Feeling drawn towards Orthodoxy

[An1OrthodoxChristian]

“I think you’re right. But I also think that we have different ideas as to how WE THINK the other party understands it, as well.”

My Reply: You could be right. However, my general point still stands, as does my question: What are Orthodox supposed to think about the perogatives that the Pope claims for himself? You can talk about the “limitations” on Papal power all you like, but the fact is that there is no mechanism to correct a Pope or remove a bad one. How does this not make the subordinate bishops into mere suffragans or auxilaries? They can be removed or installed by the Pope at will. The Eastern Catholics are another sad example. Why do their practices “require” Papal approval? It is only in the last century that they finally began to receive the official respect they deserved. Even now they are still viewed in some Catholic circles as crypto-Orthodox and with suspicion. This is no small thing.

"My only point there was that the liturgy makes no specific references to specific Orthodox. As such, arguments from silence are worthless.

You and I assume, reasonably, what groups it includes. But I’m sure we also agree that there are groups out there that disagree, or think they’re included and aren’t by the views of some Orthodox.

The Orthodox share schismatic borders with more than just the Catholics, I’m sure we agree."

My Reply: Patriarchs commemorate each other, Metropolitans commemorate their Patriarch, priests commemorate their Bishop. As far as the OCA is concerned, they are not excluded from anything. They just aren’t treated as an Autocephalous Church. If they attend any Pan-Orthodox events, they are grouped with the Russian Church and treated as clerics under Moscow.

Yes, there are schismatic groups. In the Russian Church there are the Old Believers and in the Greek Churches you have the Old Calendarists. They are a small group, and on the fringes. Both Moscow and Constantinople (Athens as well) has attempted to reconcile these groups. What they think is irrelevant to who is Canonical and who is not. The Ukrainian “Patriarchate” is in communion with NO ONE and is viewed universally as an uncanonical fringe group (although they have some sympathizers among anti-Moscow partisans). We don’t need a Council to declare them (or you for that matter) outside the fold. They are not commemorated, and their clerics are excluded from any Liturgical celebrations, which for us Orthodox is THE marker of Unity. I think this is another instance where Orthodox and Catholic have very different mindsets when it comes to what exactly constitutes “Unity” and how that “Unity” manifests itself.

"In the same vein, read the other posts by folks like my self that were absolutely elated by “the breath of fresh air”.

Whenever there is change, no matter how minute, there will always be people unhappy with it. Such is life."

My Reply: This goes beyond mere “unhappiness.” “Breath of fresh air?” What does that even mean?

“No numbers game played. Just pointing out how richly and unambiguously the Lord has blessed His Church. That’s all.”

My Reply: Why bring up size at all?

 

[An1OrthodoxChristian]

“He can’t change the deposit of faith.”

My Reply: There is that again. “The Deposit of Faith.” What does that even mean? What are the boundaries of the “Deposit of Faith?” What is in the Creed? The first seven Ecumenical councils? (Which we also hold to).

“Again, if you go to a parish that want to be “All Tridentine, all the Time”, no one is going to stop you. No one is going to stop the parish. So I’m not super-sure what your problem is, here.”

My Reply: My problem, from the Orthodox POV is how one bishop decided to unilaterally change your Liturgy. For us, The Liturgy is the heart and center of Christian practice and worship. EVERYTHING flows from this. In our tradition, it is said a Christian lives from “Sunday to Sunday” as every Sunday is a “mini-Pascha” (Easter). Your traditionalists are not wrong when they say that changing the Liturgy changed everything, because as I pointed out:

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. The changing of the Liturgy in the way that you all did is, from our POV a horror, something to cause one to rend their garments like the Jews of old.

"And calling the NO as fresh from the drawing board is objectively wrong. Any detached anthropologist that looks at the two would be able to identify the myriad of similarities and conclude that the differences pertain exclusively to form rather than function.

Calling them radically different is just mind-blowingly incorrect."

My Reply: I never said they were radically different. My point is that treating your Liturgy in that way is from our POV offensive. Ironically, Vatican II was purposed to bring you closer to us, but in reality it pushed you further away.

“No, I think you’re making a point that can’t really be made in that particular case.”

My Reply: One bishop was never meant to have this power in our belief. This is the heart of the matter.

