Help - Why stay Catholic vs. moving to Eastern Orthodoxy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BusterMartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The OOs would say the same–they follow the orthodoxy of “Peter” before Leo fell into heresy and the Chalcedonian churches followed him in it.

Given Leo’s views of his office, I’m surprised more EOs don’t convert to OO. Maybe they have been right all along?
 
Last edited:
Maybe.

And maybe the Hindus have it right. Or Richard Dawkins. Only the dead know.

But ecumenism between the OO and EO made huge gains during the nineties and aughts. It recently stalled, but some (like myself) think THAT reunification might actually happen during our lives.
 
A quick google finds
  • Rome in Schism with Milan and Quileia for over a century after Contantinople II (and all three in Italy!)
  • the Photon Schism
  • Chalcedon, of course (never repaired)
    *the best west schism over St. John Chrystosom
    *Emperor Zeno’'s schism between Rome and Constantionple
and so forth. There were plenty, some healed quickly, and others longer.

There were others between eastern churches, but I have other things to google that involve getting paid 😁

I just checked in while pulling out my hair trying to relearn pieces of html so that I can use them once and forget them again :roll_eyes:

but,
adf417 said:
Either they were in common-union or they were not. Your term “breaking and restoring” shows there was something unorthodox on one side or the other.
Click to expand...
They came and went. It doesn’t take a lack of orthodoxy; it can be as simple as a contested election of a patriarch or other church head.

And consider that a couple of hundred years ago, the Melkites spent more than a century in simultaneous communion with Rome and Constantinople . . .

When the heads change, communion needs to be established again–communion is through that leader.

It’s going to be interesting when the Ukrainian Catholics next elect a leader and he follows patriarchal rather than major archbishop protocol when approaching Rome . . .

hawk
 
dochawk said:
They came and went. It doesn’t take a lack of orthodoxy; it can be as simple as a contested election of a patriarch or other church head.

And consider that a couple of hundred years ago, the Melkites spent more than a century in simultaneous communion with Rome and Constantinople . . .

When the heads change, communion needs to be established again–communion is through that leader.

It’s going to be interesting when the Ukrainian Catholics next elect a leader and he follows patriarchal rather than major archbishop protocol when approaching Rome . . .
Click to expand...
I am slightly aware of all these things which is why i will stick to my 1st post to the OP. You may have a valid point but im not seeing how it nullifies my 1st post.

Peace!!!
 
Oh that one is easy.

It’s incumbent on the one making a claim to proof the claim.

Asking them to prove a negative - like you do in your first post - is irrational by rule of logic.

Non-papacy is literally anything besides papacy.
  • Messianic Judaism
  • Taoism
  • Cats
    The list is limitless.
 
bobperk said:
It seems that many Catholics these days may be considering conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy. With the recent scandals and cover-ups, the tired Catholic mantra of “…but we’ve always had sinners in the Church!” is no longer a legitimate excuse. If nothing constructive is done during this huge crisis, then we will need some resident Orthodox members on this forum to help guide new converts along.
Click to expand...
It’s not an excuse, it’s fact- and the sins of the shepherds don’t absolve us from our duty to remain in Christ’s Church.
 
Orthodox sacraments are valid, per the RCC.

For those considering, try the OCA - Orthodox Church in America. Its success will do much to break the reputation of American Orthodoxy being primarily composed of immigrant churches.
 
Last edited:
I dont expect tem to prove the negative i just expect them to consider the consequences of the negative.

Peace!!!
 
Last edited:
bobperk said:
It seems that many Catholics these days may be considering conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy. With the recent scandals and cover-ups, the tired Catholic mantra of “…but we’ve always had sinners in the Church!” is no longer a legitimate excuse. If nothing constructive is done during this huge crisis, then we will need some resident Orthodox members on this forum to help guide new converts along.
Click to expand...
Because there are no sinners in the Orthodox church ???
 
My only answer to the OP is that when Christ commissioned Peter as the head of the Church, Jesus said he would send the Advocate (Holy Spirit) to guide Peter (the church) in all truth. I don’t recall Jesus saying anything about this applying to the Metropolitan of Constantinople (or whoever is in charge over there)

If you want to go East, go. You can always come back when, and if, you realize that outside of some liturgy differences, the Orthodox are probably just as full of sinners as Rome.
 
adf417 said:
I dont expect tem to prove the negative i just expect them to consider the consequences of the negative.
Click to expand...
The consequence of that negative is “history as we know it” . . .

🙂
joeybaggz said:
. I don’t recall Jesus saying anything about this applying to the Metropolitan of Constantinople (or whoever is in charge over there)
Click to expand...
I don’t recall Him saying that about those that would fill one of the three Petrine sees after Peter’s death, either—but we all accept that to some degree or another . . .

hawk
 
If you believe in the miracles of our lady of Lourdes, Guadeloupe and Fatima, you will know that Gods favor is with the Catholic Church.
 
dochawk said:
I don’t recall Him saying that about those that would fill one of the three Petrine sees after Peter’s death, either—but we all accept that to some degree or another . . .
Click to expand...
Have to agree. Jesus commissioned Peter as head of His Church. Then he left it up to Peter how to implement and provide for its continuance. Don’t recall him telling Peter exactly how to do it. I think Christ trusted Peter to handle things by himself. And I don’t see anyone else in the picture. Peter is the head of Christ’s church. Today is the result of that commission.
 
Read your profile. I don’t know if others have responded. Monestary sounds great but I think it would be better to stay Catholic. I don’t know how it is in UK but in the states we have sober living and things like that other programs. I hope whatever happens is for the best and that this site helps ease your suffering. You will find your way. Congrats on your coming freedom.
 
If I take up the offer of living accommodation in the monastry it will be difficult to practice my Catholic faith within an Orthodox surrounding as it is miles from nowhere so I cannot just pop off to a church, it is quite a dilemma for me at the moment.
 
No I totally understand. Perhaps taking the more difficult road would be wise though by going somewhere else. Besides haven’t you grown enough during your sentence? Is isolation and monastic life really in order after all you’ve been through? Pray your rosary if you have one and stay safe.
 
I know God has plans for me within a monastic/Friary setting and that is why I believe God put me in prison/hospital as I would be dead by now so isolation while constantly praying sounds good to me, yes I have grown a lot in my sentence as God has moulded me to what I am now.

Here is the monastry https://www.orthodoxmonastery.co.uk/
 
Last edited:
If you really think it is a calling and not a convenience I say go for it. It pains me though since you seem to have the desire to stay in line with Rome maybe you can find one of our orders to accommodate you. God bless and may fortune smile on you.
 
Thank you for the link. I read through all of it, but I do not feel that it sufficiently proves that the role of the Pope in the first 1000 years of the Church was to be the supreme pastor or aupreme bishop. I have no question at all about the primacy of the pope; rather, I am only questioning what he can do with that primacy from a historical perspective. I don’t think this article answered the latter very well.
 
I am slowly making my way through the thread. Due to long working hours it hasn’t been easy to keep up with the posts. I thank you for these responses, but here I am not questioning the Orthodox Church - instead I am questioning soley the historical proofs of the supremacy of the Pope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top