I am in in "frozen" mode. Please help

[greek_yogurt]

The title says it all. I don’t know if this is the right forum, but I consider this a moral dilemma, so this was where I decided to go with this discussion. I am an Orthodox Christian. I grew up in a schismatic traditional Catholic church and came into communion with Rome when I was 19. It is now several years later and have planted myself in Orthodoxy for various reasons. The reason I have titled my thread as frozen mode is because over the course of my journey into Orthodoxy, I have went back to the catholic Church a couple of times. At this point I do not know what to do and feel that my prayers are not being answered from God to show me the truth. I do feel that I have been given sign to confirm my Orthodoxy (be it from God or Satan) and same goes for the Catholic faith (also be it from God or Satan). This is the problem. Which do I listen to? I never have quite the same struggle (mentally, emotional, and spiritually) as a Catholic as I do an Orthodox. As a Catholic, things just go right in life. I just don’t know if I should interpret these struggles as a sign of my disobedience or Satan trying to discourage me and keep me from the truth. But at the same time, very, very, very coincidental things sequentially happen to me, and when I take a hard look at it, it seems as though I am being confirmed in Orthodoxy.

So, to the meat of the matter. I was led away from Rome for a variety of reasons. Mostly because of a severe departure from tradition that the Orthodox as a whole seems to have held on to. The following are my concerns:
-Infants not receiving the Eucharist
-Receiving the Eucharist before being Chrismated (this makes absololutley no chronological sense to me)
-The oversimplification of various prayers and actions in the liturgy
-The fact that there are very few icons in Catholicism and there is an entire Ecumenical council that is dedicated to venerating icons
-The fact that there was no single teaching as to the indissolubility of marriage before Trent. Many local councils in the West did in fact allow divorce and grant remarriage.
-The fact that the sacrament of penance is a development out of the persecutions of the early church and the question as to how to receive back apostates. I have heard this from both Catholic and Orthodox sources.
-Mistranslations of the vulgate to support an Augustinian view of Original Sin.
-The over emphasis on the law and rampant legalism that specifically affected the West before Vatican II.
-And not to say that Orthodoxy doesn’t have a role in this, but the concept of conversion by force (a very Islamic concept)
-Overall, the East has maintained more of a mystical approach to the faith whereas the West has taken a much more practical approach.
-The fact that the early church was not highly centralized.
-Canonization of saints in the early church resembles the Orthodox method and being more local and grassroots as opposed to the highly structured and legal approach in Catholicism.
-Fasting has gone by the wayside.
-In the east, monasticism and the laity are not really on two seperate tracks so to speak as they are in Catholicism. Most of the prayers in my prayer book are taken directly from monastic and liturgical prayers. The laity and monastics all participate in liturgical prayer together.

These are what I can think of right off the top of my head. I will not discuss the papacy or the filioque. There is so much debate about what this father said about this and this council said about that, and da da da that I truly believe this will have to be an act of faith from either party. I do not believe one can prove either position form history or scripture. Both traditions have good arguments and if that were not the case, good-willed people would not spend hours upon hours in torment trying to figure the question out. It comes done to faith and not the intellect as far as the papacy goes, imho.

Again, this is not a polemic. It is a sincere individual seeking for the truth. My soul is in utter torment and all I want is to find the truth and be at peace.

In XC,
a fellow confused Orthodox Christian just seeking for the truth and wanting to find peace for my family and me

Godspeed.

 

[asd72]

Just a suggestion, why don’t you post + work through your issues systematically one at a time. It would be easier to give you feedback that way. There are some regular Orthodox as well as Catholics here, so you hopefully will hear from both sides.

 

[runningdude]

The title says it all. I don’t know if this is the right forum, but I consider this a moral dilemma, so this was where I decided to go with this discussion. I am an Orthodox Christian. I grew up in a schismatic traditional Catholic church and came into communion with Rome when I was 19…

As a Catholic, things just go right in life. I just don’t know if I should interpret these struggles as a sign of my disobedience or Satan trying to discourage me and keep me from the truth. But at the same time, very, very, very coincidental things sequentially happen to me, and when I take a hard look at it, it seems as though I am being confirmed in Orthodoxy.