 

[An1OrthodoxChristian]

"Since the canonization of papal infallibility 150 years ago, I know of two; both pertaining to relatively innocuous Marian dogma.

His reach just isn’t as large as you pretend it to be. If it were, Vatican II would have never happened. The pope would have made his decrees and that would have been it. But Vatican II DID happen, even after the declaration of papal infallibility. So how do you interpret that?"

My Reply: And yet there are endless debates in your church about what is “infallible.” Is Humanae Vitae “infallible” teaching? It is headache inducing, the back and forth.

Vatican II happened because the Pope wished it. If he wanted to, he could have rejected every document that came out of the council and the only thing your bishops could do is acquiece in silence (and perhaps hope the Pope allowed another round). Humanae Vitae was the result of a Pope rejecting what he heard and putting out what he wanted (Catholics would argue that was a good thing, but again, he has this power to do so unilaterally).

Also, reading a history of Vatican I (the treatment of the Eastern Catholics in particular) does not shine a favorable light on the process as a whole.

"Look, the overwhelming majority of American Greek Orthodox aren’t Greek. The majority of the Russians aren’t Russian. Same goes with virtually any other nationalist Orthodox Church in America.

This is a problem and you know it. It holds Orthodoxy back in America as “the immigrant Church”.

In the 1970’s, the Russian Orthodox Church took some very gallant steps to right this. Constantinople (and every other OC that stood to lose serious American money) slapped it down."

My Reply: I never said it wasn’t a problem. To say it was about money is not the whole picture. Yes, the financial support of the Old World is a factor, but also there is the other factor of the maturity of the Church in America. To be candid, I strongly support the continued ties to the Old World, because those ties serve as a strong check on some problematic tendencies you find in America.

 

[An1OrthodoxChristian]

It is absolutely true that Modernism has been an issue with both of us. St. John Chrysostom was complaining about lukewarm Christians in his day. There truly is nothing new under the sun. What is different is how we reacted to this crisis.

“Rest assured, if Orthodoxy had a council where they were encouraged to talk about any issue without fear of punishment, the dissents would start going crazy with that freedom.”

There probably would be some of that, but the difference is that because of our decentralized structure, such a thing could be contained and not imposed from one Patriarchate. Any offending Bishops could be deposed, any offending priests defrocked, and if a whole Church defected, Communion would be severed and they would be cut off from Canonical Orthodoxy. Just another schism in the sad history of schisms in Christendom.

There were Orthodox observers at your Second Vatican Council. We learned the lessons of the aftermath very well, which is why our Council in Crete turned out the way it did.

 

[Vonsalza]

What are Orthodox supposed to think about the perogatives that the Pope claims for himself?

Well, for starters, I’m not aware of any power the pope has that isn’t also echoed in council. So as it pertains to any specific papal power that you dissent from, I know there is an ocean of literature written by excellent Catholic minds on the issue. You’re always free to reject, obviously, but it’s still there which testifies to the difficulty of objective refutation.

Additionally, the Catholic model fits the same model God has always used for his people in providing consistent leadership. In the Age of Patriarchs, there was the eldest first-born heir of Adam. Then Melchizedek (who was probably Shem of that same holy line) established a priesthood that employed a high priest. Then Christ came and appointed Peter as head of the apostles.

It’s the Orthodox that get a little weird when they claim that a meaningful headship ended there, for some inexplicable reason. Adam’s Heir, the High Priest and Peter were certainly not merely “primus inter pares”.

You can talk about the “limitations” on Papal power all you like, but the fact is that there is no mechanism to correct a Pope or remove a bad one.

Because it’s not possible for one to exist that could actually damage the deposit of faith. They come to be through the power of the Holy Spirit. Now they’re all men capable of sin, just like you and me. But they are preserved from destructive error just like the Apostles through the power of the Spirit.

So consider: What mechanism did you see put in place to remove an apostle (other than death)? I never saw one… (I did see Paul seek confirmation from Peter, though).

My Reply: …Patriarchs commemorate each other… Yes, there are schismatic groups… They are a small group, and on the fringes… What they think is irrelevant to who is Canonical and who is not.

Wait… I thought you didn’t like playing the numbers game?

They are not commemorated, and their clerics are excluded from any Liturgical celebrations, which for us Orthodox is THE marker of Unity. I think this is another instance where Orthodox and Catholic have very different mindsets when it comes to what exactly constitutes “Unity” and how that “Unity” manifests itself.

