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

  • Thread starter Thread starter StMarina303ad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mickey said:
Wrong. I answered it. The Synod is not the same. There are only seven Ecumenical Councils.
Click to expand...
There are only seven Ecumenical Councils according to the Orthodox Churches. That should be made clear.
 
Mickey said:
Correct. The Orthodox Church. The one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. 👍
Click to expand...
Once again, according to the Orthodox Churches.

But fact remains that Orthodox Churches are schismatics. Orthodox Church as a name was not used until its separation from Rome.

Was it not Jesus who said that a branch separated from the tree cannot bear fruit?
 
Hi Mickey,

Glad to hear that you to are part Sicilian. StMarina303ad is also like us also part Sicilian.

It good to see Sicilian people now moving toward rediscovering Holy Orthodoxy once again.

I would like to hear what moved you to embrace Orthodox Christianity?? If anyone in this chartroom is of Italian back ground would like to hear all about your conversion??

Have a great day and GOD bless you.

Ciao
 
Frank_J said:
Glad to hear that you to are part Sicilian. StMarina303ad is also like us also part Sicilian.

It good to see Sicilian people now moving toward rediscovering Holy Orthodoxy once again.
Click to expand...
Thank you Frank. God bless you.
 
The Decree from that Coucil was clearly decided by St. James. I can’t see how you can, or anyone else can get anything else from the words, "13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying…19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality,[d]from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” - quoted from www.goarch.org - by bolding
Click to expand...
In the NAB text, Acts 15:19, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God,”

From, “Upon This Rock,” By Stephen K. Ray, page 54, footnote 72: "Acts 15:1, 6-7, 12-15,28. Many have used this passage in an attempt to invalidate Peter’s primacy by drawing attention to James as having the “final word”, but this interpretation is sadly misguided. Hugh Pope writes, “Now what is there in this episode which runs counter to Peter’s primacy of jurisdiction? Is it not rather in fullest conformity with it? St. James is the bishop of the city, yet not only does Peter speak first–he settles the question; St… James endorses what he says and simply provides a practical way of meeting the difficulty which has arisen” (“The Papacy in teh New Testament”, in Lattey, Papacy, 23). “You’re right in saying that [James] went beyond Peter’s decision, but, he was not decreeing or deciding as Peter had done. He states, to begin with, that it is his judgement. Peter didn’t speak for himself; he spoke for the whole Church. What James added had nothing to do with the doctrinal decision which had [already] been settled [by Peter]” (Daniel W. Martin, The Church of the Scriptures [St. Louis, Mo.: Confraternity Home Study Service, 1959], 83). Peter’s theological pronouncement was the watershed of the council; Paul gave testimony; and James concludes with pastoral, practical implementation. St. John Chrysostom writes, “See how Paul speaks after Peter, and no one restrains: James waits and starts not up, for he (Peter) is was to whom it had been entrusted the government (primacy)” (Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33 in Berington and Kirk, *Faith of Catholics, 2:34). Though papal opponents often cite this passage as a proof text for sola Scriptura, asserting that James goes to the Bible alone for his summary, it is interesting to note that James quotes two authorities as he summarizes the proceedings: Peter and the Old Testament–“Symeon has related” and “with this the words of the prophets agree” (Acts 15:14-15).
Good, so you understand that everyone
Click to expand...
born is born into & with God’s Grace. Mary is not an exception. Every single one of us is born with enough grace, the rest of us simply turn away from it (and hopefully back to it again - probably falling and rising millions of times in an average life-time) and Mary did not turn away from God’s grace even for a moment.

No, I do not agree that we are all born with God’s grace and that the rest of us just choose to go against it. I think if we had grace in us, it would be hard for us to sin. I think Mary would have to have had God’s grace to keep her free from sin in the first place. God would have to have connected her to Him from before she was born to have her not sin. I accept Mary had grace. I don’t see it as the rest of us do. But, I accept this is how you and the Orthodox see things; that all are born like Mary.
Sorry but Tradition of the Church as handed down by Icongraphy and hymnology is not myth. I have no idea what you may have read in “Saints Behaving Badly” I would venture to guess that it was not written by an Orthodox Christian because it is clear that you did not learn the entire truth of the Life of St. Mary of Egypt & because Saints do not behave badly - a particular person may have acted badly before
Click to expand...
they became a Saint - but again Saints do not behave badly.

