Orthodoxy, Papacy

[Harpazo]

My friend I sympathize with your situation but I fear there is no so called “silver bullet” for either position.

In Christ,
Joe

I found this to be the case in my journey from Rome to Orthodoxy. It does not exist. Maybe biting the bullet and finding that I was wrong on one position or another, but no one thing gave me a “eureka” moment.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Harpazo]

Please correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the Patriarch of Constantinople seen as something of a “first among equals”?

Peace
James

He is indeed the first among equals, BUT, that does not mean what many Catholics think. He holds the seat of honor at councils and gatherings of the various Orthodox Churches and gets the same vote as everyone else. His vote also counts the same as everyone else. He cannot appoint or depose bishops outside of his canonical territory and he cannot proclaim new doctrines or dogmas of his own accord ala Vatican I.

Because the Ecumenical Patriarch was second in line after Old Rome, it makes sense that he would have taken the same prerogatives that the Pope of Rome had. Yet he has not made and makes no claim of infallibility or universal jurisdiction. Curious…

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[JRKH]

He is indeed the first among equals, BUT, that does not mean what many Catholics think. He holds the seat of honor at councils and gatherings of the various Orthodox Churches and gets the same vote as everyone else. His vote also counts the same as everyone else. He cannot appoint or depose bishops outside of his canonical territory and he cannot proclaim new doctrines or dogmas of his own accord ala Vatican I.

Because the Ecumenical Patriarch was second in line after Old Rome, it makes sense that he would have taken the same prerogatives that the Pope of Rome had. Yet he has not made and makes no claim of infallibility or universal jurisdiction. Curious…

In Christ,
Andrew

Good - I’m glad I was not off base here.
So without getting into the various differences etc, we do see in the Eastern church someone who is given particular honor. So it seems possible that something could be worked out between East and West combining the “Holy See” with the councilior model.
After all, the Pope doesn’t just, “proclaim new doctrines or dogmas of his own accord” either but rather works within the formal and informal “council” of the magisterium of The Church. So the councilior model is alive and well in the Latin Rite of The Church just as it is in the EO.

Peace
James

 

[josephdaniel29]

He is indeed the first among equals, BUT, that does not mean what many Catholics think. He holds the seat of honor at councils and gatherings of the various Orthodox Churches and gets the same vote as everyone else. His vote also counts the same as everyone else. He cannot appoint or depose bishops outside of his canonical territory and he cannot proclaim new doctrines or dogmas of his own accord ala Vatican I.

Because the Ecumenical Patriarch was second in line after Old Rome, it makes sense that he would have taken the same prerogatives that the Pope of Rome had. Yet he has not made and makes no claim of infallibility or universal jurisdiction. Curious…

In Christ,
Andrew

I also might add the canons grant to Constantinople the right to hear appeals in grievances between bishops/clergy and their metropolitans or patriarchs from other jurisdictions.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Here’s what I have to say ~ My heart’s desire would be to see, to witness, and to be a part of putting the Body of Christ back together, because now the Church Jesus founded is fractured.

Do I believe that I do not have all of Jesus? No, I don’t. But I also cannot imagine that Jesus would want His Body fractured into parts. I’m SURE He expected His Church to remain ONE. And so, I pray for unity. And then we can ALL work on the rest!

Cuz there are a lotta other parts now! But let’s get this part done first!

 

[steve_b]

I was baptised/confirmed Catholic 7 years ago, and have been observant and active ever since.

Recently, my wife and I, who is Russian Orthodox, have come to a point where we realize that our interfaith marriage is an untenable position for us. IN NO WAY DOES THIS SUGGEST DIVORCE, I do not mean for it to be taken like that.

What it means is that we, as traditionalist Christians, cannot subscribe to the idea that one faith is good for one person and one for another. That is relativism. It’s not good for either of our faiths, or for our young children, 8 months old and 2 years old.

Together, we have been exploring the tenets/histories of each of our faiths. There is no question to either of us that one of our churches is true; apostolic succession and tradition is overwhelmingly important.

