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

[Peter_J]

Problem is that e.g. Lumen Gentium demands assent to the pope of Rome even when he doesn’t speak ex cathedra.

I think it would be more correct to say that there are some instances in which assent is required to a teaching that is not a dogmatic definition (hence not an ex cathedra statement). For example, “Apostolicae Curae” (1896).

 

[StMarina303ad]

That’s not what I was getting; thank you for clearing that up! BUT, something I’d like to say, few Protestants accept homosexuality. Most of the Protestants say that a person chooses to be gay and can change…which, again, isn’t the side of the Apostolic Churches.

What are you talking about? Of course those who sin make a choice to sin! If I rob a liquor store, I’ve chosen to do so. If I have sexual relations outside of marriage, then I’ve chosen to do so. If I chose to have homosexual relations, then I’ve chosen to do so. God doesn’t create us with sinful tendencies - we are free to chose.

We, who live in a sinful world, just like Jesus are tempted at one point or another to sin…Jesus and Mary resisted temptation and we on the other hand after tempted have chosen to sin (at least once, but more likely repeatedly) and sometimes after being tempted, with the help of God and the Panagia, we are chose to overcome temptation. God does not permit someone to be tempted beyond their capability to resist. A homosexual person, just like the rest of us sinners, is free to resist temptation and chose God over that sin. A habitual sin becomes a passion and more difficult to overcome, but not impossible - nothing is impossible with God.

 

[adstrinity]

What are you talking about? Of course those who sin make a choice to sin! If I rob a liquor store, I’ve chosen to do so. If I have sexual relations outside of marriage, then I’ve chosen to do so. If I chose to have homosexual relations, then I’ve chosen to do so. God doesn’t create us with sinful tendencies - we are free to chose.

We, who live in a sinful world, just like Jesus are tempted at one point or another to sin…Jesus and Mary resisted temptation and we on the other hand after tempted have chosen to sin (at least once, but more likely repeatedly) and sometimes after being tempted, with the help of God and the Panagia, we are chose to overcome temptation. God does not permit someone to be tempted beyond their capability to resist. A homosexual person, just like the rest of us sinners, is free to resist temptation and chose God over that sin. A habitual sin becomes a passion and more difficult to overcome, but not impossible - nothing is impossible with God.

The Catholic Church teaches that homosexuals MAY be born that way. Thy may choose to live in chastity or they may choose to live in sin.

Liberal Protestant churches say Gay is okay.

Conservative Protestant churches say that one is NEVER born gay. They CHOOSE to be gay. It’s not that they choose to act on their passions, they choose to have that orientation.

That’s what I was talking about.

 

[StMarina303ad]

The Catholic Church teaches that homosexuals MAY be born that way. Thy may choose to live in chastity or they may choose to live in sin.

Liberal Protestant churches say Gay is okay.

Conservative Protestant churches say that one is NEVER born gay. They CHOOSE to be gay. It’s not that they choose to act on their passions, they choose to have that orientation.

That’s what I was talking about.

In your post you’d indicated that both Catholic *& Orthodox *taught that God created people with sin…don’t lump the Orthodox Church in with this bizzare idea. The Orthodox Church is clear on the fact that God creates each human being perfectly without sin but since Adam and Eve each are born into a sin tainted world in which temptation to sins is all around them. Sin is not the norm and God does not create any of us sinful. We as humans chose which sin we will commit. Everyone is born free to chose God or sin.

 

[adstrinity]

In your post you’d indicated that both Catholic *& Orthodox *taught that God created people with sin…

No I didn’t.

don’t lump the Orthodox Church in with this bizzare idea.

Have not done so in the past, did not do so now, will not do so in the future.

 

[mtr01]

You’ll notice that someone added “[the Roman Church]” in the above quote so as to mislead the readers into thinking that is what the letter was refering to.

I added the brackets so as to clarify the meaning. When Pope Agatho speaks of the Church as a whole, he calls it “Christ’s Catholic Church” when he refers to the Roman Church, he calls it the “Apostolic Church” founded on the princes of the Apostle’s. This is apparent to anyone who reads the letter.

