there were disputes. The desperation of the Imperial court is a sad chapter. It is no credit to the Western powers, who used this desperation to force this false union, which was rejected en masse by the Faithful before the ink was even dry.
 
10.After the Council of Florence in 1439, the Eastern Orthodox were dominated by the Ottoman and Russian Empires, both of which did not want their subjects loyal to Roman Catholicism. So the Ottoman Sultan and Russian Czar chose anti-Catholic leaders for the Eastern Orthodox churches. After Constantinople was conquered by the Ottomans, the Ottoman Sultan personally selected the patriarch of Constantinople and gave him authority over all Eastern Orthodox Christians in Ottoman territory.

My Reply: Another creative interpretation of history, which would ring true except for one thing: The Ottomans and Russians were rivals and mortal enemies. If the political angle were true, the Turks would have forced a break of communion with Moscow also, which did not happen (or vice versa). Russians established monasteries on Mt. Athos (an Ottoman territory at the time) and Russian hierarchs and faithful participated in the religious life of the Ottoman Empire, and vice versa. The Jesuits were very active in the territories of the Ottoman Empire, with many political intrigues. The history is much more complicated and nuanced.

11.Eastern Orthodox theology is based on a modern innovation, the “essence-energies distinction”, which was invented by Constantinople in the 14th Century.

My Reply: Utter Nonsense
40.png
The Essence-Energies Distinction Philosophy
I visited the website of Byzantine Catholic Seminary of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, and looked at some of their courses offered. It seems the essence-energies distinction is part of there curriculum (but part of a larger course). I can’t say definitively they teach it as an authentic expression of their theology, but it wouldn’t make much sense to touch that subject at all if it was considered NOT a part of there theology (same way seminarians don’t study reformed theology). So at least in Easter…
Click to expand...
Here is the thread where knowledgable people attempted to explain it to you (I am a longtime lurker and was following that thread) but you are being obtuse, whether it is due to ignorance or because you have an axe to grind against Orthodoxy I will let readers judge that.

12.The Filioque is the historic teaching1 of the eastern Church Fathers.1

My Reply: The Filoque is total heresy in Greek. Why would the Eastern Fathers be conversing in Latin? Latin is not the be all end all language, and one could argue that the Filoque is Orthodox, if you put an asterix by it and footnote the crap out of it with detailed explanations. Why go throught that? The Creed is clear as is, sans unauthorized additions.
 
13.The current “autocephalous” structure of the Eastern Orthodox is a modern innovation forced upon Constantinople by rebellious Eastern European countries in the 19th Century. Going back to the year 381, Constantinople had asserted itself as the head of the eastern churches (based on a claim to the military and political authority of the Byzantine Empire).

My Reply: That is news to the Church of Georgia and Cyprus to name just two, who were granted that status centuries before the rebellion against the Turks. Just because that status was wiped out by war or imperialism doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. Moscow lost their Patriarch for a few centuries due to politics, it didn’t mean they were not entitled to one. Again, creative interpretations of history.

14.The Eastern Orthodox is only one of many schismatic sects that broke off from the Catholic Church in the east. There are also the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East.

My Reply: Why bring the Nestorians and Non-Chalcedonians into this? That would be like me bringing up the SSPX, Old Catholics and Polish Catholics in some half-cocked attempt to discredit you.

15.Read “The Orthodox Eastern Church” by Father Adrian Fortescue2.

My Reply: Read the works of Father John Romanides. See what I did there? We could do that all day.

15.Saint Jerome said it best…

My Reply: Ripping a Quote out of context is the worst kind of apologetics. You’re going to have to do better than that.
 
One could argue that the discord in Roman Catholicism (which is papered over) by paying lip service to Papal Authority is much deeper and far more reaching.
 
Forgive me, this is a little bizaar to assert. We are not “confused.”

We reject the Immaculate Conception because as you said we reject the Western doctrine of Original Sin. At best, we consider it superfluous. “Sexual Acts” have nothing to do with it, as the Holy Spirit goes where he wills and does what he wills.
 
Your use of the word govern is the key word. That goes to the heart of the matter, in what “Unity” means. I can go to any parish in Russia and confess and commune. The same with Greece, Serbia, et al. I can Confess and Commune in any Canonical Orthodox Church in the world.

You mention the “Oriental Orthodox.” The Non-Chalcedonians are not a part of us, as they are not a part of you. Communion was broken on the 400s. At the risk of sounding like an anti-Ecumenist crank, they are not Orthodox (they have Orthodox practices and are very close to us, but the issues between us are very real, and have everything to do with their rejection of Chalcedon. Their church fathers were anathemized by name in subsequent Ecumenical Councils. How to re-establish communion with that reality? The burning question and one I will not venture to answer).

Ethnophyletism (Nationalism above all) was condemned by the Church in a Synod (despite what Catholics believe, we have held multiple Synods over the centuries. They are not “Ecumenical” because the Ecumene (Empire) no longer exists. These Synods are universally accepted despite this. We have Independent Church bodies because that is how it was historically possible to maintain proper ecclesiology. Roman Catholicism also had a “Nationalist problem” Your papacy was wedded to Italian politics for centuries, and the Imperial Veto wasn’t abolished until the 20th Century. How is that different?

The “Ukrainian Orthodox Church” is uncanonical and nobody is in communion with it. That would be like me throwing the SSPX, Old Catholics and Polish Catholics to prove something. But as you would quickly assert, it proves nothing. Right.
 
You want some sort of top down pronouncement? That isn’t how traditional Ecclesiology functions. The Papal Supremacy model is an innovation that didn’t come to fruition until later centuries. We have not held such a council because we are actually open to re-establish communion, with conditions. Why create additional stumbling blocks to reconciliation, which is what such a council would do (look at the Non-Chalcedonians (Copts, et al) Their church fathers were condemned by name in Ecumenical Councils. How to re-establish communion with that on the books?)

The politics between Moscow and Constantinople is well established. Brothers fight. Communion has not been broken, and Commemorations continue. This is the only marker of Unity in the Faith. Catholics mistaken political or temporal “union” for the real thing. We share the same Faith, and believe the same things. Our squabbles are turf wars and political. Yours, I’m afraid are matters of Faith. As long as one pays lip service to Papal Authority, one can do all sorts of questionable things. Is that Unity?

The issue of American Orthodoxy is a tragic by product of the Russian Revolution. It is being sorted out, slowly (as is always the case with us).

You’re right though, Orthodoxy has it’s own issues and one should not romanticize anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top