Any notion you hold that the Catholic Church behaves in a substantially different way on this matter is purely arbitrary. Almost comically so.

My Reply: This goes beyond mere “unhappiness.” “Breath of fresh air?” What does that even mean?

It’s a reference to a quote from Pope John XXIII, the pope that opened Vatican II, talking ABOUT Vatican II…

My Reply: Why bring up size at all?

You were stating the the Lord has blessed the Orthodox Church. I was merely stating He’s clearly blessed the Catholic Church too.

I can’t help but mention you played the same game above.

 

[An1OrthodoxChristian]

“Well, for starters, I’m not aware of any power the pope has that isn’t also echoed in council. So as it pertains to any specific papal power that you dissent from, I know there is an ocean of literature written by excellent Catholic minds on the issue. You’re always free to reject, obviously, but it’s still there which testifies to the difficulty of objective refutation.”

My Reply: And there is literature written by Orthodox minds offering rebuttals. I am content to let people check them out and discern for themselves.

“Additionally, the Catholic model fits the same model God has always used for his people in providing consistent leadership. In the Age of Patriarchs, there was the eldest first-born heir of Adam. Then Melchizedek (who was probably Shem of that same holy line) established a priesthood that employed a high priest. Then Christ came and appointed Peter as head of the apostles.”

My Reply: Again, we have different ideas of what this “headship” means.

“It’s the Orthodox that get a little weird when they claim that a meaningful headship ended there, for some inexplicable reason. Adam’s Heir, the High Priest and Peter were certainly not merely “primus inter pares”.”

My Reply: Your use of the word “meaningful” is key here. We have very different ideas of what a “meaningful” headship is. And nothing is “merely” in our practice.

“Because it’s not possible for one to exist that could actually damage the deposit of faith. They come to be through the power of the Holy Spirit. Now they’re all men capable of sin, just like you and me. But they are preserved from destructive error just like the Apostles through the power of the Spirit.”

My Reply: There it is again. “The Deposit of Faith.” What does that mean? What are the boundaries?

“So consider: What mechanism did you see put in place to remove an apostle (other than death)? I never saw one… (I did see Paul seek confirmation from Peter, though).”

My Reply: The 12 were unique. Since there was a mechanism for replacing one, it stands to reason that one could be removed as well if the need arose (This never happened, however).

“Wait… I thought you didn’t like playing the numbers game?”

My Reply: I’m not. Using them as some kind of proof is like me pointing to the SSPX, Old Catholics or Polish Catholics. It is irrelevant.

“Any notion you hold that the Catholic Church behaves in a substantially different way on this matter is purely arbitrary. Almost comically so.”

My Reply: But it is different. The Roman Pope is THE point of unity for you. As long as one pays lip service to the Pope’s authority or actually submits to it, the Nuns on the Bus and the FSSP can come to the same altar rail. This is mystifying.

“It’s a reference to a quote from Pope John XXIII, the pope that opened Vatican II, talking ABOUT Vatican II… ”

My Reply: I know where the quote came from. Unfortunately when you opened the window you let all kinds of other stuff in.

“You were stating the the Lord has blessed the Orthodox Church. I was merely stating He’s clearly blessed the Catholic Church too.”

My Reply: Very well.

 

[Vonsalza]

My Reply: And yet there are endless debates in your church about what is “infallible.” Is Humanae Vitae “infallible” teaching? It is headache inducing, the back and forth.

It’s also an irrelevant discussion. It requires the submission of the will just like any other Catholic teaching. The question of “infallibility” pertains to whether it can be changed or not. We don’t really know; we’re thinking about it - which is an answer any Orthodox should accept with intimate understanding.

A reasonable Orthodox analogue is the power of the Patriarch of Constantinople outside the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Did he actually have the authority to call for the sack the Patriarch of Jerusalem 10 years ago? The most exact answer you can give is “In this case, I guess? Even though it would have been better if a synod of Jerusalem’s bishops did it instead…” That seems to be what the Russians were saying, anyway. And what exactly did it mean when he signed the Ravenna Document? So the Bishop in Rome is now “Primus” again? Was there a council that declared he wasn’t in the first place? Was that council binding on all Orthodox, or just the signatories (the classic and quintessential flaw in Orthodoxy often disguised as “taking their time”)? Can the Roman bishop now call for the sacking of the next Patriarch of Jerusalem?