 

[mtr01]

The same Council anathematized Pope Honorius as a heretic.

What the Council meant when it did this was recently discussed: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=247691

I’m well aware of that thread, as well as others in the discussion on this topic in which I have participated over the last 4 years. Given the weight of the evidence, such as:

the same council describing as “divinely written as though from Peter” the letter of Pope Agatho which states that Rome has never fallen to error and never will according to the divine promise of Christ to Peter;

the testimony of Honorius’ private secretary;

the testimony of St. Maximus;

the testimony of Pope Martin;

the testimony of Pope Leo;

it is clear that the condemnation the Orthodox love to bring up isn’t exactly what they think it is.

 

[mtr01]

It’s interesting the language Pope Agatho uses: he mentions the Apostolic Church of Christ as spiritual mother “of your most tranquil empire.” The letter is addressed to the Emperor and the Empress.

Pope Agatho here is not claiming a motherhood over the other churches. Mother Church seems the more appropriate interpretation.

Spin it any way you like. Regardless of to whom the letter was addressed, Pope Agatho’s meaning is clear. Read it again:

…this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things ; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred .

*emphasis mine *

It is plain to see that Pope is claiming the Roman Church (again, notice the distinction between “Apostolic Church” (Rome) and “Catholic Church” (the Church Universal)) holds authority over the entire Church and even Ecumenical Councils.

It is up to the individual to decide if he or she is with the holy orthodox fathers who have followed and venerated the doctrine of Rome, or if the are with the heretics who make false claims and hate Rome’s doctrine.

(remember, the Council wrote that Agatho’s letter was “divinely written” as though by the hand of Peter himself.)

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

I walked away from Catholicism because it no longer preaches Ascesis (i.e. holiness). There is simply a great falling away from the Apostolic Faith in the Roman Catholic Church and it’s been falling away since before Vatican II. It is now largely a vapid place void of any spiritual athleticism.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I’m well aware of that thread, as well as others in the discussion on this topic in which I have participated over the last 4 years. Given the weight of the evidence, such as:

the same council describing as “divinely written as though from Peter” the letter of Pope Agatho which states that Rome has never fallen to error and never will according to the divine promise of Christ to Peter;

Obviously, as that same Council condemned Pope Honorius of Old Rome, it isn’t exactly what you think it is.

the testimony of Honorius’ private secretary;

the testimony of St. Maximus;

the testimony of Pope Martin;

the testimony of Pope Leo;

You speak as if the Fathers of the Council didn’t have these. And yet they went on to condemn and anathematize Honorius.

You leave out the Papal Oath of Pope Leo, recited for centuries by every Pope at his coronation, condemning and anathematizing Honorius.

it is clear that the condemnation the Orthodox love to bring up isn’t exactly what they think it is.

Clearer that the exoneration that the Vatican proffers isn’t exactly what they think it is.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Spin it any way you like. Regardless of to whom the letter was addressed, Pope Agatho’s meaning is clear. Read it again:It is plain to see that Pope is claiming the Roman Church (again, notice the distinction between “Apostolic Church” (Rome) and “Catholic Church” (the Church Universal)) holds authority over the entire Church and even Ecumenical Councils.

It is up to the individual to decide if he or she is with the holy orthodox fathers who have followed and venerated the doctrine of Rome, or if the are with the heretics who make false claims and hate Rome’s doctrine.

(remember, the Council wrote that Agatho’s letter was “divinely written” as though by the hand of Peter himself.)

…this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things ; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred

“Never…any…” that would seem to rule out the exoneration by hair splitting on whether Honorius was a material heretic…blah, blah, blah…

I do recall someone here posting some letters to the emperor which talked abuot his divine guidance, etc… etc… Does that prove Henry VIII’s model?

 

[Peter_J]

What are you talking about? Of course those who sin make a choice to sin! If I rob a liquor store, I’ve chosen to do so. If I have sexual relations outside of marriage, then I’ve chosen to do so. If I chose to have homosexual relations, then I’ve chosen to do so. God doesn’t create us with sinful tendencies - we are free to chose.

