Orthodoxy and Catholicism

[AutumnSakura]

For the OP, I would suggest praying (I’m sure you’ve done so, but it never hurts to have a reminder), and asking the Saints for their intercession to aid you in deciding between becoming either Catholic-Roman Rite or Orthodox. I would especially recommend asking the Mother of God to show you the way to Heaven. She will not disappoint you.
Also, you should definitely visit as many churches (both RC and Orthodox) as possible. Talk to the priests, and don’t jump to any wild conclusions based on just one priest or one parish. I don’t know where you live, so I can’t recommend any specific parish. Don’t worry too much about “ethnic” Orthodox churches-- look for parishes under the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA for short) or the Antiochian Archdiocese. These are your best bets, but of course, all Canonical Orthodox churches serve the same Liturgy and are in full communion with one another.
You can look here for a complete nationwide Orthodox parish directory: scoba.us/directory.html
Also remember that any church that calls upon the name of the Lord has the Holy Spirit, so you won’t be “damned” for choosing the “wrong” church. Full disclosure : I’m an Orthodox convert, so I’d personally recommend Orthodoxy. Feel free to message me if you have questions, or want to hear about my journey to the Apostolic Church. I will do my best to answer.
And if you do decide to become RC, the Orthodox church will still be there (God willing), so when the Truth becomes apparent, she will always be there with open arms to welcome you. I know several people who became RC, and then eventually became Orthodox.

 

[Peter_J]

And if you do decide to become RC, the Orthodox church will still be there (God willing), so when the Truth becomes apparent, she will always be there with open arms to welcome you.

And then, when the Truth really becomes apparent, and you realize it was a mistake to leave the One True Church for Orthodoxy, the Catholic Church will be happy to welcome you once again.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… the spiritual father may determine that another method of birth control is needed, like sterilization of the husband for the good of the couple’s spiritual life and for the good of their family. The Catholic Church on the other hand, looks at their rule and whether or not the couple obeys the rule rather than looking at the spiritual good of the couple.

I understand that this is commonly taught by Orthodox priests now. However, Orthodoxy used to be as adamately opposed to contraception as has Catholic teaching for the past 2000 years, in agreement with the “teaching of our Lord.”

For instance, in 1958, Greek Orthodox used to teach…

Concerning birth and the control of births the Greek Orthodox Church’s stand is the following, in all respects in agreement with the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ and the heavenly Paul (1 Cor. 7, 1-6). According to this teaching, the husband and wife ought to unite conjugally without taking any prophylactic precautions whatever…*** If the husband and wife do not desire to have any children, thy ought to abstain*** from all conjugal relations while they are able to have children, and then to come together again in sexual union relying entirely and solely on God’s omniscience. The use of contraceptive devices for the prevention of childbirth is forbidden and condemned unreservedly by the Greek Orthodox Church. Greek Orthodox Handbook, 1958 (New York: Greek Archdiocese of North & South America), p. 46].

In contradiction to the “continuity of teaching” since the advent of Christ, a “new view” is taught by Orthodox writers today, which permits the use of contraceptive practices within marriage, a rather unorthodox change in doctrine.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… I think completely invalid for someone who really wants to look at the theology which still divides the Orthodox and Catholic Churches for the intent of determining which Church to join.

I disagree. From a Russian Orthodox scholar’s perspective, it speaks to the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, which is the principal dividing issue. A good summary of Vladimir Solovyov’s understanding of the papacy can be found here…

An Eastern Voice Crying in the Wilderness
By Ray Ryland

This too may be considered a “rant” by some, simply because they disagree with it.

 

[Peter_J]

I understand that this is commonly taught by Orthodox priests now. However, Orthodoxy used to be as adamately opposed to contraception as has Catholic teaching for the past 2000 years, in agreement with the “teaching of our Lord.”