Makes my head spin too. :crazy_face:

My Reply: I never said it wasn’t a problem. To say it was about money is not the whole picture. Yes, the financial support of the Old World is a factor, but also there is the other factor of the maturity of the Church in America.

A classic non-answer, as it perfectly lacks any real observable way to know when the American Church ever meets the imagined standard - I’m sure by design.

But we agree, money is a very pertinent factor in the debate.

To be candid, I strongly support the continued ties to the Old World, because those ties serve as a strong check on some problematic tendencies you find in America.

So continues the “immigrant Church”…

Do you really think a historically Greek parish would cease all support of its mother simply because of autocephaly?

 

[Vonsalza]

My Reply: There it is again. “The Deposit of Faith.” What does that mean? What are the boundaries?

It’s perfectly analogous to the Orthodox concept of “Holy Tradition”.

“Vladimir Lossky has famously described the Tradition as “the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church.” It is dynamic in application, yet unchanging in dogma. It is growing in expression, yet ever the same in essence.” (from the wiki)

My Reply: The 12 were unique.

The pope’s unique.

My Reply: But it is different. The Roman Pope is THE point of unity for you.

No he isn’t.

CCC 813 The Church is one because of her source: "the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit."259 The Church is one because of her founder: for "the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men to God by the cross, . . . restoring the unity of all in one people and one body."260 The Church is one because of her “soul”: "It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church’s unity."261 Unity is of the essence of the Church:

My Reply: I know where the quote came from. Unfortunately when you opened the window you let all kinds of other stuff in.

Such as? Where is the error we created in V2?

 

[An1OrthodoxChristian]

“It’s also an irrelevant discussion. It requires the submission of the will just like any other Catholic teaching. The question of “infallibility” pertains to whether it can be changed or not. We don’t really know; we’re thinking about it - which is an answer any Orthodox should accept with intimate understanding.”

My Reply: You don’t know what can be changed and what can’t? I thought it was part of “The Deposit of Faith” that a Pope can’t change?

"A reasonable Orthodox analogue is the power of the Patriarch of Constantinople outside the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Did he actually have the authority to call for the sack the Patriarch of Jerusalem 10 years ago? The most exact answer you can give is “In this case, I guess? Even though it would have been better if a synod of Jerusalem’s bishops did it instead…” That seems to be what the Russians were saying, anyway. And what exactly did it mean when he signed the Ravenna Document? So the Bishop in Rome is now “Primus” again? Was there a council that declared he wasn’t in the first place? Was that council binding on all Orthodox, or just the signatories (the classic and quintessential flaw in Orthodoxy often disguised as “taking their time”)? Can the Roman bishop now call for the sacking of the next Patriarch of Jerusalem?

Makes my head spin too. :crazy_face:

My Reply: The situation of the Jeruselem Patriarchate is a sad one. It was a situation that called for the Ecumenical Patriarch’s involvement. As you say, it could have turned out better. How does that compare to what we are talking about? The Ravenna Document is much like any other “joint statement.” Well see what happens with it.

“A classic non-answer, as it perfectly lacks any real observable way to know when the American Church ever meets the imagined standard - I’m sure by design.”

My Reply: Perhaps the answer will reveal itself in time.

"So continues the “immigrant Church”…

Do you really think a historically Greek parish would cease all support of its mother simply because of autocephaly?"

My Reply: Which makes money a side issue. A big one, but a side issue nonetheless. The truth is, that the Western churches have a very bad habit of being infected with Modernism, even Orthodoxy here is not immune. The ties to the Old World provide a strong check against such tendencies.

 

[An1OrthodoxChristian]

sigh

And around and around we go. I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere here. There are Orthodox writers much more eloquent than myself who can explain things better. I don’t see any positive reason to continue this tit for tat, do you? Let people do the homework and pray about it. The answer will come to them.

I ask forgiveness for any lack of charity I may have displayed.

 

[Vonsalza]

sigh

And around and around we go. I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere here. There are Orthodox writers much more eloquent than myself who can explain things better. I don’t see any positive reason to continue this tit for tat, do you? Let people do the homework and pray about it. The answer will come to them.

