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

[StMarina303ad]

I’m sure you don’t understand why I’m upset…upset enough to be blunt. I have seen so many so called “X-Catholics” that it causes me much grief…not really because they left the Catholic Church, but that they choose to hang out on a Catholic Answers Forum to proselytize now that they believe they have the real faith. There are several on here with similar agendas. I like to share my experience with converts and non-Catholics looking more closely at Catholicism… whether they see it for them or not. But to continue to berate Catholic teaching on a Catholic Answers Forum really looks quite dumb to me…and probably should throw up flags for others as well. I came from a Proselytizing religion and know it when I see it. It’s sneaky and underhanded… They’re trying to pull other Catholics down with them.

I love Orhtodoxy. But the Orhtodox I know do not do this …the ones that were raised in it… Now the converts get crazy…so to speak. They almost turn anti-Catholic…or carry the same resentment with them into Orthodoxy… making it look really unattractive and indignant. The theology is different… But the concepts or goals are ultimately the same in the end…bring us closer to Christ.

I’ve got an ongoing list of anti-Catholic Catholics that left the Catholic Church. I refuse to allow another Catholic to be so easily lead down the same path of self-distructoin…even if it gets me in trouble. Because I will address the issue with the Bishops and ask them to look into this scandalous activity of allow weaker Christians…Catholics fall prey to the sneaking attempts of angry fallen away Catholics. I believe the moderators are very busy and don’t catch all of this…and should ultimately be directed to warn folks that clearly are on here with suspicious intentions.

I’m in the process of discerning the diaconate and do not understand how an orhtodox Catholic site that claims to exist to help even Catholics…can forgo their requirement to defend the faith even on a non-Catholic thread sponsored by and organization that sort of represents the Catholic faith.

Wait one moment. Let us please get this in the correct perspective:

You are on the Non-Catholic Forum of Catholic Answers. You have chosen to read and post on a Thread which is for Non-Catholics, specifically Orthodox Christians who have left the Catholic Church.

You are upset because the Non-Catholic Christians on this Non-Catholic Forum & Thread are talking about the subject and answering the questions of people who have posted questions on this site. You are upset with the answers here on the Non-Catholic Forum/Thread.

I am sorry you are upset. But if you carefully look at the situation, you may be able to clearly see that you will not be upset or disturbed or whatever you want call it, if you remained in the many Catholic Forums on Catholic Answers or at the very least when you enter the Non-Catholic Forum if you did not read (which upsets you) Threads such as this that are specifically for converts to Orthodoxy or any other Non-Catholic Faith for that matter.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

1. Of course there would be Orthodox priests who would consider any Protestant a Catholic…because of what I said above all the Protestant Churches come from the Catholic Church. 30,000+ Protestant Churches are a Catholic phenomion. There is no equalivent Orthodox phenomion - there are no churches which the Orthodox Church gave birth to like the Catholics gave birth to Protestantism.

This really tired old canard that implicitly and explicitly seeks to demonstrate a defect in Catholicism due to the Reformation is just plain old and sad.

If the Orthodox want to point fingers at Martin Luther and the “Reformers” in an attempt to demonstrate that is the “fruit of Papalism” than what is to stop or preclude Catholics from pointing to Mohammed (whose false religion is the Mac Daddy of all the Christological errors so cherished by so many in the East) as Martin’s counterpart? Prior to the growth scourge of Islam which in the end took control over all the lands of the Pentarchy save Rome, let’s turn to Dave Armstrong for an examination of the Pre-Mohammetan heresies embraced in the East by the different patriarchs…

