feeling strong pull to orthodoxy ...

[repo_man]

… i’m so confused. there are so many arguments for and against RCC and conversely orthodoxy that i am so confused. orthodoxy appeals to the part of me that doesn’t like legalism, total authority by a human being and most importantly the part of me that loves preservation of traditions mostly in the liturgy.

my reason is totally divided here on each side. and i feel like it’s a choice between salvation and eternal hellfire … ok maybe that’s a little extreme. i won’t convert to orthodoxy not because my reason is totally opposed and would do it only to spite the church. i just honestly don’t know anymore.

someone convince me!

edit: if it’s any consolation i’m solely between these two and no more. so i guess in the event i do pick the wrong one, i wasn’t THAT far off.

 

[Della]

… i’m so confused. there are so many arguments for and against RCC and conversely orthodoxy that i am so confused. orthodoxy appeals to the part of me that doesn’t like legalism, total authority by a human being and most importantly the part of me that loves preservation of traditions mostly in the liturgy.

I think part of your dilemma you’ve stated yourself when you wrote that you “don’t like” this or that. The truths of the Catholic Church are not likes and dislikes. They are handed down from Christ through the Apostles to the Bishops and so to us.

And the pope doesn’t have as much power as some would have us think. Infallibility is quite limited, and most popes have used this right quite sparingly. Which to me is a sign that it is of God and not likely to be abused.

As for legalism, Orthodoxy has its rules and regs, too. All organized faith communities do. Just try to go against even those of Evangelical groups and see what happens.

And the only tradition really worth preserving is Sacred Tradition, which is the teachings of Christ and his Church. Nothing else is really necessary.

my reason is totally divided here on each side. and i feel like it’s a choice between salvation and eternal hellfire … ok maybe that’s a little extreme. i won’t convert to orthodoxy not because my reason is totally opposed and would do it only to spite the church. i just honestly don’t know anymore.

someone convince me!

You don’t need to reason it all out yourself. In the Catholic Church we say: “I believe” not “I’ve reasoned it all out.” If the Catholic Church was founded by Christ on Peter, his profession of faith, and that of the Apostles, then it is the Church in which you belong.

Orthodoxy isn’t heretical, but it is schismatic. History proves this out no matter how much people might wish to deny it.

 

[Cajetan]

Look into the history of the Catholic Church vs. the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church, in particular, the influence that each has had on the course of civilization. This may bring matters into focus a little more regarding which of the two Churches is indeed Christ’s Church, that is, the one which is guided by Christ.

From my perspective, there is no comparison: Rome bears the mark of truth. The Catholic Church has had a lot of problems throughout her history and especially in recent decades, absolutely… and I must admit that it does look easier to be Orthodox a lot of the time (I don’t hear of many anti-Orthodox people, etc.; no, people, whether Protestant or secularist, tend to leave the Orthodox alone and focus just on Rome). Ultimately, though, I think that these struggles are just the burden that those who belong to Christ’s true Church have to live with. It isn’t supposed to be easy.

 

[justacloserwalk]

The Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church were one until the Schism in 1054.
We agree with the Roman Catholic Church up until 1054
I studied history and chose the Orthodox Church.

If you are seeking, google Orthodox. Any of the links that are affliated with the OCA, Antiochian or Greek Diocese can help you.

Or, seek out an Orthodox Priest in your area.
There are quite a few ex Catholics in my Parish.

Barbara

 

[repo_man]

I think part of your dilemma you’ve stated yourself when you wrote that you “don’t like” this or that. The truths of the Catholic Church are not likes and dislikes.

apologies. what i meant by “i don’t like” is “i don’t know if this is the way things were really supposed to be.”

thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut everyone.

 

[jam070406]

I agree with what Cajetan said,

Just some things to ponder:

In the early 17th century Our Lady appeared in an (Church approved in 1611) apparition to a nun named Mariana de Jesus Torres.
She prophesized that the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility would be strictly defined and declared dogma.

