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

[prodromos]

How came you by this information?

Catholic statistics.

 

[7_Sorrows]

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.

Nice post!

 

[Vanez]

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.

The Marian dogma, I used to just go with a flow, that if they said so (about immaculate conception), maybe it is so.

But…later…I began to think, if Mary was born without sin, was she a human? In her time, John the Baptist was not even born yet, meaning nobody was baptized. Jesus’ flesh, was it human’s flesh or of God? — it is weird for me to think of these, I’m thinking that if Jesus wasn’t fully human and divine, His purpose to be crucified to pay for our sins wouldn’t be completely fulfilled. And if Mary was born without sin, she must be an angel?

It was my RCIA teacher who said that Mary’s sin was forgiven at the time angel Gabriel visited her — this makes more sense to me — and then i asked my teacher,“what about Immaculate Conception?” — no answer back in the email

I’m not against the Immaculate Conception if it’s really, really the truth, I’d gladfully change my thoughts

 

[SAVINGRACE]

The Marian dogma, I used to just go with a flow, that if they said so (about immaculate conception), maybe it is so.

But…later…I began to think, if Mary was born without sin, was she a human? In her time, John the Baptist was not even born yet, meaning nobody was baptized. Jesus’ flesh, was it human’s flesh or of God? — it is weird for me to think of these, I’m thinking that if Jesus wasn’t fully human and divine, His purpose to be crucified to pay for our sins wouldn’t be completely fulfilled. And if Mary was born without sin, she must be an angel?

It was my RCIA teacher who said that Mary’s sin was forgiven at the time angel Gabriel visited her — this makes more sense to me — and then i asked my teacher,“what about Immaculate Conception?” — no answer back in the email

I’m not against the Immaculate Conception if it’s really, really the truth, I’d gladfully change my thoughts

Judging from your statement that RCIA teacher gave you the wrong answer which is surprising. Mary was conceived without original sin or its stain.

Medieval theologians used the analogy of two people approaching a pit. If the first falls in and is rescued from the pit and the second is prevented from falling into the pit, both are saved and one could even say that the one whose fall was prevented is saved far more completely than the one who was raised from the pit. Mary was prevented from falling in the pit by the Grace of God.

Mary was 100% human. She only had one nature, human nature. You and I are like Mary in that we only have one nature, human. We differ from Mary in that, due to the fall of Adam’s sin, we inherit original sin. Mary was born without original sin, but was still human. Mary was sinless by the Grace of God.

Jesus was sinless by nature. He was 100% human and 100% God in one Divine person.
Jesus is consubstantial “of one with the Father”.

We also need to ask?

Can the Son of God be conceived in a sinful person?

Was St Ann the mother of Mary also conceived without original sin?

 

[Vanez]

Judging from your statement that RCIA teacher gave you the wrong answer which is surprising. Mary was conceived without original sin or its stain.

Medieval theologians used the analogy of two people approaching a pit. If the first falls in and is rescued from the pit and the second is prevented from falling into the pit, both are saved and one could even say that the one whose fall was prevented is saved far more completely than the one who was raised from the pit. Mary was prevented from falling in the pit by the Grace of God.

We also need to ask?

Can the Son of God be conceived in a sinful person stained by Original Sin?

Was St Ann the mother of Mary also conceived without original sin?

As Orthodox believes in ancestral sin, not original, it makes more sense to me that Mary’s sin is purged when angel Gabriel visited her, so Jesus be conceived by someone whose sin is already purged

 

[prodromos]

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.

Interesting. What is often held up as the reason the Catholic Church surpasses the Orthodox, the fact that they are not just Western but also include the Eastern Catholic rites (which you will find are no different to the Orthodox in terms of ethnicity, nationalism and faith) is the very reason you dismiss the Orthodox Church.

The mind boggles at the contradictions in play.

 

[pacloc]

The Marian dogma, I used to just go with a flow, that if they said so (about immaculate conception), maybe it is so.

But…later…I began to think, if Mary was born without sin, was she a human? In her time, John the Baptist was not even born yet, meaning nobody was baptized. Jesus’ flesh, was it human’s flesh or of God? — it is weird for me to think of these, I’m thinking that if Jesus wasn’t fully human and divine, His purpose to be crucified to pay for our sins wouldn’t be completely fulfilled. And if Mary was born without sin, she must be an angel?

