I need advice with this

[slh3016]

Im thinking of converting to eastern orthodoxy. {snip}
Quite a few things pushed me away from the Catholic church. {snip}
Ive also looked into the history of the schism and I have to say I side with the orthodox. {snip}

So I really like the east ern orthodox church because of its theology and its structure. Its not as dogmatic as the Catholic church. Its more flexible. {snip}

Should I stick with my new found non denominationalism? Or should I convert to orthodoxy? Or should I come back to catholicism? I promise this will be my last thread here. So im listening for any (name removed by moderator)ut.

DH and I seriously looked at Orthodoxy before deciding to go toward the Catholic Church and I’ll be honest, there are several aspects of Eastern theology that I prefer to the Roman Catholic expression of it. However, in the end, we decided to pursue the RCC.

Here’s why: Authority.

Coming from a Protestant background (most recently non-denonimation), we began to see the inherent inconsistencies among non-denominationalism. There was no AUTHORITY beyond that of each individual pastor in interpreting Scripture and no two churches were alike in their beliefs (yes, many agreements on SOME issues, but disagreements on others). But who was correct in their interpretation? Each pastor would say, “I’ve prayed earnestly about this interpretation that I’m teaching and I believe with my whole heart that the Holy Spirit gave me this and therefore, it is truth.” The problem was that the pastor on the opposite corner who believed and taught differently CLAIMED THE EXACT SAME THING! So, is the Holy Spirit a liar? Would the Holy Spirit lead one pastor to a certain “truth” but lead another pastor to a different “truth”?

Is truth even ascertainable? Did Jesus go back to heaven and say, “Have at it, guys! Good luck at find the truth because I’ve made it so impossible to know that you’ll spend the rest of your life looking for it”?

Absolutely not! Jesus left an authoritative church (i.e., the Apostles with Peter as the head)! Did He leave a canonized Bible? Nope! He left a Magisterium. He also sent the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).

Sooooo, if Jesus left a church (with authority) and sent the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth, non-denominationalism is not feasible. There is a visible Church somewhere that the Holy Spirit is guiding……where is that visible church? There are only two options for the Church that is still in existence from the first century until today: the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church.

But, when DH and I took a hard look at Orthodoxy, the same problems we found in non-denominationalism were also present in Orthodoxy. There is no “head” in Orthodoxy to settle disputes, heresies, etc. There has to be a final authority but we couldn’t find it in Orthodoxy Orthodoxy seemed too splintered along geographical boundaries for any authority it claims to have to be effective.

As for history, I would especially like to note that if you look deeply, there are many evidences for the Roman bishop having superseding authority over the church. There were many written requests for the Roman bishop to settle a dispute or give authorization for the rest of the church.

Here is a CA tract on this very thing: Authority of the Pope: Part I

At many times on this journey, I have felt that maybe the Roman expression of doctrine is a bit narrowing and too defining, almost backing itself into a corner whereas the Eastern expression of that doctrine doesn’t necessarily do so. It does seem “simpler” and less nuanced, which I do prefer, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the two are contradicting. It’s just that the Roman Church had more opposition and heresies it had to face than the Eastern church (maybe because the Eastern church was more of a moving target ) and therefore, had to define more to close the “loopholes.”

Think of it as contract law. You could have a very simple contract that says what you think will cover all circumstances, but inevitably someone will come along and try to “loophole” the contract causing you to have to define even more of what you mean so there are no misunderstandings. I reckon it to trying to reason with a child - children always try to find the loopholes in parents’ rules because children know their parents are their authority.

Lastly, please note that there is a difference between what has been dogmatized in regards to the Catholic faith versus what has been theorized and promoted by different Church doctors. Some examples of this are purgatory, fate of unbaptized infants, atonement theories, etc. While the church laity may hold to one or another of the different “theories” as truth and even may assert them as church teaching, this is very inaccurate and misleading. I think you’ll find that the Catholic Church actually leaves more open to mystery than you think it does.

And as others have noted, you could still hold to Eastern theology without leaving the Catholic faith. Even I had an Eastern Catholic church close by, I might would even attend there myself.