She also told of things that would come to pass in the 20th century. Such as:

Our Lady told her that at the end of the 19th Century and especially in the 20th Century, Satan would reign almost completely by the means of the Masonic sect. She told Mother Mariana that this battle would reach its most acute stage because of various unfaithful religious, who, “under the appearance of virtue and bad-spirited zeal, would turn upon Religion, who nourished them at her breast.”

and:

“The Sacred Sacrament of Holy Orders will be ridiculed, oppressed and despised. …The demon will try to persecute the Ministers of the Lord in every possible way and he will labor with cruel and subtle astuteness to deviate them from the spirit of their vocation, corrupting many of them. These corrupted priests, who will scandalize the Christian people, will incite the hatred of the bad Christians and the enemies of the Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church to fall upon all priests. This apparent triumph of Satan will bring enormous sufferings to the good Pastors of the Church…”

“Moreover, in these unhappy times, there will be unbridled luxury which, acting thus to snare the rest into sin, will conquer innumerable frivolous souls who will be lost. Innocence will almost no longer be found in children, nor modesty in women, and in this supreme moment of need of the Church, those who should speak will fall silent.”

“But know, beloved daughter, that when your name is made known in the 20th century, there will be many who will not believe, claiming that this devotion is not pleasing to God…A simple humble faith in the truth of My apparitions to you, My predilect child, will be reserved for humble and fervent souls docile to the inspirations of grace, for Our Heavenly Father communicates His secrets to the simple of heart, and not to those whose hearts are inflated with pride, pretending to know what they do not, or self-satisfied with empty knowledge…”

fisheaters.com/apparitions.html

 

[Hesychios]

… i’m so confused. there are so many arguments for and against RCC and conversely orthodoxy that i am so confused. orthodoxy appeals to the part of me that doesn’t like legalism, total authority by a human being and most importantly the part of me that loves preservation of traditions mostly in the liturgy.

my reason is totally divided here on each side. and i feel like it’s a choice between salvation and eternal hellfire … ok maybe that’s a little extreme. i won’t convert to orthodoxy not because my reason is totally opposed and would do it only to spite the church. i just honestly don’t know anymore.

someone convince me!

edit: if it’s any consolation i’m solely between these two and no more. so i guess in the event i do pick the wrong one, i wasn’t THAT far off.

This isn’t the place for this question.

If you want to be convinced of Roman Catholicism, go to apologetics or Traditional catholicism.

If you want to be convinced of anything else, go to another board entirely, where the people can share an opinion freely without feeling a need to couch their own words.

Now if you just want to throw out a ‘tickler’, designed to provoke a fight, this could do it. But I don’t recommend it.

One thought…If you think that your eternal soul is hanging in the balance, are sincere in your question and are relying upon your own ability to reason this out, it is hopeless. Human reason will not save you.

Personally (assuming you are an unchurched Christian or Protestant), I don’t think your choice either way is going to damn you if you are an honest seeker who loves God. To take that approach is a form of scrupulosity. If you are otherwise a faithfilled, charitable and active Christian, God would not let you fall into hell over such a dilemma not of your own making.

God is Love.

Michael

 

[thespian12]

There aren’t many things I’d like to add to most of the posts above except for maybe these two comments:

Don’t leave because you are frustrated with the liturgy. Remember, the Eucharist is the whole point of the Mass anyway. Of course, it doesn’t mean that it’s ok for priests to give bad homilies or there to be bad music. If that happens, I would suggest that you charitably try to get people to change at your church. The Mass should be reverent and something that honors and glorifies God. Maybe you can join a committee and suggest that the church explores more Catholic traditions that aren’t commonly known. (ie. see if you can get the priest to do one “Rangueil Mass” which is entirely chanted, set the atmosphwere by killing all the lights and do Mass by candlelight and have a ton of incense. . . they’re doing that at some universities, and lots of students go to it. It’s really cool. . . why not some parishes, especially since there usually are Masses that have different kinds of music - just a cantor, a choir, a bell choir, etc.?) We can’t run away every time there’s something we don’t like. If we did that, there’d be no saints or the Church would look a lot different today. The saints are the ones who stuck with it when times got rough and pushed for any necessary reforms. Think about Catherine of Siena or Joan of Arc. . .

Also, Christians, no matter what the denomination, believe that the Bible is infallible. (Catholics say that it is infallible in teachings of the faith, but others will take it a step further saying that every word of the Bible is absolutely true, and some will take it to the extent that you should take the Bible literally) In any case, there’s an element of infallibility in the Bible, but the Bible didn’t just drop out of Heaven one day; it was written by man in cooperation with God, which was done through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

To accept that the Bible is infallible in matters of the faith would be to accept that it is possible for God to work through a man so that something would be infallible. How do we know for sure who and what would be infallible? Jesus tells us in Matthew 16 when he gives Peter, the first Pope, the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The power to bind and loose. This authority was passed down to any subsequent Pope through apostolic succession, which is the same process by which priests get their authority to confer sacraments. Jesus establishes one “for sure” way we will know that teachings are accurate and reflect the truth. Historically, people have taken scripture and contorted it to any way they want so that it fits their own views and called it “the truth.” If God, being all-knowing, knew that this would happen, doesn’t it make sense that He would establish a living office in which the faithful could always turn to in order to know what really is the truth? Yes, God sent the Holy Spirit as our aide, guide, and teacher, but how many people have said conflicting things and claimed to be influenced by the Holy Spirit? (ie. hate groups have used scripture to promote violence against miscegenation, aka interracial procreation) We need something more; hence why Jesus established His Church and gave his Apostles the authority.