For instance, in 1958, Greek Orthodox used to teach…

Concerning birth and the control of births the Greek Orthodox Church’s stand is the following, in all respects in agreement with the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ and the heavenly Paul (1 Cor. 7, 1-6). According to this teaching, the husband and wife ought to unite conjugally without taking any prophylactic precautions whatever… If the husband and wife do not desire to have any children, thy ought to abstain from all conjugal relations while they are able to have children, and then to come together again in sexual union relying entirely and solely on God’s omniscience. The use of contraceptive devices for the prevention of childbirth is forbidden and condemned unreservedly by the Greek Orthodox Church. [Greek Orthodox Handbook, 1958 (New York: Greek Archdiocese of North & South America), p. 46].

Yes, the Orthodox position on birth control has gone from being too strict to being too lenient. In that 1958 statement, there’s no allowance of “economy” made – not even a mention of allowing NFP by “economy”. Today, on the other hand, “economy” has come to include allowing even sterilization and condoms.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Seemed to be more of a rant against the Russian Orthodox Church during her trails of Communism when it was hard for the average joe to realize if he or she were really in the Orthodox Church or in a KGB run fake of the Orthodox Church.

Your critique makes no sense. Vladimir Soloviev lived from 1853 to 1900. The first attempt to put communism into practice was the October Revolution of 1917. So I don’t see how Soloviev’s writings were in any way reactionary toward communist persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church, which had not yet occurred. There was no KGB when Soloviev was alive. They operated from 1954 to 1991. The forerunner to the KGB, the Cheka, began in December 1917.

 

[Peter_J]

^^ I was wondering about that too. Perhaps StMarina is thinking of a different book.

 

[Mickey]

And then, when the Truth really becomes apparent, and you realize it was a mistake to leave the One True Church for Orthodoxy, the Catholic Church will be happy to welcome you once again.

When the one truth of Orthodoxy becomes apparent–there is no turning back.

 

[rad]

Before making up you mind, I recommend you read this book by a Orthodox scholar named Vladimir Soloviev, called Russia and the Universal Church (available in an abridged edition called The Russian Church and the Papacy). From his Russian Orthodox perspective, he makes an excellent case for full communion with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter.

Solovyov was a heretic from the viewpoint of both the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches.

“Solovyov compiled a philosophy based partly on Hellenistic pagan philosophy (see Plato and Plotinus) and also early church Patristic tradition with Buddhism and Hebrew Kabblahistic elements. Solovyov also studied Gnosticism and seemed to be heavily influenced by the gnostic works of Valentinus. [3] Solovyov’s religious philosophy was syncretic and fused many of the philosophical elements of various religious traditions with that of the Eastern Orthodox church and also Solovyov’s own personal experience of the Sophia. Solovyov described his encounters with the entity Sophia in his works the Three Encounters and Lectures on Godmanhood among others. Solovyov’s fusion was driven by the desire to reconcile and or unite with Eastern Orthodoxy these various traditions via the Russian Slavophiles’ concept of sobornost. His Russian religious philosophy had a very strong impact on the Russian Symbolist art movements of his time.[4] Solovyev’s teaching on Sophia have been deemed a heresy by ROCOR and condemned as unsound and unorthodox by the Patriarchate of Moscow.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Solovyov_(philosopher

The Sophianism of Solovyov is heresy and condemned by the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
orthodoxwiki.org/Sophianism

By reading from Solovyovv who was half-Orthodox and half-Catholic you are drinking from poisoned wells. The source of the poison - Theosophy. Solovyov and his brother were not Orthodox or Catholic Christians but Theosophists.

 

[Mickey]

"Solovyov compiled a philosophy based partly on Hellenistic pagan philosophy (see Plato and Plotinus) and also early church Patristic tradition with Buddhism and Hebrew Kabblahistic elements. Solovyov also studied Gnosticism and seemed to be heavily influenced by the gnostic works of Valentinus. [3] Solovyov’s religious philosophy was syncretic and fused many of the philosophical elements of various religious traditions with that of the Eastern Orthodox church and also Solovyov’s own personal experience of the Sophia. Solovyov described his encounters with the entity Sophia in his works the Three Encounters and Lectures on Godmanhood among others.