It was my RCIA teacher who said that Mary’s sin was forgiven at the time angel Gabriel visited her — this makes more sense to me — and then i asked my teacher,“what about Immaculate Conception?” — no answer back in the email

I’m not against the Immaculate Conception if it’s really, really the truth, I’d gladfully change my thoughts

For claiming an Orthodox view of ancestral sin, you seem to hold to protestant views of “payment” for sins. I notice that within the Orthodox world there seems to be a lot of influence from protestant views of atonement. But reading “The Ancestral Sin” from Romanides and reading Cyril of Alexandria, it looks like true Orthodoxy views Christ’s death as destroying death and freeing us from captivity to satan, death, and sin, not merely paying for our sins. They view it more of a restoration of mankind back to the freeness of Adam, where we decide whether to sin or to grow in maturity in the spirit. So the immaculate conception is not a problem in Orthodoxy because if Christ is telling the Truth, sin has no hold on us anymore, we are responsible for our own sin and death now. Following Cyril’s thought, all man is immaculately conceived. By grace, God protected Mary in a special way because of His foreknowledge of her holiness. Orthodoxy does not teach being born with sin, but rather being born with the effect of sin, earthly passions, which can tend toward sin, in the west this is concupiscence.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The Marian dogma, I used to just go with a flow, that if they said so (about immaculate conception), maybe it is so.

But…later…I began to think, if Mary was born without sin, was she a human? In her time, John the Baptist was not even born yet, meaning nobody was baptized. Jesus’ flesh, was it human’s flesh or of God? — it is weird for me to think of these, I’m thinking that if Jesus wasn’t fully human and divine, His purpose to be crucified to pay for our sins wouldn’t be completely fulfilled. And if Mary was born without sin, she must be an angel?

It was my RCIA teacher who said that Mary’s sin was forgiven at the time angel Gabriel visited her — this makes more sense to me — and then i asked my teacher,“what about Immaculate Conception?” — no answer back in the email

I’m not against the Immaculate Conception if it’s really, really the truth, I’d gladfully change my thoughts

It is interesting you mention John the Baptist, in Syriac theologumena it is thought that St. Mary and St. John the Baptist are born without sin. St. Mary it is thought, conceived without sin; St. John cleansed in the womb when he lept.
Some Byzantine Churches have the tradition of including St. Nicholas the Wonderworker in this theologumenon.

 

[Vanez]

For claiming an Orthodox view of ancestral sin, you seem to hold to protestant views of “payment” for sins. I notice that within the Orthodox world there seems to be a lot of influence from protestant views of atonement. But reading “The Ancestral Sin” from Romanides and reading Cyril of Alexandria, it looks like true Orthodoxy views Christ’s death as destroying death and freeing us from captivity to satan, death, and sin, not merely paying for our sins. They view it more of a restoration of mankind back to the freeness of Adam, where we decide whether to sin or to grow in maturity in the spirit. So the immaculate conception is not a problem in Orthodoxy because if Christ is telling the Truth, sin has no hold on us anymore, we are responsible for our own sin and death now. Following Cyril’s thought, all man is immaculately conceived. By grace, God protected Mary in a special way because of His foreknowledge of her holiness. Orthodoxy does not teach being born with sin, but rather being born with the effect of sin, earthly passions, which can tend toward sin, in the west this is concupiscence.

I’m not aware of Protestant views of payment for sins. Although i’ve been a Protestant, I hadn’t learned so much about Protestant views of everything. I once asked a few Protestants: if purgatory for you doesn’t exist, and the soul goes directly to hell or heaven, why will Jesus come back again to judge the living but also the dead? They couldn’t answer in the Quran’s story about st. Anna, she’s offered st. Mary to God, so there’s no doubt that Mary is very special. I’m not against immaculate conception though, i just needed a stabile (unchanging) view from Orthodox. The chant “rejoice, Thou bride unwedded” makes me think that Orthodox views Mary immaculately conceived. Or is it Byzantine Catholic chant?

It is interesting you mention John the Baptist, in Syriac theologumena it is thought that St. Mary and St. John the Baptist are born without sin. St. Mary it is thought, conceived without sin; St. John cleansed in the womb when he lept.
Some Byzantine Churches have the tradition of including St. Nicholas the Wonderworker in this theologumenon.