A Chart of Heretical Eastern Patriarchs

Patriarchal / See / Patriarch / Years / Heresy
Antioch Paul of Samosata 260-269 Modalist
Antioch Eulalius c.322 Arian
Antioch Euphronius c.327-c.329 Arian
Constantinople Eusebius c.341-42 Arian
Constantinople Macedonius c.342-60 Semi-Arian
Antioch Leontius 344-58 Arian
Alexandria George 357-61 Arian
Antioch Eudoxius 358-60 Arian
Constantinople Eudoxius 360 Arian
Antioch Euzoius 361-78 Arian
Constantinople Nestorius 428-31 Nestorian!
Alexandria Dioscorus 448-51 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy Aelurus 457-60, 475-77 Monophysite
Antioch Peter the Fuller 470,475-7, 482-88 Monophysite
Constantinople Acacius 471-89 Monophysite
Antioch John Codonatus 477,488 Monophysite
Alexandria Peter Mongo 477-90 Monophysite
Antioch Palladius 488-98 Monophysite
Constantinople Phravitas 489-90 Monophysite
Constantinople Euphemius 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria Athanasius II 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria John II 496-505 Monophysite
Alexandria John III 505-518 Monophysite
Constantinople Timothy I 511-17 Monophysite
Antioch Severus 512-18 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy III 518-35 Monophysite
Constantinople Anthimus 535-36 Monophysite
Alexandria Theodosius 535-38 Monophysite
Antioch Sergius c.542-c.557 Monophysite
Antioch Paul “the Black” c.557-578 Monophysite
Alexandria Damianus 570-c.605 Monophysite
Antioch Peter Callinicum 578-91 Monophysite
Constantinople Sergius 610-38 Monothelite
Antioch Anthanasius c.621-629 Monothelite
Alexandria Cyrus c.630-642 Monothelite
Constantinople Pyrrhus 638-41 Monothelite
Antioch Macedonius 640-c.655 Monothelite
Constantinople Paul II 641-52 Monothelite
Constantinople Peter 652-64 Monothelite
Antioch Macarius c.655-681 Monothelite
Constantinople John VI 711-15 Monothelite
These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods: 357-60 (Arian), 475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and 640-42 (Monothelite): a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642.

At least two out of three of the sees suffered under the yoke of a heterodox “shepherd” simultaneously for 112 years, or 33% of the period from 341 to 681 (or, two-thirds heretical for one-third of the time), and at least 248 of these same years saw one or more of the sees burdened with sub-orthodox ecclesiastical leaders: an astonishing 73% rate.

Thus the East, as represented by its three greatest bishops, was at least one-third heretical for nearly three-quarters of the time over a 340-year span. If we examine each city separately, we find, for example, that between 475 and 675, the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were outside the Catholic orthodox faith for 41%, 55%, and 58% of the time respectively.

The East fell time, and time, and time and time again to Christological heresy.

Did Rome?

Again Dave Armstrong:

Schisms Prior to 1054

Both East and West acknowledge wrongdoing in the tragic events leading up to 1054 when the schism finalized. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that the West (and especially the Roman See) had a much more solid and consistent record of orthodoxy. For example, the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church on at least six occasions before 1054:

The Arian schisms (343-98);
The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415);
The Acacian schism (484-519);
Concerning Monothelitism (640-681);
Concerning Iconoclasm (726-87 and 815-43).
This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate in terms of what was later considered “orthodox” by both sides. Thus, the East clearly needed the West and the papacy and Rome in order to be ushered back to orthodoxy.

Honestly, the East DID see the massive loss of souls via a similar route. IT was actually far worse, and the East has still not recovered from the scourge of Islam in many places where all the old Byzantine and Oriental churches are now mosques.

Pains are taken to point to the 30K+ sects of Protestantism as though that is proof of a defect… I concur with Peter J that It might be more telling to look at the 1.3B+ Catholics worldwide and the cohesion we have in our faith. If you want to see our fruit, actually look at US!

If you want to call Martin the scourge of the West, I can’t see how the same claim can’t be made for Mohammed. The Reformation was a massive land-grab on the part of the Protestant princes and kings that wanted monastic properties and loot. So it goes.

 

[Mickey]

The East fell time, and time, and time and time again to Christological heresy.

Did Rome?

The East fought and conquered these heresies. Was the Church not one at this time?

Holy Orthodoxy was not borne of Mohammedism.
Protestantism was borne of Latin Catholicism.

 

[Frank_J]

Hi StMarina303ad ,

Thank you for words of support it is nice to talk to one of my brothers in this chatroom. I hope to many more Roman Catholics join the Orthodox Church. It was the best move I made with GOD help…

You may like to know that a year ago we were bless to have Italian Orthodox Priest join our group and now serves at my parish. One day I made a remark and said that all at the Altar were of Itlain back ground serving the Divine Liturgy at our O.C.A. Church.

What would the Pope say about this? Hummmm!

Have a great and GOD bless you.

Frank J.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

The East fought and conquered these heresies. Was the Church not one at this time?