What the question essentially boils down to on an intellectual level (which of course is only half the battle, if even), after plenty of fiddling about with innumerable bits of theology/history, etc, is that all disputes come back to the Roman Catholic view of the papacy vs. the Orthodox view, and on this I’m just not convinced anymore. I have yet to find conclusive proof that, though the Bishop of Rome had primacy of honor, he had any more than that, indeed, I’m finding it difficult to even establish that Peter ever held a seat in Rome, or a firm place of last word leadership over the early church.

I hate feeling torn like this, especially on something that, truly is the MOST important part of life. Help!

Here are just a few issues you bring up.

Re: Peter 1st among eauals? per hiermonk Ambrose

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1587677&postcount=129

Peter is the leader?.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5744432&postcount=59

Peter is the Father’s choice.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5744436&postcount=60

Re: Peter NOT in Rome?
Irenaeus, of Smyrna, disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of St John the apostle. This is a primary source* “Against Heresies”* According to Irenaeus if you didn’t believe what he was teaching here, you were a heretic. If Irenaeus was from the West the East later on in history could cry fowl. But he was from the East. And Irenaeus is one man away from an apostle. But that man (Polycarp) was taught by the apostles. So Irenaeus had a good teacher.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Is the Church Catholic or Orthodox?
Ignatius, disciple of St John, and was a see of Peter, writes that the Church is the Catholic Catholic… This is a primary reference.

newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm go to ch 8

And Ignatius says Rome holds the presidency
newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

Polycarp disciple of St John, in his martyrdom is a bishop in the Catholic Church
newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm

It would be totally opposed to Jesus teaching, and apostolic tradition to be seperate from Peter…or his successors, the bishop of Rome.

 

[steve_b]

He is indeed the first among equals, BUT, that does not mean what many Catholics think. He holds the seat of honor at councils and gatherings of the various Orthodox Churches

What’s that mean?
H:

and gets the same vote as everyone else. His vote also counts the same as everyone else. He cannot appoint or depose bishops outside of his canonical territory and he cannot proclaim new doctrines or dogmas of his own accord ala Vatican I.

So, what’s in a title?
H:

Because the Ecumenical Patriarch was second in line after Old Rome, it makes sense that he would have taken the same prerogatives that the Pope of Rome had. Yet he has not made and makes no claim of infallibility or universal jurisdiction. Curious…

In Christ,
Andrew

as Cardinal Kasper head if ecumenism for the CC, said in 2002,

1. "We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,

2. it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches;

3. " there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow."

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=17658

 

[Hesychios]

…
Personally, I’d like to see something along the lines of a “cabinet” to use an american political term, whereby the Pope, along with the patriarchs would combine to discuss various issues of doctrine etc. …

This comment sounds so strange to me.

There shouldn’t be any major issues of doctrine, which is Apostolic in origin, two thousand years down the road. Why assume there will be? This really speaks volumes about the difference in perspective between our churches.

Plus, patriarchs have never been in such a position to decide matters without the participation of the full synods. Isolating them into a select group, an “inner circle” of decision makers would be highly innovative, and ahistorical.

I just don’t think a ‘power sharing’ scheme will work with the Orthodox.

 

[Hesychios]

as Cardinal Kasper head if ecumenism for the CC, said in 2002,

1. "We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,

Yes, the Catholic church has been clueless about the original ecclesiology of the church for too many centuries.

The fact is that there are more than one way to use the term church, in both your communion and mine.There is the overall communion, which can be called ‘church’ and there are the individual autocephalic and autonomous churches that the communion consists of. Why it took so long for the Papacy to figure this out is hard to imagine. Most especially since the See of Rome participated in this arrangement for centuries in the first millenium.

2. it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches;

And there is no reason to assume that it ever should be.

3. " there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow."

YES, this is largely a recent circumstance.

The patriarchates developed out of the earliest Metropolitan Sees. These offices exist at the will of the church. Historically the church can change (and has changed) these arrangements, and has to be able to, to even consider letting the Papacy participate at some level once again.

The Ecumenical patriarchate is in an advanced state of decline. It may be necessary to replace it with another.

However the EC is the historic successor to the primacy, so the point stands. It is only necessary to study how this primacy has been exercised to see what role a future primate (of whatever See) will function in the Orthodox communion.

