For any Orthodox Converts: Why did you leave the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church?

[Hesychios]

In a similar vein, a former active parishioner in our parish and Eucharistic Minister left the Catholic Church to become a Methodist. After leaving, he continued to open the Tabernacle and take the Blessed Sacrament to the sick. Equally strange that a man for whom the Mass no longer had anything to offer, would take the Sacrament to the sick. …

Huh?

How in the world did he get away with that after he left? !

Clearly this incident is fodder for another thread, but something very strange has happened to the western church that such abuses are even possible. I cannot believe an ordinary layperson has the right to open the Tabernacle in the first place, and this extraordinary ministry of the Eucharist is massively abused in multiple countries.

If the Latin church has so little regard for it’s own sacraments, what are we Eastern Christians to think of it?

 

[Fuerza]

Huh?

How in the world did he get away with that after he left? !

Clearly this incident is fodder for another thread, but something very strange has happened to the western church that such abuses are even possible. I cannot believe an ordinary layperson has the right to open the Tabernacle in the first place, and this extraordinary ministry of the Eucharist is massively abused in multiple countries.

If the Latin church has so little regard for it’s own sacraments, what are we Eastern Christians to think of it?

I actually have to agree with you on this one. I think you’ll find though that many Latins are of the opinion that only a deacon, priest, or bishop should be handling the Blessed Sacrament for anything short of a dire emergency.

 

[Hesychios]

Orthodox ethnic divisiveness does go against Orthodox Theology. After all, evangelicals like Father Gilquist were turned away by some ethnically focused Orthodox Bishops.

I am not quite sure that is a fair assessment of that particular situation.

I think it had more to do with the manner in which he wished to be received. His own take on the reasons one church will not agree to his proposal and another will are still his own perception. The bishops involved could have a completely different way of seeing it.

One has to consider the fact that even the Papacy will be very picky about whom it accepts for good reasons, and the individual or organization may have to wait years for approval. They must be patient. There is also the question of need (which probably does not apply in this case) but if a bishop does not perceive that he has a place for the person, he will not be offered incardination.

 

[LoveofGod]

I actually have to agree with you on this one. I think you’ll find though that many Latins are of the opinion that only a deacon, priest, or bishop should be handling the Blessed Sacrament for anything short of a dire emergency.

The modern Roman "liturgical practices opened my eyes to look for deeper faithful practice of the Faith as found in the ancient Orthodox Churches. The Roman apologists are much stronger in their scholastic and intellectual presentations often, since although Orthodox have theologians, their focus goes on integrating Worship, a life of constant prayer, with humble study of the Scriptures according to the Apostolic understanding of our spiritual fathers.

 

[LoveofGod]

We (Catholics) believe that we have dogmatically defined some things that were in the deposit of faith to begin with. E.g. Papal Infallibility was always a divinely revealed truth, but it wasn’t dogmatically defined until 1870.

Note, however, that on the question “Was it a good idea to dogmatically define these things?”, Catholics don’t all agree.

For example, many Catholics believe that dogmatically defining Papal Infallibility was the best decision we ever made, and they can’t imagine how we ever got by without it. But others – notably Cardinal Newman – were dead-set against dogmatically defining it (although obviously agreeing with the truth of it).

Peter, that’s why I found apriori’s reasoning confusing, since obviously Rome dogmatizes much of what Orthodox would rather accept as Mystery in Truth. Just like Martin Luther wanting to return to Anselm and Aquinas’consubstantiation understanding of the Body and Blood of Christ (hence Lutherans were born), while Orthodox are fine with believing The words of Christ in John 6 according to the Biblical and Apostolic understanding of the real Presence of Christ in Communion, without having to add extra unnecessary details to our Apostolic understanding.

btw, can you share with me where John Chrysostom, St. Athanasius, or St. Basil or the majority of the voice of the One Holy Spirit in the nonlatin speaking early Churches in Corinth, Ephesus, Phillipi, Antioch spoke of infallibility attributed to the bishop of Rome and called him the “vicar” of Christ?

 

[Fuerza]

The modern Roman "liturgical practices opened my eyes to look for deeper faithful practice of the Faith as found in the ancient Orthodox Churches. The Roman apologists are much stronger in their scholastic and intellectual presentations often, since although Orthodox have theologians, their focus goes on integrating Worship, a life of constant prayer, with humble study of the Scriptures according to the Apostolic understanding of our spiritual fathers.

You will find these same “deeper faithful practices” in the Latin Church as well. My point was that while we do currently have some abuses, we are still faithful and are getting back to our traditions.

 

[a_priori]

Unfortunately, seems that the “inward” spiritual transformation understanding of the Saints may have been troubling for him. Not sure if the Theosis doctrine of the saints is what he was concerned about here?

There is a difference between necessary inward spiritual tranformation leading to Theosis and a utilitarian inward focus that tends to value ethnic and dogmatic turf over the needs of a dying world for whom Christ died.

In large part, Orthodoxy surely manifests the former. But much of the boots-on-the-ground Orthodoxy that I knew manifested the latter.

 

[a_priori]

Curiousity on this strange phenomenon led me to apriori’s post below. I hope my confusion on the answer is not in anyway offensive. Answer below is confusing considering that Rome comes up with new DOGMAS all the time. and Orthodox don’t go beyond the Apostolically guarding ecumenical Councils. Unfortunately, seems that the “inward” spiritual transformation understanding of the Saints may have been troubling for him. Not sure if the Theosis doctrine of the saints is what he was concerned about here?

One must make a distinction between the necessary inward spiritual transformation leading to Theosis and a tendency toward corporate inwardness manifested by the Orthodoxy I experienced.