No one said it was not one. As a matter of fact, being one with Rome was part of how they DID defeat those heresies.

Holy Orthodoxy was not borne of Mohammedism.

Since I never said Holy Orthodoxy was born of Mohammedism, you will get no quarel from me on that score. Frankly, I don’t know why you are saying it…

But if you do want to repeat the tired canard

Protestantism was borne of Latin Catholicism.

Than I can go ahead and just repeat that Mohammedism is the sum total and grand-daddy of all the Christological heresies that the East fell into time and time and time again!

 

[Mickey]

No one said it was not one.

Amen.

But if you do want to repeat the tired canard

I do not call it a tired canard. I call it an evident fact of history.

Than I can go ahead and just repeat that Mohammedism is the sum total and grand-daddy of all the Christological heresies that the East fell into time and time and time again!

That’s okay–keep saying it.

And the East defeated the heresies time and time and time again! Making Her strong and steadfast in the true faith–sharpened and perfected through the blood of Her holy martyrs.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

You may like to know that a year ago we were bless to have Italian Orthodox Priest join our group and now serves at my parish. One day I made a remark and said that all at the Altar were of Itlain back ground serving the Divine Liturgy at our O.C.A. Church.

What would the Pope say about this? Hummmm!

What do you think the German-national pope would say about a few Italian Americans celebrating Divine liturgy in an Orthodox parish?

If you are at all familiar with the mind and writings (See Without Roots) of Benedict XVI and his view of the decline of Western civilization (“Western” also encompassing the Greco-Slavonic world), I bet he would be pleased that even though they are in imperfect union they ARE standing at the altar worshipping the all-holy Trinity and that their prayers for God to reign down mercy is ascending to the heavens and co-mingling with the prayers of all the Catholics and others doing the same.

I don’t think he would bat an eye or lose a wink of sleep.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I do not call it a tired canard. I call it an evident fact of history.

With such sound and well-informed reasoning, who can argue with your fiats? Honestly, if all you will do in response to a reasoned argument is offer “Nah, its a fact” and dismiss and fail to address any of the points you disagree with…

I am about as interested in going rounds doing that as I am watching paint dry… And I am not the least bit interested in watching paint dry.

 

[Mickey]

I am about as interested in going rounds doing that as I am watching paint dry… And I am not the least bit interested in watching paint dry.

Then you may dismiss yourself.

Luther rebelled against some of the abuses happening in the Roman Catholic Church about 500 years ago. The reformation began. It has been splintering ever since.

They are your children–deal with it.

 

[adstrinity]

This is exactly what happened in Acts 15 when there was a dispute. It was handled by council and St. James the Apostle and leader of the Orthodox Church in Jeruselem presided over the Council and St. James issued the decrees of the council after the council came to an agreement on the matter. It was not settled by one person and not by St. Peter, he was simple one of many who spoke at the council - as is what happens in councils.

But, it WAS settled by St. Peter! St. James agreed with St. Peter! Please note, many people did speak, but, when St. Peter spoke, all listened to what he had to say. That was not the case with the others. There was debate, but, when St. Peter spoke, all listened.

Your example fits the Catholic Church - since it is rare that an issue is taken to the Pope of Rome and when done so, is never done directly. Two people have a disagreement in the Catholic Church, it’s taken to the priest first and if resolved there, the priest being fallible, makes an error then the issue would be left in error.

We know that the Roman Pope is fallible because he has made fallible statements on issues of faith and morals:

False Teachings:
Immaculate Conception
Infallibility of the Roman Pope

Teaching which Popes have made ex cathedra statements in direction contradiction of each other:
Filioque

I’m leaving your post after, “…issues of faith and morals…” as is, not because you’re not wrong, but, because it will help to see us with a Roman Western Mind how you view things, and I’m all for seeing the other side.

That being said, you didn’t answer the question of the hypothetical occurance. Yes, you said that this example fits the Catholic Church, but, you didn’t explain how it would be resolved in an Eastern Church. If the original, “But what if,” premis is in error, please explain how. You are on a Catholic Forum attended by Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, JWs, (Orthodox, Oriental, and Islamics), so some of us have only the Western way of seeing things.