 

[808Catholic]

Thats not true. I hate when people judge me like that. Im not just trying to find a religion which will allow me to do what I want. Heck, if I wanted that id have left the church a long time ago and id have become an atheist. Whenever something doesnt make sense to me I ask questions. However in the Catholic church that seems to be forbidden. If you even question some NON dogmatic teachings youre smacked with an anathema.
Theres a millon ruled and regulations which are totally arbitrary
Take this one for example:" if a priest solicits adultery for confession then he is anathema" ok. But what if he solicits murder for confession? Is he not anathema then? Because the LAW specifies adultery and not murder? Or when communists were excommunicated. First of all God does not recognize human authority or human institutions. So merely holding a view of the economy cannot possibly be sinful. Also how is merely belonging to a certain ideology a mortal sin?
And what about the index of forbidden books? Was it a mortal sin back then to read a book on the list but not a sin today? In other words if a person back then read books which were forbidden by the church and never confessed it did he go to hell? Even though the church abolished the index later on (50 years ago) according to church law he would have gone to hell because its obediance to the pope that counts not actual right and wrong.

OP, you originally asked for our opinion whether you should stay a Catholic, go with the non-denominational Christian church, or convert to eastern orthodox. I gave my opinion and my observations along with a prayer. I’m not sure what provoked your outpouring of vitriol against the church. Truly, go with God. May He protect you on your faith journey.

 

[FrancisJoseph]

I don’t mean to hijack but, I just had to say a few things regarding the above:

The Eastern Catholic Churches (22 of them) are their own Churches sui juris. The Eastern Catholic Churches have their own Code of Canons.
They’re not religious orders. They acknowledge and accept the pope as pontiff, and therefore are in communion with Rome, but they are not “Roman Catholic”. We are Maronite, Melkite, Byzantine, Chaldean, Syro Malankara, etc, etc. To say “they’re still “technically” Roman Catholic” is not correct. We are not of the Roman rite. We have our own Churches and rites (liturgies), but yes in “communion” with Rome if you want to think of it that way.
Eastern Catholic Churches are led by their Patriarch, or in some Churches, Major Archbishop or a Metropolitan. "Others, correct me here - it’s late! *

To the best of my knowledge, Bishops in the Eastern Catholic Churches are not allowed to be married. Someone else can correct me (please) if I’m wrong about that.
Like I said, it’s almost 1am so, others who are more educated than I am, please correct whatever I’ve said that might be wrong.

Thank you for more insight into this. For example i wasn’t aware the eastern rite hadn’t broken away ever, i thought they where an older reunification, much like that group of; i believe Episcopal churchs who resently came into communion with the pope (and there married priest have been given permission to serve there parishes as catholic priests… special allowance)
I was aware that the eastern rite priests are permitted to marry ( assumed bishops also, don’t know) Also i was aware the eastern rite mass is greek not latin.
As to how to use the church’s title… well the orthodox are “The Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church” so wasn’t sure how to make sure Eastern Rite Catholic Church wouldn’t loose people.
But your right you do note use Roman Latin so your not Roman

Though honestly Rome has been trying to play nice with the orthadox for some time (more so since HH Pope Francis) heck i was just reading in the catechism 1170 (the part about discussion for a common Easter) I would say its all splitting hairs except denial of the popes authority isn’t small

But can’t we all just come together over Calvinism and Westlyism being heresy?
(I mean come on no loss of salvation not even being possible with intentional blasphemy)

Proverbs 9:8 A scoffer who is rebuked will only hate you; the wise, when rebuked, will love you.

 

[slh3016]

Lastly, please note that there is a difference between what has been dogmatized in regards to the Catholic faith versus what has been theorized and promoted by different Church doctors. Some examples of this are purgatory, fate of unbaptized infants, atonement theories, etc. While the church laity may hold to one or another of the different “theories” as truth and even may assert them as church teaching, this is very inaccurate and misleading. I think you’ll find that the Catholic Church actually leaves more open to mystery than you think it does.

When I mentioned purgatory above, I wasn’t meaning the reality of purgatory (this IS Catholic doctrine) but the specifics of purgatory (i.e., is it a place, a process,etc?)

Just re-read my post and realized I may have inadvertently caused confusion on that one……