No, it was not written by an Orthodox person, but, it did not mention that St. Mary of Egypt walked on water. I have an icon book and I have seen icons of St. Mary of Egypt, I don’t see her walking on water, BUT, in fairness, I could be misreading. The icon book mentions that she did in passing, as though it was a ledgend that was after she was, kind of like St. George and the Dragon or St. Christopher wanting to serve the Greatest.

AND, that was the point of the book, Saints DO behave badly, both before and after they convert. As you said earlier in your original post, they fall down, they get back up. I will agree, however that once they are cannonized, they no longer behave badly.*
 
I think this thread has really gone into a downward spiral (although I note adstrinity’s post of a few minutes ago, trying to get us back on track). To anyone interested in the similarities and differences in the Catholic- and Orthodox- approachs to “How many ecumenical councils have there been?”, I would suggest taking a look at

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=257516
 
Peter_J said:
I think this thread has really gone into a downward spiral
Click to expand...
I agree. I gave my reasons for conversion and promised myself that I would not respond to hi-jacks. But I got sucked into the vortex once again.

My apologies to all I may have offended. I am the worst of all sinners.

Mickey
 
I am very interested in the discussion but a question I have which is the opposite to the one posed by the Thread:

The eminent and distinguished apologist Jim Likoudis left Orthodoxy to become a Catholic. So that does bother me somewhat. What can Orthodox say about this

Blessings and peace
 
Lilyflower said:
I am very interested in the discussion but a question I have which is the opposite to the one posed by the Thread:

The eminent and distinguished apologist Jim Likoudis left Orthodoxy to become a Catholic. So that does bother me somewhat. What can Orthodox say about this

Blessings and peace
Click to expand...
Why does someone leaving Orthodoxy for Catholicism bother you?
 
Peter_J said:
Why does someone leaving Orthodoxy for Catholicism bother you?
Click to expand...
Because it just does not seem logical if one is brought up in the tradition of Holy Orthodox.

I am a Catholic with a deep and profound respect for Holy Orthodox. Now this is how it seems to me. So why would someone as eminent, well informed and authoritative as Jim Licoudis leave Holy Orthodoxy for Catholicism.

In a similar veign, 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. Now others have said to me: ‘what has it got to do with me?’ Well, I guess ‘nothing’ just that it does not add up, that is all!

Blessings and peace.
 
Lilyflower said:
So why would someone as eminent, well informed and authoritative as Jim Licoudis leave Holy Orthodoxy for Catholicism.
Click to expand...
While I’m not as “well informed and authoritative” as Likoudis, I don’t think I’m the village idiot either. I converted from Orthodoxy to Catholicism.

Perhaps I don’t count because I was only Orthodox for 12 years after having converted from Evangelicalism.
 
Lilyflower said:
Amen and thank you for taking the time to explain.

I would be interested in any futher books you can cite.

Blessings and peace
Click to expand...
These books have been helpful to Roman Catholics seeking to understand the Orthodox Catholic Church viewpoints in regards to differences with the Roman church:

Jaroslav Pelikan- Vol 1 & 2 on Roman Catholicism and The Spirit of Eastern Christendom. He was a Lutheran, Yale historian and scholar who shocked the Lutheran world by embracing Orthodox as the true original Church and wrote another book called ACTS (to expound on Scriptural understanding in regards to the early Orthodox Church History of the first century).