Oh really? I didn’t know that there are those thinking thay st. John the Baptist was born without sin.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I’m not aware of Protestant views of payment for sins. Although i’ve been a Protestant, I hadn’t learned so much about Protestant views of everything. I once asked a few Protestants: if purgatory for you doesn’t exist, and the soul goes directly to hell or heaven, why will Jesus come back again to judge the living but also the dead? They couldn’t answer in the Quran’s story about st. Anna, she’s offered st. Mary to God, so there’s no doubt that Mary is very special. I’m not against immaculate conception though, i just needed a stabile (unchanging) view from Orthodox. The chant “rejoice, Thou bride unwedded” makes me think that Orthodox views Mary immaculately conceived. Or is it Byzantine Catholic chant?

The Byzantine Catholic and Eastern Orthodox chant is the same.

Oh really? I didn’t know that there are those thinking thay st. John the Baptist was born without sin.

The Liturgical theologumena is that all saints are commemorated on the day of their transition to the next life or the day of the recognition of their sanctity/crowning within the Kingdom. The only two universal (Catholic East and West, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian, Oriental Orthodox) exceptions are St. Mary and St. John, who’s day of birth are uniquely also commemorated (and I believe St. Nicholas in the Byzantine-Slavic Tradition).

 

[czarlazar]

I’m not aware of Protestant views of payment for sins. Although i’ve been a Protestant, I hadn’t learned so much about Protestant views of everything. I once asked a few Protestants: if purgatory for you doesn’t exist, and the soul goes directly to hell or heaven, why will Jesus come back again to judge the living but also the dead? They couldn’t answer in the Quran’s story about st. Anna, she’s offered st. Mary to God, so there’s no doubt that Mary is very special. I’m not against immaculate conception though, i just needed a stabile (unchanging) view from Orthodox. The chant “rejoice, Thou bride unwedded” makes me think that Orthodox views Mary immaculately conceived. Or is it Byzantine Catholic chant?

Being unwed just refers to her being unmarried and ever virgin, not immaculate conceptions. This idea is rejected by the Orthodox Church.
If she was born of an immaculate conception, then she was not human, and therefore Jesus has no humanity. This is the dangerous slope of trying to define such things.

 

[pacloc]

I’m not aware of Protestant views of payment for sins. Although i’ve been a Protestant, I hadn’t learned so much about Protestant views of everything.

Sorry, I assumed by your wording that without sin, Mary could not be human but an angel if she did not sin, you believed like protestants. They view the human race as evil due to the sin of Adam. Luther is famous for his view that we are like dung that is masked over with God like snow. The view is that at the core, the human race is sinful. The Orthodox view is that we are made in the image and likeness of God, but have expressed to God our unwillingness to be in His likeness by our sins. The image in which we are made is indestructible, so the human race is a glorious creation, the crown of all creation. We are just sick and need a physician, which is Christ. He has already healed the human race by his life, death, and resurrection, we are called to learn of it and embrace it, then join in imitation of Him as His brothers. A lot of the Church Fathers see that the old testament saints were called holy and righteous because of the future action of Jesus Christ. So Mary could easily be called holy and righteous because of the future restoration brought by her Son. God could also aid her in learning to become a child of God, without having to sin. We have to believe that Adam and Eve could have learned to become Sons of God without sinning, but even with sinning, we can still learn. O happy fault.

 

[pacloc]

If she was born of an immaculate conception, then she was not human, and therefore Jesus has no humanity. This is the dangerous slope of trying to define such things.

Where do you get the idea that she has to have sin to be human? Jesus has no sin either, so why would he be human? Why could we say that he became one with us? I do not believe that most Orthodox believe Mary ever sinned. They just do not need to call her birth immaculate because they do not believe in inherited sin.

 

[Vanez]

The Marian dogma, I used to just go with a flow, that if they said so (about immaculate conception), maybe it is so.

But…later…I began to think, if Mary was born without sin, was she a human? In her time, John the Baptist was not even born yet, meaning nobody was baptized. Jesus’ flesh, was it human’s flesh or of God? — it is weird for me to think of these, I’m thinking that if Jesus wasn’t fully human and divine, His purpose to be crucified to pay for our sins wouldn’t be completely fulfilled. And if Mary was born without sin, she must be an angel?

