Feeling drawn towards Orthodoxy

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thephilosopher6

Guest
For the last 2 months I have really been feeling drawn to the Orthodox Church. I’ve been thinking about maybe visiting an Orthodox parish to experience the divine liturgy. Admittedly, there are some things in the Catholic faith I have been struggling with. This does not mean I am going to leave the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church but… I can’t say that I haven’t felt tempted to do so. Their liturgy and spirituality is so amazing, and sure we have Eastern Catholics, but they’re such a small part of the Church and it just feels watered down at times. Does anyone have advice for me?
 
There is overwhelming evidence supporting Roman Catholicism against Eastern Orthodoxy:

Part One:
  1. The Apostles Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome and commissioned successors there. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
  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
  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
  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.
  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.
  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.
  7. Rome correctly rebutted every first millennium heresy. Constantinople fell for almost every first millennium heresy and had to be brought back each time by Rome.
  8. The first millennium Church universally acknowledged Rome as the head of all churches.
 
Part Two:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Eastern Orthodox theology is based on a modern innovation, the “essence-energies distinction”, which was invented by Constantinople in the 14th Century.
  4. The Filioque is the historic teaching of the eastern Church Fathers.
  5. 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).
  6. 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.
  7. Read “The Orthodox Eastern Church” by Father Adrian Fortescue.
 
Last edited:
Part Three:
  1. Saint Jerome said it best:
Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, woven from the top throughout, since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover the sealed fountain and the garden inclosed, I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. The wide space of sea and land that lies between us cannot deter me from searching for the pearl of great price. Wheresoever the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together. Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact. The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold; but here the seed grain is choked in the furrows and nothing grows but darnel or oats. In the West the Sun of righteousness is even now rising; in the East, Lucifer, who fell from heaven, has once more set his throne above the stars. You are the light of the world, you are the salt of the earth, you are vessels of gold and of silver. Here are vessels of wood or of earth, which wait for the rod of iron, and eternal fire.
Click to expand...
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001015.htm
 
You won’t be hurting anyone by attending an Orthodox parish. If you decide at some point to become an Orthodox you have every right to do so. People enjoy different forms of worship. Go where your instinct is leading you.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
we have Eastern Catholics, but they’re such a small part of the Church and it just feels watered down at times. Does anyone have advice for me?
Click to expand...
Why in the world does it feel “watered down?” The discord amongst the different Orthodox state churches is something that reinforces my Catholicism.
 
Have you been asking questions around here regarding the things you are struggling with? Could you share some of those things in this thread? Do you currently attend the OF or the EF? What part of the Faith feels watered down to you?
 
If I were you, I’d ask a Catholic priest about the struggles. He could help you I’d wager.

Although they have a valid Eucharist, the Orthodox aren’t the Church our Lord and Savior founded. The one true Church is the Catholic Church.
 
Last edited:
I am also in the same position, feeling drawn to Orthodoxy. I feel my conversion to Roman Catholic was a big step in the right direction, but am atruggling with feeling Orthodoxy is the final destination.

Some of the things I struggle most in accepting in Catholic doctrine are things that are rejected by the Orthodox. I will not go into greater detail posting on my phone at this time.
 
I have contacted the Orthodox priest from my local church and plan to meet with him soon to dicuss the Orthodox faith.
 
My struggles will not be resolved in an Eastern Catholic Church.

They are Catholic Theology related.
 
Last edited:
Hard to go into detail on the phone, off the top of my head Papal infallibility, the imaculate comception of the Virgin Mary, the concept of original sin and how it is understood.
 
You might want to do a little research on the priest however. There are stories of people seeking to come into the Catholic Church and are disuaded to doing so by liberal priests.
 
While a good attempt to eplain the subjects, it is far from the angle I am coming from. I will try to find time to post from my computer tomotrow, as this phone thing does not allow me to express myself well.
 