 

[JRKH]

This comment sounds so strange to me.

There shouldn’t be any major issues of doctrine, which is Apostolic in origin, two thousand years down the road. Why assume there will be? This really speaks volumes about the difference in perspective between our churches.

Allow me to clarify.
I agree that there should not be major issues in doctrines, and I really don’t believe there are. Mostly it is a matter of misunderstanding - perhaps symantics - etc between teh two communions. This is why I generally try ont to debate particulars here but leave it to those on both sides changed by The Church(es) to prayerfully and charitably work out the differences.

Plus, patriarchs have never been in such a position to decide matters without the participation of the full synods. Isolating them into a select group, an “inner circle” of decision makers would be highly innovative, and ahistorical.

I just don’t think a ‘power sharing’ scheme will work with the Orthodox.

Again, I agree - there is need for full councils and synods, as well as regional ones, periodically to deal with various issues. This indeed has been the historical method used by both East and West.
However - We can see even in the Book of Acts, that after a council there is seen a need for individuals to go and explain the decision, to answer any specific questions etc. to the individual church communities etc. There can also be the need to “Tailor” certain decisons to different regions and so forth. A small group, who was inimately asociated with the decision process could be very useful in these matters.

Of course you may be right and Holy Mother Church might find my suggestion to be unworkable. No matter - I would accept whatever the two sides arrived at as being the Will of the Holy Spirit, and for the Glory of God.

Peace
James

 

[Monica4316]

Eh, not quite.

In Christ,
Andrew

according to my research, there are ECFs (including Pope Gregory) who said that a Council is not valid without the Bishop of Rome (the Pope)…

He is indeed the first among equals, BUT, that does not mean what many Catholics think. He holds the seat of honor at councils and gatherings of the various Orthodox Churches and gets the same vote as everyone else. His vote also counts the same as everyone else. He cannot appoint or depose bishops outside of his canonical territory and he cannot proclaim new doctrines or dogmas of his own accord ala Vatican I.

the Pope doesn’t proclaim new doctrines or dogmas of his own accord… he works together with the Bishops and the Councils. If you look at the early Church, there were times when the Bishop of Rome could appoint or deposit bishops outside of his territory as Bishop, and there were times he even annulled councils that had nothing to do with Rome (for example, when the Patriarch of Constantinople wanted to be called ‘Universal Bishop’ - Pope Gregory took that to mean ‘sole Bishop’)

about the EO Ecumenical Patriarch… I heard that either him, or the Patriarch of Russia, - has two votes in a council? (ie his vote counts as two votes)

Because the Ecumenical Patriarch was second in line after Old Rome, it makes sense that he would have taken the same prerogatives that the Pope of Rome had. Yet he has not made and makes no claim of infallibility or universal jurisdiction. Curious…

In Christ,
Andrew

yet even before the Schism, the Popes talked about supremacy of Rome and universal jurisdiction… (which doesn’t lessen the other Bishops because they’re still Bishops and have full authority in their diocese, and are also ‘vicars of Christ’ as VI said).

the Pope doesn’t just, “proclaim new doctrines or dogmas of his own accord” either but rather works within the formal and informal “council” of the magisterium of The Church. So the councilior model is alive and well in the Latin Rite of The Church just as it is in the EO.

Peace
James

I also might add the canons grant to Constantinople the right to hear appeals in grievances between bishops/clergy and their metropolitans or patriarchs from other jurisdictions.

It seems that Patriarchs did have this role in the early Church, including the Pope the role of the Pope in this was often emphasized

 

[Hesychios]

I missed this before, but I thought it deserved a comment.

… So it seems possible that something could be worked out between East and West combining the “Holy See” with the councilior model.

It bears pointing out that conciarism is condemned as a heresy by the Catholic church. I don’t have the references, so this is worth a discussion.

… After all, the Pope doesn’t just, “proclaim new doctrines or dogmas of his own accord” either but rather works within the formal and informal “council” of the magisterium of The Church. So the councilior model is alive and well in the Latin Rite of The Church just as it is in the EO.