Unfortunately, our culture does a little “sleight of hand” with the word “gay”. Sometimes, saying that someone is “gay” means that he or she has same-sex attractions, but other times it means that he or she actively engages in homosexual acts. (For example, one thing that really bugs me is how people are always saying that V. Gene Robinson is the “first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church”. The issue is not that he’s “openly gay” but that he’s actively “gay”.)

In your post you’d indicated that both Catholic *& Orthodox *taught that God created people with sin…don’t lump the Orthodox Church in with this bizzare idea.

I agree that that’s a bizarre idea. Fortunately, adstrinity never suggested it.

 

[Hesychios]

Grace and Peace,

I walked away from Catholicism because it no longer preaches Ascesis (i.e. holiness). There is simply a great falling away from the Apostolic Faith in the Roman Catholic Church and it’s been falling away since before Vatican II. It is now largely a vapid place void of any spiritual athleticism.

Yes, that certainly had an effect on me in my discernment.

 

[mtr01]

Obviously, as that same Council condemned Pope Honorius of Old Rome, it isn’t exactly what you think it is.

You speak as if the Fathers of the Council didn’t have these. And yet they went on to condemn and anathematize Honorius.

You leave out the Papal Oath of Pope Leo, recited for centuries by every Pope at his coronation, condemning and anathematizing Honorius.

Clearer that the exoneration that the Vatican proffers isn’t exactly what they think it is.

I seem to remember in a previous thread a year or so ago, your conclusion was that the Council Fathers were insane.

Anyhow, the fact remains that Pope Agatho’s letter wrote that Rome had never fallen into error, nor could it ever fall into error because of the divine promises of Christ to Peter. Upon receiving this letter (and scrutinizing it), the Fathers wrote to Pope Agatho that his letter was “divinely written” as by the hand of Peter himself.

Spin it as you like, but you will never be able to void that one simple fact, without coming to your previous conclusion that the Fathers were out of their minds (which would also cast doubt on their condemnation of Pope Honorius), or that the Holy Spirit had abandoned the Council. Either way, each assertion becomes ridiculous when taken to its logical conclusion.

I know a great deal of posters here are fond of Occam’s Razor, so which makes more sense - that Honorius taught heresy and that the Fathers, Saints and Popes that witnesses otherwise were insane; or Honorius was condemned for not stopping the heresy, which poses no contradictions for the Letter of Agatho or the Council Fathers and also is consistent with what the aforementioned popes and Saints witnessed?

Let the reader choose which is more plausible.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I seem to remember in a previous thread a year or so ago, your conclusion was that the Council Fathers were insane.

No, I stated the logical conclusion to your line of thinking would be that they were insane. Big difference.

Anyhow, the fact remains that Pope Agatho’s letter wrote that Rome had never fallen into error, nor could it ever fall into error because of the divine promises of Christ to Peter. Upon receiving this letter (and scrutinizing it), the Fathers wrote to Pope Agatho that his letter was “divinely written” as by the hand of Peter himself.

Yes, I think you have mentioned that before. You haven’t mentioned how, if they believed this to be Pastor Aeternus, how they went on to condemn Honorius.

Btw, why did the Fathers scrutinize the letter, when they knew it was from the Pope of Rome, and, according to how much you are making of it, ex cathedra?

Spin it as you like, but you will never be able to void that one simple fact, without coming to your previous conclusion that the Fathers were out of their minds (which would also cast doubt on their condemnation of Pope Honorius), or that the Holy Spirit had abandoned the Council. Either way, each assertion becomes ridiculous when taken to its logical conclusion.

Or you read the letter in the context of the others that were posted to the emperor, and realize that Agatho’s letter is not Pastor Aeternus.

I know a great deal of posters here are fond of Occam’s Razor, so which makes more sense - that Honorius taught heresy and that the Fathers, Saints and Popes that witnesses otherwise were insane; or Honorius was condemned for not stopping the heresy, which poses no contradictions for the Letter of Agatho or the Council Fathers and also is consistent with what the aforementioned popes and Saints witnessed?

Or one gives up hair splitting on whether Honorius was a material heretic or not, and take the Fathers at their word when they anathematized the Pope of Rome as a Heretic (btw, at the same time they praised the Patriarch, Sophronius, of Jerusalem).