Yes. I have read these things regarding Soloviev also. Not good.

 

[Mickey]

By reading from Solovyovv who was half-Orthodox and half-Catholic you are drinking from poisoned wells. The source of the poison - Theosophy. Solovyov and his brother were not Orthodox or Catholic Christians but Theosophists.

Yes.

 

[Peter_J]

Solovyov was a heretic from the viewpoint of both the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches.

Solovyov certain should not be taken as representative of Catholicism (as I’ve indicated before) but I’m not aware of the RCC regarding him as a heretic. I suspect that’s an exaggeration.

 

[Hesychios]

Solovyov certain should not be taken as representative of Catholicism (as I’ve indicated before) but I’m not aware of the RCC regarding him as a heretic. I suspect that’s an exaggeration.

I don’t know either.

I wish I had a better understanding of what he believed, the problem as I understand it is he was only marginally Orthodox and he was a suspect character. When Latin Catholics point to him as as a poster child for interchurch communion it does nothing to impress Orthodox, and not merely because of his book about the Papacy. He was a Cafeteria Orthodox, not very convincing testimony.

I always put him in a similar category as father Teilhard De Chardin (even though I have a great fondness for Teilhard personally*). Not because they believed the same things (they did not, probably) but because they were both in the squirrelly margins of their respective church communities, and don’t make suitable representative examples for their faiths.

---

{To me, one of the most memorable nice little quotes father De Chardin made was this:
“We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience.” }

 

[rad]

Solovyov certain should not be taken as representative of Catholicism (as I’ve indicated before) but I’m not aware of the RCC regarding him as a heretic. I suspect that’s an exaggeration.

I have to apologise. Solovyov is a heretic for the Orthodox because of his teachings and writings in the area of Sophiology/Sophianism. I made the mistake of thinking that these things must be heretical from a Catholic theology too.

 

[Peter_J]

It’s possible that Solovyov is consider a heretic by the Catholic Church. I can’t say one way or the other. But I think we agree on what’s important: he doesn’t represent Catholicism. In view of that, I don’t see much point in having a big discussion him.

P.S. That’s not to say that he doesn’t have a following among Catholics – much like e.g. Fr. Frank Schaffer has a following among Orthodox, even though he isn’t representative of Orthodoxy.

 

[Hesychios]

It’s possible that Solovyov is consider a heretic by the Catholic Church. I can’t say one way or the other. But I think we agree on what’s important: he doesn’t represent Catholicism. In view of that, I don’t see much point in having a big discussion him.

P.S. That’s not to say that he doesn’t have a following among Catholics – much like e.g. Fr. Frank Schaffer has a following among Orthodox, even though he isn’t representative of Orthodoxy.

Well…

Father Frank Schaffer is definitely Orthodox. What he believes about his own faith is not really questioned AFAIK. So that’s a big difference.

Also, as an Orthodox, he doesn’t seem to have a following among Roman Catholics, so there’s one more…

For an apt comparison I think you need to find a well known Roman Cathlic fringe character (more extreme perhaps than Monika Helwig, Teilhard De Chardin or Hans Kung), who has a following among Orthodox. I can’t really think of any.

Certainly Archbishop Milingo is extreme enough in some ways, but Orthodox don’t seem to care for him. What if he (His Grace Milingo) wrote a book advocating returning to Orthodoxy and the Orthodox were all crowing about him…would that impress Roman Catholics?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Solovyov was a heretic from the viewpoint of both the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches.