What you have written above greatly concerns me because you are degrading my Mother. You have indicated that Mary’s purity has nothing to do with Mary’s choices but God’s choice to prevent her for being able to sin. You are putting down my Mother and God’s Mother! Them there is fightin’ words!
Let me tell you something - God gives all of us enough grace that we don’t have to sin - but we all (including Mary) are born into a sinful world because Adam and Eve let sin into - Mary is unique among us because she chose not to sin! As such a human person who overcame sin by choosing not to sin she is a wonderful example - living proof that we can for the rest of our lives choose not to sin either. In Orthodoxy we have men and women who have done just that after their conversion to Christ! St. Mary of Egypt is one of them - she lead a horrible sinful life - worse than a slut - and she had a powerful conversion, after which she wandered in the desert in complete communion with God and was discovered by a Holy Monk - he witnessed her walking on water.
Please do not attempt to degrade my Mother again.

I am glad you explained how you view this, but, this still doesn’t explain how we chose to sin. You’re telling me that Our BVM may have known at a young age knew the difference between right and wrong? That is, since she was free from all actual sin, our 3 year old BVM never gave St. Anne a hard time, or at 5 told St. Anne, “NO!” just because she chose not to? How would such a girl be so holy without being in constant communion with God? At which point do the rest of us, who according to the Eastern Orthodox, say no to God, and decide to brake off communion with him, despite being in his good graces for the first few months or years of our life? I can accept that it is by Mary’s choice she decided NOT to sin, but, I do not see how this could be her choice without God’s grace.

Also, how do we know St. Mary of Egypt NEVER sinned again? This means she was free from thought of sin, does it not? Is this legend or is this truth? I know the story of St. Mary of Egypt from, “Saints Behaving Badly,” but, I didn’t know of the walking on water thing. Is this something that came about later or did St. Zosimas of Palestine actually see it? Is this her actual life or was it something that was written down by people centuries later?

 

[Peter_J]

You have indicated that Mary’s purity has nothing to do with Mary’s choices but God’s choice to prevent her for being able to sin.

Nope. I said:

I don’t believe it’s quite that simple. Yes she chose not to sin, but I would say that she was the only human after the fall (not counting Christ) to whom God gave the necessary grace to be able to chose not to sin.

 

[Mickey]

But, it WAS settled by St. Peter!

This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last. There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
St John Chrysostom

 

[Peter_J]

Please do share with us…what Orthodox Patriarch bickered with another - who were they and what were they bickering over? I’ve never heard of a Patriarch bickering with another in the 14+ years I’ve been either Orthodox or looking into the Orthodox Faith.

I think you might be making more of my statement than I intended. I wasn’t saying that Orthodox hierarchs bicker more than Catholic hierarchs, or anything like that.

I took your statement “There is no “bickering” among the Orthodox Patriarchs.” to mean that Orthodox Patriarchs get along perfectly – although now after going back and reading it again in context, it’s possible I misunderstood you.

Really? Truly united? I beg to differ. There are at least 20 different rites of the Catholic Church - many teach different doctrines. Plus you have two different creeds that are recited depending upon which rite you attend. But wait, let’s just look at the Roman Catholic rite…you have several different liturgies said on the same Sunday depending on which church you attend & then there is high Mass and low Mass.

The Orthodox Church is united in doctrine and united in Liturgy. If I attend a Serbian Church during Great Lent on a Sunday - it will be the St. Basil Liturgy just the same as if I attended my Greek Orthodox Church. The creed is identical no matter which Orthodox Church you may happen to attend. The fasting periods are the same.

As I indicated in my response to Mickey, I think the Roman Catholic Church of today is united in much the same way that the Undivided Church of the first millennium was united. Sure there are different rites, what’s wrong with that?

I admit that using two different creeds isn’t the ideal, but I think it is appropriate at this time in view of the situation that history has brought us into.

As for “differences in doctrine”, please recall the 9th century Pope Leo III:

While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term Filioque, and approved its use in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it. Pope Leo stipulated that the use of the Creed in the celebration of the Eucharist was permissible, but not required, and urged that in the interest of preventing scandal it would be better if the Carolingian court refrained from including it in the liturgy. Around this time, according to the Liber Pontificalis, the Pope had two heavy silver shields made and displayed in St. Peter’s, containing the original text of the Creed of 381 in both Greek and Latin. Despite his directives and this symbolic action, however, the Carolingians continued to use the Creed with the Filioque during the Eucharist in their own dioceses.