 

[ForeverAdam]

And the only tradition really worth preserving is Sacred Tradition, which is the teachings of Christ and his Church. Nothing else is really necessary.

While there is a distinction between the Faith, itself, and the traditions, which give it expression, it is incorrect to take such a careless approach to the small traditions of the Church. Ponder these words of St. Basil the Great:

“Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us in a mystery by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay - no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer?” - On the Holy Ghost, chapter 27.

I see this conservatism, even in the small things, reflected in the Orthodox Church not the Roman Catholic Church, which as you said, sees them as not really worth preserving. If repoman wants to be in the Church of St. Basil, I think Orthodoxy would be right for him, not Catholicism.

Orthodoxy isn’t heretical, but it is schismatic. History proves this out no matter how much people might wish to deny it.

It is not schismatic to avoid communion with an heretical group. In fact, it is the sign of the true Church. And the Church has always held that Popes can err, lose the Papacy and have the faithful go on without them. This justifies us in our principle of lacking communion with the Pope. And this principle has a good application as Church history shows that Rome’s style of governing is foreign to the ancient Church, just as are several of her teachings.

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

Look into the history of the Catholic Church vs. the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church, in particular, the influence that each has had on the course of civilization. This may bring matters into focus a little more regarding which of the two Churches is indeed Christ’s Church, that is, the one which is guided by Christ.

Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors, number 60, says:

“To one who says ‘Authority is nothing else but numbers and the sum total of material strength,’ let him be anathema”

Since the great impact that Catholicism had on western culture was due to her numbers and material strength and you are arguing that her authority and status as Christ’s Church is based on this, it appears that one of your own popes stands in condemnation of you.

Besides, authentic marks of the true Church are as unchanging and timeless as the Church, herself. Your argument is tied to the circumstances of history, which exalts one empire while dethroning another. Your mark of the true Church is based on the happenstance of history, while true marks of Christ’s Church are unchanging and can be referenced at any time in that Church’s history (not suddenly appear in the 12th century of its existence).

I think you should find a better argument.

God bless,

Adam

 

[jam070406]

While there is a distinction between the Faith, itself, and the traditions, which give it expression, it is incorrect to take such a careless approach to the small traditions of the Church. Ponder these words of St. Basil the Great:

“Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us in a mystery by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay - no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer?” - On the Holy Ghost, chapter 27.

I see this conservatism, even in the small things, reflected in the Orthodox Church not the Roman Catholic Church, which as you said, sees them as not really worth preserving. If repoman wants to be in the Church of St. Basil, I think Orthodoxy would be right for him, not Catholicism.

It is not schismatic to avoid communion with an heretical group. In fact, it is the sign of the true Church. And the Church has always held that Popes can err, lose the Papacy and have the faithful go on without them. This justifies us in our principle of lacking communion with the Pope. And this principle has a good application as Church history shows that Rome’s style of governing is foreign to the ancient Church, just as are several of her teachings.

God bless,

Adam

You have not the authority to deem the RCC or it’s teachings heretical so your opinion is merely that, an opinion.
Which ecumenical council was it that condemned Rome and it’s teachings as heretical?

 

[panoikei]

Repo man,
My way back to the Catholic Church was by way through the Eastern Orthodox Church. I was studying Orthodoxy and Catholicism at the same time. There are many things that are the same. However, the way things are described are sometimes, not always, quite different. If you look at the Eastern Catholic…Byzantine Catholic Church you will find Orthodox that are in communion with Rome. That may be where you should go. However, the Orthodox will argue that they are not true Orthodox. The only help is to experience both. But try the Tridentine Latin Mass, not just the Novus Ordo Mass. You will find the TLM quite ancient too. The Divine Liturgy is the Orthodox’s Liturgy of the Eucharist.

