Orthodox and Catholic converts: have you ever struggled between the two?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vanez
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vouthon said:
You are indeed right that secular rulers have often interfered in ecclesiastical settings in the Western Church as well. One only has to consider the Avignon Papacy and the excessive influence of Philip the Fair on the pope. Certainly, I wasn’t trying to intimate that this problem hasn’t occurred in Catholicism. However it would be hard to argue that the victory of the Gregorian Reform in the Investiture Contest did not result in a significant change in church-state relations that is unparalleled in the Orthodox world.

Caeseropapism is not part of Orthodox theology, indeed ‘phyletism’ is condemned as a heresy. Since it is not part of Orthodox dogma, this is not in any way a critique of Orthodoxy itself. It is rather a reflection that the ecclesiastical structure of Orthodoxy lends itself more easily to a caeseropapist mould than the state-like centralized bureaucracy of the Catholic Church under a Holy See that is in theory an independent diplomatic actor headed by a bishop who claims the plenitudo potestatis (fullness of power). While the papacy has come under secular influence, it has been almost impossible to keep it as such for long in view of this dogmatic precept in Catholic theology. As a result church-state relations have been far more fraught in the West since the Bishop of Rome has been in a far stronger position to contest imperial or national claims to spiritual as well as temporal authority. What Orthodox Patriarch has ever attained the zenith of power reached by the papacy in the High Middle Ages?
Click to expand...
You are talking about a lot of controversial historiography at the moment. For the past 15 years, the history on the Gregorian Reform Movement has drastically been rewritten. And it is largely tied up with the big Feudal Revolution debate. So let’s take Germany for example. Having papally appointed bishops was unheard of practically until the 11th century. Now does this mean the old system was corrupt? No, not really. Up until this time, bishops would generally lease out tithing rights and church lands to local lay-lords in order to forge friendly relations with the locals. The church owned so much land, that they could not manage it themselves. So it made sense to lease it out. It was a way of forming relations, but not necessarily an act of corruption. Around the 10th and 11th century, the concepts of political power began to change. Originally, power was almost always vested in offices and land rights. However, by this time, concepts of power changed to direct control of lands. So when bishops continued to rent out lands and their leasees then rented out those same lands, the church property and rights became distantly alienated from the original owner. Bishops for centuries really had no problem with this, because it did not decrease their power, because the concept of power was different back then. When the concept changed, these bishops demanded to keep these lands under their direct authority. Local lords had no problem with renegotiating contracts with the bishops, HOWEVER, they were upset that bishops essentially wanted to terminate the economic relations entirely. The end result was a culture war between two concepts of power.

Long story short, the “glory” of the Gregorian Reform Movement was written by the victors in order to solidify their new order. But in reality, the end result (ie. politically involved bishops) did not really change. The mechanism in which they worked changed, but nothing more. Corruption was never really a serious issue to begin with.

As for what you mean by a “state,” I am not sure, but it seems Weberian. I don’t think Weberian states are very different innately from per-burueaucratic states, but rather simply have an increased ability to exercise power. No doubt, the papacy having its own state made it much more independent. And it does the same today. That being said, I would equally find it difficult to see the independence of the Orthodox Church as a whole compromised. We have 16 or 17 autocephalous churches. This number doesn’t even include the number of autonomous churches. It is difficult for me to see all of them become puppets. In many ways, the Turkish government’s persecution against Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople reinforces his independent views.
 
Vouthon said:
I am very glad to hear this about Patriarch Kirill vis-à-vis the monks of Mt. Athos, whom I have always respected, especially elder Paisios who I hear was canonized this year 😃
Click to expand...
This is only possible because, unlike the Latin Church, these monks answer to no one.
 
czarlazar said:
Can you explain this, I am not aware of what the reference is too
Click to expand...
Real Presence, that Christ is truly present in flesh and blood in the Eucharist, in bread and wine?
Not sure how this is relevant to this conversation.
 
Kmon23 said:
Real Presence, that Christ is truly present in flesh and blood in the Eucharist, in bread and wine?
Not sure how this is relevant to this conversation.
Click to expand...
It was an answer to a previous post.
 
I thought this thread was about converts personal experience and whether they struggled?

Why are people arguing points of doctrine, history and faith?
 
SAVINGRACE said:
I thought this thread was about converts personal experience and whether they struggled?

Why are people arguing points of doctrine, history and faith?
Click to expand...
I suppose there are differences in doctrines and history and belief that might cause struggle in deciding which one to convert to. 🤷
 
7_Sorrows said:
It was an answer to a previous post.
Click to expand...
I see your post where you mention the Real Presence in response to another, but I’m still not seeing why the Real Presence is relevant to the person you responded to? Unless you’re trying to make a point and it just went over my head.
:confused:
 
Kmon23 said:
I see your post where you mention the Real Presence in response to another, but I’m still not seeing why the Real Presence is relevant to the person you responded to? Unless you’re trying to make a point and it just went over my head.
:confused:
Click to expand...
I think it was just a question that he had (not trying to speak for him); but that is how I understood it, it was a just a question.
 
prodromos said:
Of course what never gets mentioned is the fact that all the Eastern rites combined make up barely half of 1% of the Catholic Church. Over 99% of the Church is Latin rite.
Click to expand...
How came you by this information?
 
TheSurvivor said:
How came you by this information?
Click to expand...
well the 2010 data shows 17,775,421 members and what is the Latin church total ? I guess that would give you the percentages. 1.2 billion total catholics…so its pretty small.
 
czarlazar said:
I think it was just a question that he had (not trying to speak for him); but that is how I understood it, it was a just a question.
Click to expand...
Yes it was just a question. Thank you czarlazar. (By the way, I am a she!)
 
My conversion to Catholicism rested on the issue of authority (I’ve come to a richer appreciation of it, but the liturgy and high church atmosphere of the Church had little initial appeal to me and it was even a stumbling block for a little while). “How was I really to know what God expected from me?” “Was a diaspora of dissenting opinions really what God had in mind?” " What am I missing?" The Orthodox Churches, while admittedly far more cohesive than the gladatorial free-for-all of my protestant background, still don’t really satisfy that question for me. The various Orthodox Churches existing in different countries/regions to me smacks of a subtle merging of ethnicity, nationalism, and faith, compared to the cosmopolitan Catholic Church.

Once I was satisfied with the authority of the Catholic Church, everything else just fell into place like a jigsaw puzzle. There were some wonderful gifts along the way, the biggest one being the gift of persons: Jesus in the Eucharist, and I got to meet my Mother after having her absent my entire life. A strong Marian tradition exists within Orthodoxy too, of course, but again, without authority, I never would have been able to accept Marian dogma to begin with, or the sacraments, or anything else. In other words: if there was just protestantism and orthodoxy in the world, I don’t think I would have converted. I don’t even know if I would have been able to maintain my Christian faith.

Not bragging, but after a lifetime of uncertainty, I can honestly stay I don’t really struggle anywhere in matters of doctrine or faith. I think the Catholic Church has quite outdone herself with intensely rational, internally consistent apologetics. The struggles of my life these days mostly consist in courage and discipline and the everyday weakness of being a corruptible human being.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top