It was my RCIA teacher who said that Mary’s sin was forgiven at the time angel Gabriel visited her — this makes more sense to me — and then i asked my teacher,“what about Immaculate Conception?” — no answer back in the email

I’m not against the Immaculate Conception if it’s really, really the truth, I’d gladfully change my thoughts

 

[Kmon23]

Where do you get the idea that she has to have sin to be human? Jesus has no sin either, so why would he be human? Why could we say that he became one with us? I do not believe that most Orthodox believe Mary ever sinned. They just do not need to call her birth immaculate because they do not believe in inherited sin.

Yep I agree. Her being without original sin does not in any way make the Theotokos less human. Technically the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception would make her more human as she is restored to what she was supposed to be as a human in communion with God. To be honest this area of dialogue can go either way (but with very careful dialogue and terminology). In terms of personal/actual sin, we agree she had none. She is the greatest of the saints, higher than the seraphim and the cherubim.

From the Orthodox perspective, she has the same inclination to sin as all of us.She was also affected by the fall with concupiscence. Was she full of grace in extraordinary ways more so than anyone else? We say yes. However we do not equate this as equal with the lack of the effects of the fall.

I assume the difficulties arise since the underlying theology is so different (or at least from differing perspectives). We both say she has extraordinary grace, but Catholic theology would say this is her having sanctifying grace from her conception, hence she is immaculately conceived… However Orthodox theology does not differentiate between types of grace, such that having this extraordinary grace in no way should necessarily be equated with the lack original sin.

And it’s definitely tied to the view of original and ancestral sin. Original sin is the lack of sanctifying grace so it the Holy Theotokos would be viewed as having been conceived with it.
Ancestral sin is more of an inherited inclination to sin, and we are called to partake in the infinite long process of Theosis. So to say the Theotokos is full of grace is just to say that she has gone so much farther on her journey of Theosis than the rest of us and nothing more. Whether she is with or without ancestral sin is never mentioned in the discussion of her having grace. Hence why Orthodox believe she also had ancestral sin as this is not inversely related as a step function with grace (math ). That’s why Orthodox become confused and puzzled when Catholics claim she was immaculately conceived since Orthodox theology does not lead to that conclusion while Catholic theology or at least their perspective of theology does tend to lead to that conclusion.

So when Orthodox disagree with the doctrine, it’s not because of adamant refusal and stubbornness but because we end up scratching our heads with the thought of “why…?” When Catholics make the claim of the doctrine. Hence we will reject it as we don’t see it in the context of eastern theology.

The simple answer, we were never taught it in Tradition.

 

[pacloc]

Yep I agree. Her being without original sin does not in any way make the Theotokos less human. Technically the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception would make her more human as she is restored to what she was supposed to be as a human in communion with God. To be honest this area of dialogue can go either way (but with very careful dialogue and terminology). In terms of personal/actual sin, we agree she had none. She is the greatest of the saints, higher than the seraphim and the cherubim.

From the Orthodox perspective, she has the same inclination to sin as all of us.She was also affected by the fall with concupiscence. Was she full of grace in extraordinary ways more so than anyone else? We say yes. However we do not equate this as equal with the lack of the effects of the fall.

I assume the difficulties arise since the underlying theology is so different (or at least from differing perspectives). We both say she has extraordinary grace, but Catholic theology would say this is her having sanctifying grace from her conception, hence she is immaculately conceived… However Orthodox theology does not differentiate between types of grace, such that having this extraordinary grace in no way should necessarily be equated with the lack original sin.

And it’s definitely tied to the view of original and ancestral sin. Original sin is the lack of sanctifying grace so it the Holy Theotokos would be viewed as having been conceived with it.
Ancestral sin is more of an inherited inclination to sin, and we are called to partake in the infinite long process of Theosis. So to say the Theotokos is full of grace is just to say that she has gone so much farther on her journey of Theosis than the rest of us and nothing more. Whether she is with or without ancestral sin is never mentioned in the discussion of her having grace. Hence why Orthodox believe she also had ancestral sin as this is not inversely related as a step function with grace (math ). That’s why Orthodox become confused and puzzled when Catholics claim she was immaculately conceived since Orthodox theology does not lead to that conclusion while Catholic theology or at least their perspective of theology does tend to lead to that conclusion.