The point is that the Pope will work with others of his own choosing, and take the counsel of those he wishes to listen to, ignoring anyone else at his pleasure. There is no comparision here to conciliarism, which is anathema to your church.

The decisionmaking authority rests upon the bishop of Rome alone, and church law goes to great lengths to emphasize and preserve these prerogatives. The church does not recognize any others as having an inherent right to participate in the decisionmaking. All authority is delegated by the Pope to others (such as curial officials), and can be withdrawn at his pleasure.

What you are suggesting is to throw out the dogma of Universal Papal Jurisdiction, something which I think will not ever happen, which is one reason why I have serious doubts about us ever resolving the schism.

Still, the I am convinced the idea of a power sharing scheme of all Patriarchs together would be just as novel and unapostolic as the universal jurisdiction of one

 

[Hesychios]

according to my research, there are ECFs (including Pope Gregory) who said that a Council is not valid without the Bishop of Rome (the Pope)…

That only applies to the western church. He dominates the western church.

Every local church is asked to sign on to the findings of a council. That doesn’t mean the council isn’t in full force and effect elsewhere. The eastern church has ignored objections of the bishop of Rome and promulgated anyway, this is a fact of the history of the seven councils.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

JRKH- Unfortunately, it’s not that simple, based on the Orthodox understanding of the split. I think most of us want to see reunification, but based on what we as Catholics, and they as Orthodox, believe, it won’t happen until something gives. My/our assuming that the churches were so so close, and our subsequent discovery that this is not truly the case, particularly from the East’s perspective, is part of what led to this problem in the first place.

Hi Jim, I experienced the same surprize after I started dating a Russian Orthodox woman. I only knew that Pope John Paul II was really interested in dialogue and eventual reunion with the EO Churches, and he even charged some Benedictine monks in Hungary to pray together with the EO, so that we Catholics could become intimately familiar with the Orthodox Divine Liturgy (DL), prayers, and liturgical life, in preparation for the eventual reunion with them. So, I was really excited when I went to my first EO DL with my date, at a ROCOR church (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, before it reunited with the Moscow Patriarchate). My heart was filled with joy and anticipation, looking forward to meet these brothers and sisters in Christ, whom I knew nothing about until Pope JPII’s actions brought them into my sphere of interest. Then, I had to learn that they regard us Catholics in a totally different light. They don’t like us, and don’t respect us, at least the ROCOR folks I’ve met. There was lots of Catholic-bashing, talk about sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, irreverent behavior towards the Eucharist in Catholic Churches (although they confused that with Protestant practice, where the unused portions of bread and wine after their dinner are discarded and thrown into the trash can), making fun and belittling of Catholic saints.

Now, the initial joy and euphoria gave way to a different kind of understanding, love mixed with the pain of our lack of unity, yearning towards my EO brothers and sisters, who have such a beautiful Divine Liturgy, partake in the same Eucharist without sharing it with us, are so close to us and yet so far… I love their Saints and Fools for Christ (Urodniki), St. Seraphim of Sarov, Blessed Xenia of St. Petersburg, St. Herman of Alaska, St. Peter the Aleut, St. Innocent of the Kuril and Aleuti Islands… I venerate their holy icons of the Theotokos with little Jesus. I was even a big fan of Russian culture (Andrei Rublev and Andrei Tarkovsky, The Nut Cracker and Tchaikovsky, Dostoevsky and Pushkin, you name it) for as long as I can remember.

I perfectly agree that there will be no reunion until something gives.

Btw, what church do you attend in Brooklyn? Is it a former Rocor church? I seem to remember there was a Bishop Gabriel of Brooklyn, who once visited the Rocor church I attended in Alabama.