I LOVE the Eastern RItes and would jump to the Eastern Catholic if my wife would join me. I’d prefer to be a deacon over there than in the Latin Church. The diaconate was never discontinued in the Eastern Rites. In fact, if later I felt called to become a priest their would be a better possibility of discerning that than in the Western Rite or Latin Rite more specifically. Do your research and read read read. You might want to get a clear picture. You will find many things different. I’ve conversed with Orthodox priests and they get snappy if you approach them with jibber jabber. Do your homework and while on your journey, throw out the anti-this or that. Both sides will throw all of it at you. But it is true. There used to be a site on here where lots of the Orthodox and some priests hung out. But they were in essence visitors that got a bit too much at home and seemed to Proselytize. A true Orthodox would look at you strange if you considered converting to them because it such a cultural shock.

Good luck. God Bless you and may the Holy Spirit lead you home.

PAX Christi tecum

 

[repo_man]

thank you to all who responded.

1. in response to the TLM, i’m actually a huge proponent of it and go to the closest thing i have to it (basically a more reverent NO mass). all the TLM’s in my diocese are far away and with gas the way it is, though i’d prefer it, i just stick with what i have.
2. i would not describe myself as ‘unchurched’ although i see where that could be inferred. i’m a devout roman catholic who reverted to RC after a long spiritual journey from atheism. along every step of the way i closely examined everything for truth. didn’t find it in atheism, so i moved on. same with deism. same with my own little form of arianism. then i went straight back to RC. i just now feel like i didn’t give EO a fair amount of discernment.

though i don’t think anything is going to come of this anymore. just when i thought i was losing faith in the RCC, someone made a comment in passing about the vatican being full of rich, greedy people and then the news about some protestors throwing ashes on the pope, i was so angry about it. i don’t know if that’s out of habit, but i’m pretty sure even though my mind is wandering, my heart knows what’s what.

edit: and my intention for this thread was NOT to start a fight as someone suggested. the last thing the EO and RC need is more fighting. was just wondering if anyone could recommend any books specifically for either side of the spectrum or something like that.

 

[rien]

… i’m so confused. there are so many arguments for and against RCC and conversely orthodoxy that i am so confused. orthodoxy appeals to the part of me that doesn’t like legalism, total authority by a human being and most importantly the part of me that loves preservation of traditions mostly in the liturgy.

my reason is totally divided here on each side. and i feel like it’s a choice between salvation and eternal hellfire … ok maybe that’s a little extreme. i won’t convert to orthodoxy not because my reason is totally opposed and would do it only to spite the church. i just honestly don’t know anymore.

someone convince me!

edit: if it’s any consolation i’m solely between these two and no more. so i guess in the event i do pick the wrong one, i wasn’t THAT far off.

Don’t be afraid to investigate Orthodxy. In my area Orthodox parishes like to say a quarter of their members are former Catholics.

Especially if you are in a liberal diocese you will find food in the Orthodox that is increasingly not there in the US Catholic church. You are not alone as the recent Pew report confirms, droves are leaving the Catholic church. Mostly for Protestanism but a significant very orthodox subset for Orthodoxy.

 

[flameburns623]

… i’m so confused. there are so many arguments for and against RCC and conversely orthodoxy that i am so confused. orthodoxy appeals to the part of me that doesn’t like legalism, total authority by a human being and most importantly the part of me that loves preservation of traditions mostly in the liturgy.

my reason is totally divided here on each side. and i feel like it’s a choice between salvation and eternal hellfire … ok maybe that’s a little extreme. i won’t convert to orthodoxy not because my reason is totally opposed and would do it only to spite the church. i just honestly don’t know anymore.

someone convince me!

edit: if it’s any consolation i’m solely between these two and no more. so i guess in the event i do pick the wrong one, i wasn’t THAT far off.

Consider attending an Eastern Rite church, one in communion with Rome.

 

[panoikei]

I hope you did not gather that “fighting” from me. I was saying that you should not listen to others say derogatory remarks about Orthodox or abour what you call “Roman” Catholicism. It’s just Catholic. I prefer the Church of Christ though, especially since that’s the faith I came out of before reverting too. You really should read the early church fathers. You will find that even the Orthodox saw the holy see of Rome with primacy. Just because someone does something stupid doesn’t make them not the true church. Double negative, but read how I wrote it. The sack on Constantine was bad. But there is far more to this historical event than most people ever hear. You need to check out some books, search on CA site. I know the Orthodox have their own version of the story, read it. I’ve read some on OCA site. There is a very lengthy historical account of Orthodoxy that I printed out and read lots.