 

[Peter_J]

Although I believe Papal Infallibility (as defined by Vatican I) to be correct, I also agree with Cardinal Newman that it was a big mistake to dogmatically define it – in large part b/c of just what you said:

btw, can you share with me where John Chrysostom, St. Athanasius, or St. Basil or the majority of the voice of the One Holy Spirit in the nonlatin speaking early Churches in Corinth, Ephesus, Phillipi, Antioch spoke of infallibility attributed to the bishop of Rome and called him the “vicar” of Christ?

 

[Madaglan]

Hola!

The Orthodox Church is the Church that Christ established. That’s why I’m Orthodox.

 

[LoveofGod]

One must make a distinction between the necessary inward spiritual transformation leading to Theosis and a tendency toward corporate inwardness manifested by the Orthodoxy I experienced.

apriori, St. Symeon the New Theologian experienced a lot of pain among those who were keeping the rules of the Church but not the heart of Orthodoxy. He called us all to return to our Original understanding and called all of us to live as saints. The Power of The Holy Spirit given to those who honestly confess and repent of their own sins seems to have taken some parts of St. Symeon’s message to Orthodox believers to new heights of experiencing some of our Sainthood on earth, even visions of the 3rd Heaven. I have often wondered what it would have been like to have been in the 1st century Church of Corinth prior to our Apostle Paul’s letters and how confusing it must have been for faithful believers to have kept their eyes on Jesus and continue the Orthodox path of theosis transoformation, while worshiping alongside of so many obvious failures within the Church (including sexual immorality and even boasting of it, bickering, divisions, lack of love with multiple sign gifts and confusion during Church, greed for food during communion, etc.). May God have Mercy on us all as we keep our eyes fixed on the Author and Finisher of our Faith and with God’s Strength, enter into the Grace of becoming as Perfect as our Father in Heaven.

May you be strengthened by our LORD Jesus to continue to respond to God’s call to His Holy Orthodox Faith and may you experience whole Theosis transformation on a daily basis even as you work out your salvation with fear and trembling temporarily outside of your painful local Church experience.

humbly,
Anthony

 

[LoveofGod]

Although I believe Papal Infallibility (as defined by Vatican I) to be correct, I also agree with Cardinal Newman that it was a big mistake to dogmatically define it – in large part b/c of just what you said:

Originally Posted by LoveofGod
btw, can you share with me where John Chrysostom, St. Athanasius, or St. Basil or the majority of the voice of the One Holy Spirit in the nonlatin speaking early Churches in Corinth, Ephesus, Phillipi, Antioch spoke of infallibility attributed to the bishop of Rome and called him the “vicar” of Christ?

Thanks for your honest and kind words Peter. May your journey in our ancient path of following our God Christ Jesus be an awesome experience of Love and Transformation by His Holy Spirit to the glory of God The Father always.

 

[Mickey]

The modern Roman "liturgical practices opened my eyes to look for deeper faithful practice of the Faith as found in the ancient Orthodox Churches. The Roman apologists are much stronger in their scholastic and intellectual presentations often, since although Orthodox have theologians, their focus goes on integrating Worship, a life of constant prayer, with humble study of the Scriptures according to the Apostolic understanding of our spiritual fathers.

Amen!

Slava Isusu Christu!
Slava Na Viki!

 

[srp643]

Hola!

The Orthodox Church is the Church that Christ established. That’s why I’m Orthodox.

Which orthodox church are you referring? There are lots of them and some don’t recognize some others. You’ve been misled, but at least you’re close, Deo gratias.

 

[srp643]

Yes–it can.

Oh my! There is that wonderful scholastic philosophy of “invincible ignorance”.

Yes. Holy Russia. There are many holy martyrs from Russia.
Let us pray that this comes to be.

Spaceba. Yes, lots of holy people from Russia, and Estonia as well (but the Russian Orthodox Church doesn’t recognize the Estonian Orthodox Church so not sure if Russia would agree) . And lots of invincible ignorance.

So even though you didn’t answer the question, I’ll piece together what I have seen: a synod is not tantamount to an ecumenical council in x orthodoxy (take your pick on which one). As an aside, it is still unclear if a synod involves all orthodox churches and if not, why some are left out or absent. is it then fair to say the final authority on matters of faith in at least a majority of orthodox churches is an ecumenical council?

 

[a_priori]

May you be strengthened by our LORD Jesus to continue to respond to God’s call to His Holy Orthodox Faith and may you experience whole Theosis transformation on a daily basis even as you work out your salvation with fear and trembling temporarily outside of your painful local Church experience.

Thank you so much for your kind words.

 

[StMarina303ad]

Hola!

The Orthodox Church is the Church that Christ established. That’s why I’m Orthodox.

Me too!

 

[Mickey]

(but the Russian Orthodox Church doesn’t recognize the Estonian Orthodox Church so not sure if Russia would agree) .

I forgot that you are an expert on the Holy Russian Orthodox Church.

So even though you didn’t answer the question, I’ll piece together what I have seen: a synod is not tantamount to an ecumenical council

Okay. And you have not had any “real” Ecumenical Councils either. I guess that makes us even.

 

[Mickey]

Which orthodox church are you referring?

All Orthodoxy shares the same true faith.

Your bitterness is alarming.

 

[StMarina303ad]

Which orthodox church are you referring? There are lots of them and some don’t recognize some others. You’ve been misled, but at least you’re close, Deo gratias.

“Where the bishop is, there is the Church” - at least that’s what one (probably more than one) Church Father said way back when. So you are right, there are lots of Churches within the Orthodox Church because there are lots of Bishops within the Orthodox Church.