Monica- Exactly, the issue most certainly is the papacy; all doctrinal arguments are essentially irrelevant faced with this one. The problem with the various quotes of ECF’s is that, taken out of context, or collected separately, one can find quotes that go strongly both ways, or suggest different outcomes. I suppose I want a silver bullet, and I can’t find it…

My initial breakthrough came from the Marian apparitions. I know, though, that all Catholics are free not to believe in them. When I first learned that Mary appeared to St. Catherine Labourre in 1830, at the church of Rue the Bac (Paris), and instructed her to have a medal made with the inscription, “O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!”, I was surprised to say the least. I’m sure you know that EO reject the dogma of Immaculate Conception. When I read later that Mary told to St. Bernadette Soubiros at Lourdes, in 1858, that “I am the Immaculate Conception!”, I went into shock. Then, I learned how Mary appeared to the three children of Fatima (1917) and asked that the Holy Father (Pope), in union with all Bishops, consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart. Why would Mary want the Pope to do this, why not the EO Patriarch of Moscow? Then, I read and re-read, analyzed and re-analyzed what the Gospels say about Peter, including John1:40-43 where Jesus first meets Simon and foretells that he would be called Rock, Mt6:18 where he calls him Rock, gives him the Keys to the Kingdom, and establishes his Church on him, and so on. But it all started with Mary, for me. Even before the Catholic/Orthodox debacle, her apparition at Guadalupe, Mexico (1531) puzzled me. Why did she send Juan Diego, the Aztec Indian, to the Catholic bishop Zumarraga? Why did she request the Bishop to build a church in her honor, where she would listen to and grant favors to her Aztec children? In a Catholic Church? Built by a Catholic Bishop? That says something to me. Not a Protestant church, not a non-denominational prayer house, not an EO church. A Catholic church, under the local Catholic bishop. I’m SO indebted to Mary, SO grateful for her help on my journey. That’s why I chose a list of her apparitions as my signature.

Dave- we were married in the Catholic church. The initial thing that spurred all of this on was her church balking at that, and at the prospect of our children being raised Catholic. The thing about EC churches, while it was something we looked into, is that this is not an issue of liturgy, beards, celibacy or style, it’s an issue of which side of the schism was/is correct…

Yeah, it’s not an issue of beards versus tonsures, icons versus statues, etc. The EO Divine Liturgy is beautiful.

I wish good luck to you, and to your family. Love your wife, love your children, and stick together. God will create a way, and a solution, for your family.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

At www.soufanieh.com you can learn about Holy Mary’s apparitions to a Melkite Catholic housewife, Myrna Nazzour, who is married with two children to a Greek Orthodox husband named Nicholas. Holy Mary has been calling them, and all of us Orthodox and Catholics Christians, to unity through love and unity in the family. Love can transcend the differences of religion in a family. Jesus Christ has also appeared to Myrna, several times, calling for unification of the day of the Feast (Pascha/Easter), as the first step to uniting our Churches. These apparitions, which started in 1982, have been officially approved by the Melkite Catholic Patriarch of Damascus (Soufanieh is a suburb of Damascus, Syria), thus it is OK to mention them according to forum rules. I know a wonderful EO Bishop who has been to Nicholas’ and Myrna’s house in Soufanieh. Many many miracles happened there, a holy icon of Theotokos exuding myrrh, miraculous cures of illness, etc. The good Bishop (see his website at reu.org/public/default.htm ) jokingly told me that in Soufanieh, everybody including the local Baptist pastor believes in the authenticity of these apparitions, which is remarkable because Protestants don’t usually care about Mary. I also own a book entitled “Light from the East”, written by the late Fr. Robert J. Fox who was a Fatima scholar and led the Fatima Family Apostolate.