Not to hijack your conversion, but you should seriously consider attending a Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgy. To a Latin Catholic it would look the same as an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy. Read the historical accounts of how many Orthodox returned to the fold in communion with Rome. There are lots of resources.

But here are some things to look at. Moral Theology. Look into that. I found out that Orthodoxy allows ABC. That’s just the beginning. Moral Theology is full proof. There is a lot of in fighting. Out of all the Eastern priests I communicated with the Byzantine Catholic priest, celebate, was very nice and helped me once he realized I was serious about the Eastern Rite. The Eastern Orthodox priests were far to defensive and abrasive towards me. Only one of 3 were actually nice. But after rereading what they said, they suggested not to run. That is all you are doing they said. They defended priestly celebacy and even the scandals as being overblown in the media. They opened the truth about the fact that all the Protestant scandals are being overlooked not to mention some public school scandals with far reaching negative effects on children. These were many of the things I ran from.

The last thing that really bothered me was the Mary stuff. Eastern Rites, both Catholic and Orthodox, say the Jesus Prayer. It is a wonderful devotion. I’ve done this my entire life and never knew what it was. The Fatima prayer is basically a modified Jesus Prayer. But there are Orthodox that say the rosary too. They also have devotions similar to Catholics.

There are lots of resources online. But don’t run. Read, find an eastern Catholic parish and attend several times. You don’t have to transfer your rite to participate. But later after several years and convincing the priest you will get support for transferring. I understand. I’d love daily mass. Eastern Rites do not typically have the liturgy during the week from what I know. Read.

Good luck. Turn to Jesus for the answer. Ask the Blessed Virgin Mary to intercede on your behalf.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

… i’m so confused. there are so many arguments for and against RCC and conversely orthodoxy that i am so confused. orthodoxy appeals to the part of me that doesn’t like legalism, total authority by a human being and most importantly the part of me that loves preservation of traditions mostly in the liturgy.

my reason is totally divided here on each side. and i feel like it’s a choice between salvation and eternal hellfire … ok maybe that’s a little extreme. i won’t convert to orthodoxy not because my reason is totally opposed and would do it only to spite the church. i just honestly don’t know anymore.

someone convince me!

edit: if it’s any consolation i’m solely between these two and no more. so i guess in the event i do pick the wrong one, i wasn’t THAT far off.

Pick a saint? Let him guide you to Jesus, you cant go wrong. Just remember all of Christendom was Catholic Orthodox including Rome, and still is Orthodox.up until the 10th century, then the Eastern Orthodoxy came about. Better yet, pray to the blessed Mother, She will always lead you to her Son Jesus.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

… i’m so confused. there are so many arguments for and against RCC and conversely orthodoxy that i am so confused. orthodoxy appeals to the part of me that doesn’t like legalism, total authority by a human being and most importantly the part of me that loves preservation of traditions mostly in the liturgy.

my reason is totally divided here on each side. and i feel like it’s a choice between salvation and eternal hellfire … ok maybe that’s a little extreme. i won’t convert to orthodoxy not because my reason is totally opposed and would do it only to spite the church. i just honestly don’t know anymore.

someone convince me!

edit: if it’s any consolation i’m solely between these two and no more. so i guess in the event i do pick the wrong one, i wasn’t THAT far off.

By way of clarification, which Orthodox are we talking about here? I am supposing you are meaning the Greco-Slavonic Orthodox and not the Oriental Orthodox, right?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Don’t be afraid to investigate Orthodxy. In my area Orthodox parishes like to say a quarter of their members are former Catholics.

You are not alone as the recent Pew report confirms, droves are leaving the Catholic church. Mostly for Protestanism but a significant very orthodox subset for Orthodoxy.

Rein please show me that significant very orthodox subset. The Pew studied concluded that Orthodxy was roughly 0.6% of the population… Parishes and missions may be on the increase as far as locations… but where there is no immigration, there is no growth in Orthodoxy in the US. Even the “convert parishes” have not offset the loss of the third and fourth generation of “ethnic cradle-dox”. And the significant convert boomlette was 20 years ago now - between the HOOMies and Ben Lomand (the latter having since gone through a schism, the former I will let you investingate).

This seems to be a leitmotiv with you, I don’t know if you yourself are Orthodox… but the stories of growth are greatly exagerated and accompanied by VERY embelished numbers in some jurisdictions.