Let the reader choose which is more plausible.

Yes, let them.

Btw, San Antonio. I was in your neck of the woods (and your cathedral) just two weeks ago with my sons. Lovely town, btw.

 

[mtr01]

No, I stated the logical conclusion to your line of thinking would be that they were insane. Big difference.

That’s not how I remember it - besides, the logical conclusion to my line of thinking is that Rome is not capable of error, and that Honorius was not condemned for teaching heresy.

Yes, I think you have mentioned that before. You haven’t mentioned how, if they believed this to be Pastor Aeternus, how they went on to condemn Honorius.

Btw, why did the Fathers scrutinize the letter, when they knew it was from the Pope of Rome, and, according to how much you are making of it, ex cathedra?

See Above. Further, why wouldn’t they scrutinize the letter? Being from the Pope of Rome, I’m sure the council Fathers thought it was worth scrutinizing to learn what it taught (i.e., the orthodox faith). What you still can’t whitewash over is that after reading the letter, the council Fathers considered it “divinely written” as though by Peter himself.

Or you read the letter in the context of the others that were posted to the emperor, and realize that Agatho’s letter is not Pastor Aeternus.

Were the other letters considered by the Fathers to be “divinely written”? No one said Pope Agatho’s letter is Pastor Aeternus, however, you can’t get around the more than plain text of the letter which states that Rome cannot err because of the divine promise of Christ to Peter.

Or one gives up hair splitting on whether Honorius was a material heretic or not, and take the Fathers at their word when they anathematized the Pope of Rome as a Heretic (btw, at the same time they praised the Patriarch, Sophronius, of Jerusalem).

Of course that would be the Orthodox solution. Unfortunately it is untenable based on the historical record, especially the witness of St. Maximus, Pope Martin, Pope Agatho, and the personal secretary of Honorius himself.

Yes, let them.

Btw, San Antonio. I was in your neck of the woods (and your cathedral) just two weeks ago with my sons. Lovely town, btw.

Thank you for your kind words. I do like it here, but still prefer my hometown of Baltimore.

 

[srp643]

I forgot that you are an expert on the Holy Russian Orthodox Church.
Okay. And you have not had any “real” Ecumenical Councils either. I guess that makes us even.

Hilarious. One need not be an expert to make a simple observation. Does Russia recognize Estonian orthodoxy (not sure which version) the same it would some other version of Eastern Orthodoxy? My understanding is Russia does not. So is Estonia currently in “schism” from the main Moscow version? But maybe Estonia is in union with other orthodox churches. How about Latvia and Georgia?

Au contrare, I didn’t know you were an expert on our councils. It appears you just lost twice, again a good effort but our Lord is all merciful. My question was simple, is a synod the same as an ecumenical council in your religion and are all versions of Eastern Orthodoxy present at these synods? I cannot believe this question is that difficult to answer, so a response is appreciated but I will look elsewhere.

 

[srp643]

All Orthodoxy shares the same true faith.

Your bitterness is alarming.

Based on what I’ve read, I don’t think so brother. Sadly, not even close.

No bitterness on this end (I’m blessed to have been given the gift of faith in the one, holy Catholic and Apostolic Church) but alarming can be good on your end - our Lord demonstrated the effectiveness of tough love. For some people, this indeed can be very effective. I think a lot of people (especially non-Christians) need a huge wake up call and the status quo isn’t working that well it appears.

So again, am I accurate when I say that an ecumenical council is the final authority on matters of faith in at least a majority of orthodox churches? Maybe it is a local Patriarch, unclear.

 

[srp643]

The same orthodox church that St. Paul addressed when he wrote to the church of God at Corinth, and to the church of the Thessalonians.

Good stuff, thanks. Not sure when the term “orthodox” came into being in this context but, yes, per numerous Early Church Fathers, the same churches that were ultimately under Peter (formerly called Simon), Deo gratias.

I’m curious, does anyone know if any of the other apostles had their name directly changed by the Lord?

 

[Mickey]

Based on what I’ve read, I don’t think so brother.

It appears you read the wrong things–and it makes you bitter. I will pray for you.