Some online audio messages that might be helpful: approximatley 10 minute audio introductions by Matthew Gallatin on Original Sin and its development in Roman Catholic and Lutheran and Calvinist theologies derived from Augustine’s view of sex as evil as well as post split Roman catholic theological influences by Anselm and Thomas Aquinas: ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims/P7/ entitled sola scriptura part 1 and on.

ancientfaith.com/podcasts/carlton/P28/ has the Orthodox message entitled “3 Cheers for Pope Benedict” where Clark helps us understand the differences in ecclesiology between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. He expressed in 10 minutes what many posts here have questioned in regards to Orthodox view of Authority and Apostolic Succession. He also wrote an easy to read book called “The Truth” (What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church).

Another good book recommened by some Roman Catholics is titled: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church by Michael Whelton.

Hope this helps you dear sister.

humbly,
Anthony
 
a_priori said:
While I’m not as “well informed and authoritative” as Likoudis, I don’t think I’m the village idiot either. I converted from Orthodoxy to Catholicism.

Perhaps I don’t count because I was only Orthodox for 12 years after having converted from Evangelicalism.
Click to expand...
I am Orthodox now, but I am curious as to why you would leave Orthodoxy for Catholicism.

In Christ,

Silouan
 
Lilyflower said:
Because it just does not seem logical if one is brought up in the tradition of Holy Orthodox.

I am a Catholic with a deep and profound respect for Holy Orthodox. Now this is how it seems to me. So why would someone as eminent, well informed and authoritative as Jim Licoudis leave Holy Orthodoxy for Catholicism.

In a similar veign, 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. Now others have said to me: ‘what has it got to do with me?’ Well, I guess ‘nothing’ just that it does not add up, that is all!

Blessings and peace.
Click to expand...
Yes, I can understand where you’re coming from. Still I’m not bothered too much by an Orthodox becoming Catholic, or a Catholic becoming Orthodox.

What bothers me more is the way some Catholics (including some on this forum) “encourage” (to put it mildly) Orthodox to convert, and conversely the way some Orthodox “encourage” Catholics to convert.

(And, of course, it’s always sad to see a Catholic or Orthodox depart for Protestantism.)
 
Silouan said:
I am Orthodox now, but I am curious as to why you would leave Orthodoxy for Catholicism.

In Christ,

Silouan
Click to expand...
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?

Orthodox ethnic divisiveness does go against Orthodox Theology. After all, evangelicals like Father Gilquist were turned away by some ethnically focused Orthodox Bishops. Must have been painful to be in an Orthodox congregation where the Theology of the Church was not honored but the ethnic focus of the failing members resulted in judgement against The Church, throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3804923
a_priori said:
I think that is a fair point. To be honest, the problem continues to be epistemological for me. (As for everyone else actually.)

I was liberal Protestant early on and then became Evangelical for decades, spending time as a 5- point Calvinist, dispensationalist, charismatic, Arminian and everything in between looking for the “correct” hermeneutic. A lot of Bible study and then studying the early Church brought me to Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy was great theologically and seemed to be the way to go except that it was very inward and ethnic. I experienced Orthodoxy across jurisdictions and also in many parts of the country. We never did anything for anyone who wasn’t of the ethnicity of the parish, and even very little of that.

I’m Catholic because I’m convinced that it is impossible to know who has it exactly right in terms of doctrine. Christendom is littered with clashing points of view and people who live and die on minor matters of interpretation. Much like the beekeeper who gets stung many times and then one day finds he is now allergic to bee stings, I now have a serious aversion to Christians getting cranky about their particular doctrinal point of view. All this arguing just kicks up dust and helps no one.

I am Catholic because I am a Christian and need some place to be. Catholics in my area actively work in the community to improve the lives of others. I don’t know if saying the Creed with or without the Filioque is correct or not. (And ultimately, neither does anyone else) But I do know that if someone is hungry you should feed them. I’ll start there.

Arguing doctrine makes my hair hurt. It is largely a useless exercise and I don’t do it anymore. Listening to people argue doctrine is like fingernails on blackboard.

Helping the helpless is like a soothing breeze. It feels great in the innermost parts.

God didn’t say “You shall be My debating team.” He said “You shall be my witnesses.” He also said “If you did it not to the least of these, you did it not to Me.”
Click to expand...
 
LoveofGod said:
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top