"Especially if you are in a liberal diocese you will find food in the Orthodox that is increasingly not there in the US Catholic church. " This sort of presupposes that once chooses orthodoxy not because they affirm it but because it is a good way to “escape”. But there is no escaping modern troubles…

One convert I know who then came into the Catholic Church explained that towards the end, 20 Anglos at a mission struggling to chant in tones from the Middle East were for a time satisfied that they were part of the faithful remnant and “at least we weren’t Catholics dealing with the scandals and the modernism” but in the end scandal is wherever you find it, and for him the sense of isolation and contradistinction against the West just did not hold up.

I have heard anecdotally that many converts have about a 5 year shelf life before reversion (something that happens to Catholics too of course)… I would love to see if this is based on a study out there anywhere. It does seem to have held true for a number of once enthusiastic converts I knew.

Repo Man send me a private IM.

 

[Nicholas82]

Rein please show me that significant very orthodox subset. The Pew studied concluded that Orthodxy was roughly 0.6% of the population… Parishes and missions may be on the increase as far as locations… but where there is no immigration, there is no growth in Orthodoxy in the US. Even the “convert parishes” have not offset the loss of the third and fourth generation of “ethnic cradle-dox”. And the significant convert boomlette was 20 years ago now - between the HOOMies and Ben Lomand (the latter having since gone through a schism, the former I will let you investingate).

This seems to be a leitmotiv with you, I don’t know if you yourself are Orthodox… but the stories of growth are greatly exagerated and accompanied by VERY embelished numbers in some jurisdictions.

"Especially if you are in a liberal diocese you will find food in the Orthodox that is increasingly not there in the US Catholic church. " This sort of presupposes that once chooses orthodoxy not because they affirm it but because it is a good way to “escape”. But there is no escaping modern troubles…

One convert I know who then came into the Catholic Church explained that towards the end, 20 Anglos at a mission struggling to chant in tones from the Middle East were for a time satisfied that they were part of the faithful remnant and “at least we weren’t Catholics dealing with the scandals and the modernism” but in the end scandal is wherever you find it, and for him the sense of isolation and contradistinction against the West just did not hold up.

I have heard anecdotally that many converts have about a 5 year shelf life before reversion (something that happens to Catholics too of course)… I would love to see if this is based on a study out there anywhere. It does seem to have held true for a number of once enthusiastic converts I knew.

Repo Man send me a private IM.

Do numbers matter that much? Whether a significant number of people are converting to Orthodoxy or not has nothing to di with the truth of Orthodoxy. Were the True Church to be forced into the catacombs again, would the number of heretics attest to the validity of their communion?

You are absolutely correct that a convert should not feel he is running away from abuse, but rather running toward our Lord and His Church.

How hard did these Anglican converst struggle to learn chants from the “Middle East”? Does a lack of committment to learning chant equal a reason to abandon the truth? Would an evangelican Christian who struggled to learn Gregorian Chant(in Latin) be justified in leaving Roman Catholicism because of the difficulty? You would think a group consisting of a significant number of ex-Anglicans so teid to their cultural heritage would make an effort to practice Western Rite Orthodoxy before they would leave the Orthodox Church based on cultural ties.

You seem to give examples of people running away from the liturgical and spiritual mess they experienced in their old communion as true examples; as opposed to sincere converts searching for the truth. Yes, people converting for those reasons may well have a general five year lifespan - probably similar to the lifespan of a convert to Roman Catholicism who converted for similar reasons.

Again, regarding numbers: we here in the US like to imagine ourselves as the example by which all are judged. We are only slightly over 200 years old as a country. Compare 200 years to the 2000 years that Christianity has existed! The Slavs were converted, what, about a thousand years ago? So for about one-thousand years they lived in darkness while significant parts of the world were being converted to Christianity.

How big of an impact has Roman Catholicism really made on the traditionally protestant USA? Outside of the ethnic groups whose culture has closely linked them with Roman Catholicism; eg. Italians, Irish, Polish, Spanish… how greatly has the Roman Catholic Church managed to hold onto Catholics, or even moreso “convert the land”, as it were, to Catholicism? Look at demographics… look at the number of people coming to the US from traditionally Catholic countries and cultures compared to the number of immigrants coming from traditionally Orthodox countries… have either of us gained a majority in this land?

As it is, neither traditionally Roman Catholic nor traditionally Orthodox countries have nearly high enough a regular rate of Mass and Divine Liturgy attendance on Sundays as compared to the population who associate themselves with either communion.

We both do the best we can, and work tirelesly to convert people and build Christ’s Church. “Repo Man”, investigate Orthodoxy further, and do not only the homework but, pray ceaselesly that the Lord will guide you. May God bless you on your journey!