soufanieh.excerptsofinri.com/

fatimafamily.org/

Fr. Fox says in his book that he felt compelled to write the book after he traveled to Soufanieh, and experienced first hand the great love and spirit of unity among Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and other Christians, and even Muslims praying together in the house of Nicholas and Myrna, and saw the true commitment to reunion of the Church leaders (Patriarchs, Bishops, including Eastern and Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and of the Assyrian Church of the East) he interviewed in Damascus. Had he not experienced the good fruits at Soufanieh, there would have been no need or desire on his part, to write the book. And the Feast has been unified in Damascus, Catholics, EO, and OO celebrate on the same day since 2002, pursuant to an agreement between the Catholic and Orthodox Patriarchs involved (there are a bunch of them, in Damascus), and the enthusiastic approval by Pope John Paul II of their agreement.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I met Fr. Fox in 2006, at the Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament in Hanceville, Ala (where Mother Angelica and her nuns live). The whole story of how I ended up accidentally at St. Catherine Labourre’s guest house, in Hanceville, stuffed with books that answered my questions when I was at a crossroads in my life (which Church is Christ’s true Church? Orthodox or Catholic?), books about St. Catherine Labourre and the Miraculous Medal, the Immaculate Conception, books about Fatima written by Fr. Robert J. Fox and others, highlighting God’s plans regarding Russia, was truly remarkable. Then, my jaw dropped when I learned that Fr. Fox, the retired Fatima scholar who interviewed many eyewitnesses of the Fatima miracles including Sister Lucia the surviving of the three children who saw Mary, was now living in Hanceville and celebrating Holy Mass daily at the Shrine. You see, I traveled to Hanceville on unrelated business, but had no idea of who Fr. Fox was, or that he was living in Hanceville now, until I accidentally stopped at a guesthouse (St. Catherine Labourre’s guesthouse) chock full of books on Marian apparitions, including books by this Fr. Fox whom I never heard of, written about Fatima. I could have stayed at a Motel 6 instead, and missed it all while passing through Hanceville. Also, when I saw St. Catherine’s guest house, I immediately thought it was St. Catherine of Siena. I had no idea who St. Catherine Labourre was, but as soon as I entered the guesthouse, I found inside a bunch of Miraculous Medals, and 2 or 3 books telling the story of how Mary appeared to her at Rue de Bac, instructing her about the Medal with the inscription “O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!”. It was a remarkable coincidence of events, learning about the Immaculate Conception (something I knew the EO had a beef with), Fatima, Russia, and this Fr. Fox who wrote several books about Fatima, just because I winded up at this particular guesthouse and not at one of the many other guesthouses and motels in the area. So, next day I attended Holy Mass celebrated by Fr. Fox and after Mass, I asked him whether God (or his messengers, which was implicit in my question) said anything about the Russian Orthodox Church, at Fatima. He replied that the Angel St. Michael, who appeared to the three children of Fatima, taught the children to prostrate and worship God in a way that’s being practiced by the EO. And he directed me to look up his book “Light from the East” at the Shrine’s bookstore, as something relevant to my question. I’ve not met Fr. Fox again, and for my next chance to meet him, I should work really hard to get to the Heaven, because Fr. Fox deceased on Thanksgiving day, 2009, and I’m convinced he is in Heaven now. But I think I came to understand better, what his answer was to my question. Fatima is about reunion, and Soufanieh is also about reunion. It will happen eventually, because God wants it, and because He sent Holy Mary at Fatima, and at Soufanieh, to make it happen.

I think my experience is as close to a silver bullet as it gets. And I wasn’t traveling to Hanceville to find a solution to my dilemma, at this Orthodox/Catholic crossroads. I traveled there simply to honor Holy Mary, because one of her statues (the statue of Our Lady of America) was temporarily there, and the Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament had an event in the honor of Our Lady of America. I wanted to do something in Our Lady’s honor, I went on a pilgrimage to Hanceville, and Our Lady surprized me there with this remarkable coincidence of events and graces, well beyond anything I could have asked for even in my wildest dreams. :yup: :extrahappy:

 

[captainmike]

JimCBrooklyn:

Some quick thoughts for you:

1. I recently converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism. Before doing so, I considered Orthodoxy. I settled on Catholicism for several reasons, including because I believed that it offered better opportunities for raising my children in the faith (and for them keeping the faith as adults). No offense to Orthodox Christians, but their churches can be difficult to find in some parts of the country, they seem foreign, and there aren’t nearly as many Orthodox schools as there are Catholic ones. Here’s what I’m suggesting: Given the relative logistical difficulties in raising children in the Orthodox faith, you should want Catholicism to be true. Give it the benefit of the doubt.
2. If you spend the rest of your life reading books on the papacy, you will never know for sure who is right. The best any of us can do is make an educated guess. Because of this, you should turn this decision over to God in prayer. Is God really leading you to leave the Catholic Church? Take the weeks, months, or even years that you need in prayer to find out for sure. Spend hours in Eucharistic Adoration. Books are great, but prayer must be your ultimate guide.
3. Do you enjoy being Catholic? Do you get something out of attending Mass and taking communion? I do. Taking communion and praying the Rosary blow me away. Do you realize that the Orthodox Church teaches that Catholic sacraments aren’t valid? The communion you’ve been taking isn’t valid, they say. Your baptism isn’t valid, they say. Do you really believe they are right? Really?
4. Becoming Orthodox can, I believe, be motivated by intellectual pride. If you meet anyone who’s convereted to Orthodoxy from a different faith, they can talk ad nauseum about the historical Councils of the Church, where Rome went astray, etc., etc. They sometimes remind me of cult members (Mormonism, Scientology) who think they’ve discovered something new (i.e., something that most people don’t know), and this feeling makes them feel superior to others. Am not saying that all Orthodox Christians are like this, but I do feel that there is an element of smugness among some of them. And, no, I’m not saying Orthodoxy is a cult.
5. A good friend of mine is an Orthodox priest. He invited me to come to his church tonight for vespers. I thought about it. Ultimately, though, I am unwilling to attend a church that says my church’s sacraments aren’t valid. We don’t say that about them. Smugness.
6. As between the Catholic and Orthodox churches, which one “looks” like the universal church? It’s not even close. Catholicism is a worldwide religion. Orthodoxy can’t make that claim nearly as much.
7. Don’t our priests and nuns impress you? Their priests don’t have to be celibate. Isn’t celibacy a wonderful and beautiful thing? I believe it is. I think our priests and nuns are incredible.

Take your time, brother. Relax. Pray about it. This is a hugely important decision. To a great extent, you are not only deciding for yourelf. You may be deciding for your children and their children. Turn it over to God in prayer. Pray the Rosary.

 

[josephdaniel29]

JimCBrooklyn:

Some quick thoughts for you:

1. I recently converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism. Before doing so, I considered Orthodoxy. I settled on Catholicism for several reasons, including because I believed that it offered better opportunities for raising my children in the faith (and for them keeping the faith as adults). No offense to Orthodox Christians, but their churches can be difficult to find in some parts of the country, they seem foreign, and there aren’t nearly as many Orthodox schools as there are Catholic ones. Here’s what I’m suggesting: Given the relative logistical difficulties in raising children in the Orthodox faith, you should want Catholicism to be true. Give it the benefit of the doubt.

So you made your decision based in part on convenience? What if you had been convinced that Orthodoxy was the truth, would you have still chosen Catholicism?

1. If you spend the rest of your life reading books on the papacy, you will never know for sure who is right. The best any of us can do is make an educated guess. Because of this, you should turn this decision over to God in prayer. Is God really leading you to leave the Catholic Church? Take the weeks, months, or even years that you need in prayer to find out for sure. Spend hours in Eucharistic Adoration. Books are great, but prayer must be your ultimate guide.

Excellent advice.

Do you realize that the Orthodox Church teaches that Catholic sacraments aren’t valid? The communion you’ve been taking isn’t valid, they say. Your baptism isn’t valid, they say. Do you really believe they are right? Really?

Putting aside the fact that what you say is not entirely accurate (there are a number of different views within Orthodoxy and we generally avoid making “official” judgement on sacraments performed outside the Church), What difference does it make to Catholics what we think about their sacraments? If you are the true Church our opinion should be of no consequence whatsoever.

1. Becoming Orthodox can, I believe, be motivated by intellectual pride. If you meet anyone who’s convereted to Orthodoxy from a different faith, they can talk ad nauseum about the historical Councils of the Church, where Rome went astray, etc., etc. They sometimes remind me of cult members (Mormonism, Scientology) who think they’ve discovered something new (i.e., something that most people don’t know), and this feeling makes them feel superior to others. Am not saying that all Orthodox Christians are like this, but I do feel that there is an element of smugness among some of them. And, no, I’m not saying Orthodoxy is a cult.

Many things are motivated by pride. It is often so deeply rooted that we can’t even begin to recognize it.