I ask forgiveness for any lack of charity I may have displayed.

Same here.

Thanks for your time and keystrokes.

 

[AlNg]

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. The changing of the Liturgy in the way that you all did is, from our POV a horror

I think that this is a possible objection to reunion of Orthodox to Roman Catholicism. If the Pope has supreme universal jurisdiction over the whole Church, East and West, then, assuming a reunion had taken place, would it be justified for the Orthodox to fear a situation where the Pope, invoking his universal jurisdiction, changed their liturgy?

 

[Vanez]

Well, although in the beginning it was very confusing, the more i attended the liturgy, pray in orthodox way, the more i know that i dont want to be somewhere else. Now i actually dont wanna care about the contra. Thanks for the link

 

[Casilda]

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. The changing of the Liturgy in the way that you all did is, from our POV a horror, something to cause one to rend their garments like the Jews of old

I know many people who agree with.

 

[Vonsalza]

I have to use BC, I could die! I’m not going to get into why either, my choice of BC is condoms…

It’s no one’s business.

Back to OP, due to certain criticisms, and attitudes by the Catholics I too have been contemplating becoming Orthodox. I had considered joining Carholicism but I just don’t think I can handle their overall attitudes.

It’s a wide boat. Most of the Catholics around here are pretty progressive. The stern, hand-slapping nuns and “do it my way” hardliners are all but gone.

 

[2towers]

I think this is a great observation.

 

[2towers]

I am a great fan of Orthodox monastic literature. If you have not read any of this, you should, you would enjoy it. You should also google the statement: Catholic conversion to Orthodox. What you want to look for is Catholic laity comments from those who have pondered the question before you.

I did and found much of it eye opening. To be sure, there are wonderful Orthodox communities out there, but ethnicity can be a huge stumbling block. People who consider conversion to Judaism run into similar obstacles.

I would also advise examining your motives for conversion. Too often, we become bored with our spiritual lives and end up in a cycle of “searching for the next big thing.” Not an indictment of the individual, but rather the fallout of a society that pushes immediate gratification all over us, day in and day out. Everything is disposable now, even religion.

Still, it might be helpful for your current theology, to examine another. I see no harm in that at all. Best wishes!

 

[Kenny_Kamel]

The Orthodox and Eastern Catholics do not reject the Immaculate Conception per se, they see it as unnecessary because they do not believe in the Augustinian doctrine of original sin. From my understanding their belief is that all are born immaculate and though their disobedience to the Will of God sin occurs.

The Theotokos was not only granted the grace of Obedience to God but she fully accepted it. This ultimately culminated in the Annunciation and Incarnation of Christ. They hold that this is why she was never culpable of any sin, sin is disobedience is it not? The Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the Church but frankly it is teaching that is unique and exclusive to the Western Catholic Church above all else.

The people who question infallibility need to realize that it may have ever been fully invoked once in history (the argument can be made). I get the anti-papist sentiments but I think most of that comes from people with an axe to grind.

 

[pacloc]

We Orthodox do reject the immaculate conception and we also do not believe everyone is born immaculately. The most Holy Virgin was born with the passions but in God’s forknowledge seeing her perfect and great life protected her from birth with a grace in comparison with her holiness. So she is sinless, but this is from her virtue and God’s grace in response, and not some strange predestination as Catholics now teach.

 

[pacloc]

We do believe in original sin, but we did not agree with the way RCC use to teach it meant guilt also. Most RCC do not teach this anymore, but it is in your councils I believe. We do not believe the most holy Virgin was made in a different way than all of us, that would make her achievements less worthy because she would have an unfair advantage. Rather we would agree with what you mentioned about sts. Joachim and Anna and their parents bringing a life of holiness to fruition and being realized in its greatest of all saints, the Holy Virgin. She was raised in the temple from the age of 3 until her time to bear our Lord and God. While all of this was forknown and can be called predestined because God made things that he knew were capable of the goal He had for them, He did not force anything upon the Holy Virgin. All creation was made with Her in mind though, even the Holy Angels, because it is through her that all creation became united with God in a greater way.

We believe that Christ had two experiences of humanity. Before resurrection and after. Only after was he more like Adam and Eve. So to say the Holy Virgin was like this from birth makes no sense. Death has been given a new purpose, but it was not eliminated.