One would be mistaken to assume there is unity in Orthodoxy. Orthodox patriarchates are independent from each other, with no central authority to govern the whole. Each is “territorial” and “ethnic”. So, one might find, e.g., an Eastern Orthodox parish somewhere, but it will be nearly all Eastern European of one nationality or another. Outside Eastern Europe, it would be Oriental Orthodox, who differ from Eastern Orthodox, and the latter parishes would be made up almost entirely of people from the Middle EAst or North AFrica…

There are also differences between the Russian patriarchy (the great majority) and that of Constantinople. Within that is a “source of authority” of a sort; being the monks of Mount Athos. A few years ago, there was a conflict between the Greek government and the monks, which was largely a religious dispute. Again, one has to remember that the Orthodox churches are very much “married” to a particular nationality, and there are varying degrees of church influence on the state, and vice versa.

Nationalism is a very important aspect of Orthodoxy, and it can be problematic. So, for example, there is a Ukrainian Orthodox church that claims, by reason of being in Ukraine, to be independent of Moscow. But Moscow stoutly denies the legitimacy of that church, claiming that Ukraine should be under the authority of the patriarch of Moscow alone, not that of Kiev. Kiev considers the Moscow Patriarchate a “tool” of Putin and Russian imperialism. Needless to say, that dispute is not likely to be resolved.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
One would be mistaken to assume there is unity in Orthodoxy…
Click to expand...
Good post.

Because of their structure, it’s devilishly hard for the Orthodox to address a question in an authoritative way. For example, many Orthodox claim that they can never be in union with Rome for a set of reasons, but I’ve also never seen a post-schism council that unambiguously declares that 1. Rome has fallen from the “true” Church and 2. meets their own standards as genuinely ecumenical (and thus authoritatively binding on the whole of Orthodoxy).

They also have their own power struggles within the Church. The Patriarch of Constantinople currently sits in the seat of primacy, but more Orthodox are under the Patriarch of Moscow than all other Orthodox combined. This makes situations where the two patriarchs disagree on something extremely uncomfortable, to say the least. The one that controls the power de jure is not the same as the one that controls the power de facto. Reminds me of the Japanese Emperor and the more-powerful Japanese Shogun.

Then we have the “American Problem”. In order for Orthodoxy to bloom in America, there would need to be an American Orthodox Church (OC) in the same way there is a Greek OC, Russian OC or any other. And the Russians, to their credit, even tried to get this going a few decades back.
Why did it fail?
Money. Those Antiochians (and virtually all others) are very concerned that the much-needed financial patronage that makes its way to the “old world” from their American satellites would dry up if the American OC ever became a reality. As such, the reputation of Orthodoxy in America always being an “immigrant church” rather than a native church is going to continue, unfortunately.

Perhaps you like it because you think it’s a little new and exotic to you? Like how we all felt about a new love-interest when we were young?
If you stick with that love-interest, you’ll eventually discover they fart in their sleep just like real people do. Similarly, you’ll discover Orthodoxy has issues of its own if you stick with it long enough.
 
Last edited:
Hi Ridgerunner,

You’re right about Orthodoxy. While I’m leaning on the Orthodox side, I experienced the nationalism and also a vague answers of stuff.

I have always studied at a Catholic school. I was raised to pray in Catholic way at school, but in a Protestant way at home (I was a kid, didn’t know the difference other than crossing or not crossing myself).

While I love Orthodox liturgy, sometime I think that I don’t fit in.
 
Vonsalza said:
In order for Orthodoxy to bloom in America, there would need to be an American Orthodox Church (OC) in the same way there is a Greek OC, Russian OC or any other. And the Russians, to their credit, even tried to get this going a few decades back.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that it’s more faceted than that. The Moscow Patriarchate claims jurisdiction over all of the Americas due to Russian orthodox having set up missions long ago in Alaska. Never mind that Columbus’ missionaries were here before that. The same is true of the Philippines because of Russian missionaries who went into continental Asia at some point in history. To Catholics that doesn’t matter too much except that the hard core R.O. claim that the Catholic Church shouldn’t be in Asia or the Americas at all.

But that same claim would bar the Constantinople E.O., Antiochan, O.O., etc, etc. I would not expect the R.O. to endorse an American Patriarchate any more than I would expect it to accept the Ukrainian Patriarchate, to which it is vehemently opposed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top