1. A good friend of mine is an Orthodox priest. He invited me to come to his church tonight for vespers. I thought about it. Ultimately, though, I am unwilling to attend a church that says my church’s sacraments aren’t valid. We don’t say that about them. Smugness.

We don’t care what you say about us. You shouldn’t care what we say about you.

1. As between the Catholic and Orthodox churches, which one “looks” like the universal church? It’s not even close. Catholicism is a worldwide religion. Orthodoxy can’t make that claim nearly as much.

Truth is not decided by the majority and catholicity is qualitative not quantitative.

1. Don’t our priests and nuns impress you? Their priests don’t have to be celibate. Isn’t celibacy a wonderful and beautiful thing? I believe it is. I think our priests and nuns are incredible.

Many Orthodox priests are celibate and all Orthodox monks and nuns are. I’m not sure what your point is.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Bluegoat]

The papacy is a hard one to hang everything on. The evidence is just not clear. In the end, you will not be able to make a “this is it for sure” decision.

For myself, I have pretty much ruled out Catholicism because of their understanding of indulgences and the issues surrounding that. Maybe you could find another issue that is a deal-breaker for you, one that would be clearer than the papacy issue.

On a totally utilitarian level, the OC would be a better bet, but that would be a questionable way to make a choice.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Eastern Orthodoxy is very appealing to me. They have less difficult doctrines to accept than Catholicism does, they appear to have a “kinder” view of God, their liturgy (in my humble opinion) is more reverent and beautiful, and there is more room for mystery and less need to explain everything.

However, I have yet to see a good reason for becoming Eastern Orthodox instead of joining one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. There does not seem to be any authoritative reason for believing the Councils the Eastern Orthodox accept, but the Oriental Orthodox reject, are truly Ecumenical Councils, unless I believe the pope’s approval makes the council official. If I do that, I might as well accept all the Ecumenical Councils up to Vatican II and enter the Catholic Church.

If I apply the standard that “acceptance by the whole Church” makes a council ecumenical, then I fail to see how Chalcedon, for example, is ecumenical, as some of the Oriental Orthodox did not accept it and broke away from the rest of Christendom. If one believes that their rejection separated them from the Church, and therefore their acceptance was not required in order for the title of “ecumenical” to awarded to the council, then why can we not apply the same rule to the Council of Florence? The Eastern Orthodox, as a whole, did not accept the council and remained separate from the West. Perhaps we can apply the rule of Chalcedon here and say that the Eastern Orthodox rejection separated them from the Church, and their acceptance is no longer required?

Another issue for me is that, to my knowledge, no Ecumenical Council has ever condemned any doctrines or dogmas of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox do not believe in purgatory, the immaculate conception, or papal infallibility, but they have not, to my knowledge, ever condemned these teachings in an Ecumenical Council. If I become Catholic, I will not be required to believe anything an Ecumenical Council has declared to be heresy.

Long ago, my Protestant ancestors rejected the authority of their bishops and decided to go their own way. If I become Catholic, it will be a way for me to help right that grievous wrong known as the Reformation. I will be returning to the authority of my rightful bishop and to the authority of the pope. If I become Eastern Orthodox, I will remain in a state of schism with my rightful bishop, even though the Eastern Orthodox have not, in any Ecumenical Council, declared him to be a heretic. Why shall I exchange my current state of rebellion for another?

The Catholic Church can tell me, “We have the pope, who cannot err when pronouncing doctrine in matters of faith and morals. By remaining in communion with him, you are in the Church. All other religious bodies, no matter how sincere their faith, are not securely built on the rock.” The Eastern Orthodox Church can tell me, “We have the true faith, and we are the true Church. The Catholic Church teaches that which we are pretty sure is false, but which we have never infallibly declared to be so.” I believe I find the former argument more compelling.

These are just a few of my thoughts. I have been going back and forth between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and I am aware that the Eastern Orthodox can offer stronger arguments than I have given. I am also aware that my preference for the Catholic Church is based largely on the fact that I am a Western Protestant, and the Church my ancestors left was the Catholic Church. A non-Orthodox Russian, for example, could make the “religious heritage” argument on behalf of Eastern Orthodoxy.

God bless!