Clearly Pope Leo III approved the filioque as the theological statement, while the Eastern Patriarchs did not. Yet they were united, were they not? (Also note that the Carolingians disobeyed Leo’s instructions to only use the original version of the Creed, without the filioque, but Leo remained in full communion with them nevertheless. So by extension, the Eastern Patriarchs were in full communion with the Carolingians as well.)

Thank you for sharing Frank! I’m so happy you were able to find the Orthodox Church and are now home! May others follow in your footsteps.

What? You want to bring more of us down with you? (Sorry, bad joke. Couldn’t resist.)

 

[srp643]

Is that similar to the 23 different sui juris Churches in Catholicism?

Nope. Catholicism has one leader and its own sovereign city state. The orthodox ultimately report to their local governments. A good try but big difference.

 

[srp643]

Jesus Christ is the only Head of the Orthodox Church. Our “body” is not deformed.

A nice try but I do see a lot of deformation and a lack of Christianity given how various “orthodox” churches treat each other and how many orthodox churches now acknowledge the primacy of the Pope. Who or what is your final authority on earth if you were say a member of the Estonian Orthodox Church? Where do your subnational churches turn to when there are questions about the faith? I would hope the answer is easy but maybe not.

 

[adstrinity]

This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last. There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
St John Chrysostom

Yes. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, and he agreed with St. Peter, the Head of the physical Church.

BUT, thank you for adding how you see things; thank you for your source.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Then you may dismiss yourself.

Luther rebelled against some of the abuses happening in the Roman Catholic Church about 500 years ago. The reformation began. It has been splintering ever since.

They are your children–deal with it.

Typical Mickey - your response as per usual is to offer a meaningless quip that takes less time to write than it does to properly brush ones teeth. Make a bold assertion, follow it with one of your trademark glib emoticons and move along. Such peace you have found in all-Holy Orthodoxy to spend such a great deal of time engaging in such semantics! Go ahead, keep it up… It isn’t great advertising, it makes my work easier still!

As to the wrong-headed assertion that “they are your children deal with it”, well if that were the case (its not) than one could say that they are your great grandchildren as you maintain Rome left YOU! So back at your doorstep the stork drops errant Rome and all her inglorious problems… If your wild ideas were accurate.

If your wild ideas were accurate, than it would ALSO be fair to say that the Muslims are the children of the christologically challenged East, and that the Bolsheviks and their godless reign of terror are the children of Orthodoxy. Were not the first communists to persecute the Orthodox in Russia actually baptized Orthodox themselves as babies?

A sensible person can see you ludicrous and problematic your assertions in fact truly are.

 

[Diamantina]

Please stop all this nitpicking! Catholicism and Orthodoxy, in my opinion, are *both *true Churches – only God has the entire truth about anything. Let’s be more eirenic and focus on what Orthodoxy and Catholicism have in common

 

[LutheranDK]

IMuch like a loving family would want their wayward child to come back home but not until that child repented and stopped using drugs.

A pretty good post, that’s why I don’t quote the rest of it. It’s nice to get the EO-version of events, now that one has listened to the RC version all the time.

BUT

In response to the piece I quoted:

I should hope that any loving family would prefer that their child was at home, although he/she was using marihuana, extacy, etc, instead of out on the streets?

Don’t get me wrong - I got your point perfectly. It’s your analogy I didn’t like

 

[LutheranDK]

Please stop all this nitpicking! Catholicism and Orthodoxy, in my opinion, are *both *true Churches – only God has the entire truth about anything. Let’s be more eirenic and focus on what Orthodoxy and Catholicism have in common

Well, even I, and outsider to this particular question, can see that this cannot be.

The Orthodox church and the RC church does have a lot in common, yes, but there are also vital issues that seperate them. The bishop of Rome cannot BOTH be the supreme leader (under Jesus, of course) of all Christians, and only first among equal patriarchs.

Either the Orthodox church is right, and the RC is wrong, or the Orthodox is wrong and the RC is right, or none of them are right. There are no forth option (“Both are the true church”).
They are two different churches, and both cannot be “the original church”.

I, of course, do not believe that EITHER is the original church founded by Christ, although I DO believe that the Orthodox church in many ways comes CLOSER than the RC does…