Russian Orthodox theologian Georges Florovsky praised Soloviev in his effort to reunite Russian Orthodoxy with Catholicism. That he drew upon various philosophies of his day, to include [pagan] Hellenistic views doesn’t make him a heretic. St. Maximus the Confessor also drew upon Platonic philosophy. Greek philosophy is also found in the writings of St. Clement of Alexandria. In his Stromateis, for example, St. Clement emphasizes the role of philosophy as a preparatory science for Christianity:

God is responsible for all good things: of some, like the blessings of the Old and New Covenants, directly; of others, like the riches of philosophy, indirectly. Perhaps philosophy too was a direct gift of God to the Greeks before the Lord extended his appeal to the Greeks. For philosophy was to the Greek world what the Law was to the Hebrews, a tutor escorting them to Christ. So philosophy is a preparatory process; it opens the road for the person whom Christ brings to his final goal.
[St. Clement of Alexandria, *Stromateis, Books 1-3]

The Cappadocian Fathers also attempted a synthesis of Christianity and the Hellenistic philosophy of their day. Soloviev’s attempt to do so does not constitute heresy. That other writing were condemned that may have been influenced by Soloviev’s writings does not equate to Soloviev’s writings being condemned. Soloviev writings influenced many philosophers. The Cappadocian Fathers based many of his ideas on those of Origen. Does that mean the writings of these fathers ought to also be condemned?

Was Soloviev ever canonically severed from communion with the Russian Orthodox Church for any of his writings? Was there some synodal proceedings which condemned his writings as heretical? Or is this just a contentious yet speculative opinion about him?

From the Catholic perspective, your claim is patently false. He was not considered a heretic. John Paul II called him “one of the greatest Russian Christian philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries.” See John Paul II’s address on the 150th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Solovyov, here.

 

[Peter_J]

Well…

Father Frank Schaffer is definitely Orthodox. What he believes about his own faith is not really questioned AFAIK. So that’s a big difference.

Also, as an Orthodox, he doesn’t seem to have a following among Roman Catholics, so there’s one more…

For an apt comparison I think you need to find a well known Roman Cathlic fringe character (more extreme perhaps than Monika Helwig, Teilhard De Chardin or Hans Kung), who has a following among Orthodox. I can’t really think of any.

Certainly Archbishop Milingo is extreme enough in some ways, but Orthodox don’t seem to care for him. What if he (His Grace Milingo) wrote a book advocating returning to Orthodoxy and the Orthodox were all crowing about him…would that impress Roman Catholics?

You’re right, my comparison didn’t really work too well. I should have just said Solovyov does not represent Catholicism – or more to the point, Solovyov’s anti-Orthodox (or should I say pro-uniatism?) writings do not represent Catholicism – and left it at that.

 

[rad]

Was Soloviev ever canonically severed from communion with the Russian Orthodox Church for any of his writings? Was there some synodal proceedings which condemned his writings as heretical?

The Russian Orthodox believe that he left the Orthodox Church and became a member of the Catholic Church (the Russian Greek-Catholic Church.) The Orthodox Church does not (I think) issue canonical condemnations of those who are not her members. The act of leaving is sufficient evidence of apostasy…

There is some speculation that he called an Orthodox priest and repented and returned to Orthodoxy on his deathbed but without any certain evidence we can say that he was a Catholic and under papal obedience.

Or is this just a contentious yet speculative opinion about him?

From the Catholic perspective, your claim is patently false. He was not considered a heretic. John Paul II called him “one of the greatest Russian Christian philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries.” See John Paul II’s address on the 150th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Solovyov, here.

Pope John Paul was a great man and he had a generous assessment of Solovyov. But in the Eastern Church heresy is something greatly shunned. Solovyob taught that the Trinity contains a fourth Person (ipostasis) which is a feminine Person called Sophia. The addition of a fourth person to the Holy Trinity is definitely a heresy for the Orthodox. Imagine if your parish priest preached on it next Sunday!! Perhaps it is not so clear cut for Catholics. I know that some modern nuns hold similar views to Solovyov.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The Russian Orthodox believe that he left the Orthodox Church…

I have also heard this rumor. Yet, I’ve also heard rumor to the contrary. He himself never failed to admit to be a member of the Russian Orthodox Church.

With regard to a so-called fourth person of the Diety, he states nothing of the sort in his work, *Russia and the Universal Church. *Nor have I ever read any writing of Soloviev stating this claim. So, instead of going off hearsay, I instead presume he held faithful communion with the Russian Orthodox Church as he himself claimed, unless contrary claimants manifest evidence which shows otherwise.