So when Orthodox disagree with the doctrine, it’s not because of adamant refusal and stubbornness but because we end up scratching our heads with the thought of “why…?” When Catholics make the claim of the doctrine. Hence we will reject it as we don’t see it in the context of eastern theology.

The simple answer, we were never taught it in Tradition.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, that sounds a lot more like what I have being reading from the east. I have a few questions then if you do not believe God intervened with Mary specially, 1) Could/have other humans that have lived a full life not have sinned too? I know that if an infant or child dies, they have not sinned. Are we called to try to raise children that may never sin in their life? 2) Could you agree that God could have protected Mary from committing sin through extra insight because He forsaw her potential for holiness. Because if we say Mary did it all since her youth by the same power as everyone else, the scripture seems to say that it is impossible, because all man sins. It would seem that those that never sin would have to be aided in a unique way, but not forced. That is why I think God could protect her knowing her future holiness. But yes I agree she and our Lord Jesus Christ both were born with the passions of the flesh to be examples for us to conquer the passions. Thanks again for your comment.

 

[fasolislithuan]

No, I did not call you a hypocrite for disliking the close ties between nationalism and some Orthodox churches. I merely argued that it was hypocritical to say that it was something exclusive or near exclusive to Orthodoxy. Catholicism was used in post-Napoleonic France as a form of nationalism. The papacy for many years in the 19th century was used as a rallying point for Italian nationalism. Catholicism to this day is still used by the Spanish monarchy to promote national integrity and unity, while the monarchy actively persecutes and tortures political dissidents. All I am saying is that history shows that Catholicism is just as prone to this problem as Orthodoxy. Therefore, to reject Orthodoxy on these charges of caesaropapism or anything similar of the sort, would logically require you to reject Catholicism as well.

What a complete nonsense! Sorry but this is a complete insanity.

 

[Kmon23]

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, that sounds a lot more like what I have being reading from the east. I have a few questions then if you do not believe God intervened with Mary specially, 1) Could/have other humans that have lived a full life not have sinned too? I know that if an infant or child dies, they have not sinned. Are we called to try to raise children that may never sin in their life? 2) Could you agree that God could have protected Mary from committing sin through extra insight because He forsaw her potential for holiness. Because if we say Mary did it all since her youth by the same power as everyone else, the scripture seems to say that it is impossible, because all man sins. It would seem that those that never sin would have to be aided in a unique way, but not forced. That is why I think God could protect her knowing her future holiness. But yes I agree she and our Lord Jesus Christ both were born with the passions of the flesh to be examples for us to conquer the passions. Thanks again for your comment.

This is just from my knowledge so I am not infallible when I give my answers. just keep that in mind.

1. Anyone else could have not committed actual sin. However it is very difficult and requires us to cooperate fully with God’s grace. This is why we venerate the Theotokos so highly because she did accomplish so much on her journey to Theosis, being in such communion with God that she accomplished such a holy life (or more accurately let God sanctify her as holiness is not a result of our own action but God’s) And yes, we are all called to raise children and try to support everyone so that we do not fall into sin.
2. Could God have protected the Theotokos from committing personal sin? I do not know. It’s up to the will of the Father, and I would leave this as a mystery. God may have His providence but at the same time He does not force us as you said. In light if this it’s a mystery. And whether she did it through her own power, refer to my first answer.

 

[TK421]

Interesting. What is often held up as the reason the Catholic Church surpasses the Orthodox, the fact that they are not just Western but also include the Eastern Catholic rites (which you will find are no different to the Orthodox in terms of ethnicity, nationalism and faith) is the very reason you dismiss the Orthodox Church.

The mind boggles at the contradictions in play.

To my knowledge, the Eastern Catholic Churches make up around 1-2% of the Catholic Church, so they are an obscure fraction of the cosmopolitan nature of the Church and not really what I had in mind at all.

 

[Rohzek]

What a complete nonsense! Sorry but this is a complete insanity.

What part of it is nonsense? Perhaps I may have overstated the present ties between Church and State in Spain, but I cannot imagine being wrong on the rest of it.