Do not worry about “Satan” trying to tempt you into one church or another. Satan’s only goal is to cast doubt, anxiety and uncertainty. The promise of Christ is that He will give you rest. There is so much truth in the Orthodox Church, that you are merely feeling your soul legitimately reverberate within that Church. The Orthodox Church has so much beauty and faith, that we Catholics pray fervently for the day they reenter full communion with the Catholic Church.

So, to the meat of the matter. I was led away from Rome for a variety of reasons. Mostly because of a severe departure from tradition that the Orthodox as a whole seems to have held on to. The following are my concerns:
-Infants not receiving the Eucharist
-Receiving the Eucharist before being Chrismated (this makes absololutley no chronological sense to me)

Ontologically, only baptism is required for reception of the Eucharist. As the Eucharist exists outside of time, “chronology” does not affect it.

-The oversimplification of various prayers and actions in the liturgy

It is the prerogative of the Church to set the liturgy. Christ gave the church this authority.

-The fact that there are very few icons in Catholicism and there is an entire Ecumenical council that is dedicated to venerating icons

Icons are required for a Catholic worship space. At a minimum, most church’s have stations of the cross.

-The fact that there was no single teaching as to the indissolubility of marriage before Trent. Many local councils in the West did in fact allow divorce and grant remarriage.

This just means that it was a controversial topic that require a full Ecumenical Council to solve once and for all.

-The fact that the sacrament of penance is a development out of the persecutions of the early church and the question as to how to receive back apostates. I have heard this from both Catholic and Orthodox sources.

Receiving back apostates is a jurisdictional action separate from the sacrament of confession. Most priests are given the authority to lift an excommunication associated with apostasy, which must be lifted before sacramental absolution can be given.

In the Orthodox Churches, a Chrismation is given, which has the jurisdictional effect of reuniting the apostate. In the Catholic Church, it is generally a set of words recited by the priest before absolution is given.

-Mistranslations of the vulgate to support an Augustinian view of Original Sin.

Original sin is taught authoritatively by the Magisterium of the Church and does not rely on a single translation, but on the promise that Christ would not allow His church to fall into error. The doctrine of original sin can be defended with any proper translation of scripture.

-The over emphasis on the law and rampant legalism that specifically affected the West before Vatican II.

Vatican II was called to address this mentality. This mentality, however, does not affect the validity of any Catholic doctrine.

-And not to say that Orthodoxy doesn’t have a role in this, but the concept of conversion by force (a very Islamic concept)

Forced conversion is a sin. All men are capable of it, and has nothing to do with Islam or Christianity, but the abuse of authority by people seeking power.

-Overall, the East has maintained more of a mystical approach to the faith whereas the West has taken a much more practical approach.

So?

-The fact that the early church was not highly centralized.

Saint Peter alone was given the title of Rock. He is seen settling disputes in the bible. The fact that communication 2000 years ago, even 200 years ago, required weeks by foot or boat necessitated decentralization.

-Canonization of saints in the early church resembles the Orthodox method and being more local and grassroots as opposed to the highly structured and legal approach in Catholicism.

Canonization is merely the process by which public veneration during mass is permitted. One is still free to venerate any deceased person one in good faith has reached heaven, as was the case in the early church.

-Fasting has gone by the wayside.

This is a problem among individual Catholics. The Church still requires it in several circumstances, but its up to individuals to comply.

-In the east, monasticism and the laity are not really on two seperate tracks so to speak as they are in Catholicism. Most of the prayers in my prayer book are taken directly from monastic and liturgical prayers. The laity and monastics all participate in liturgical prayer together.

This is merely a stylistic preference.

These are what I can think of right off the top of my head. I will not discuss the papacy or the filioque…

In XC,
a fellow confused Orthodox Christian just seeking for the truth and wanting to find peace for my family and me

Godspeed.