Primary Reasons for People Becoming Orthodox?

[Cecilianus]

To which Orthodox Church of Canada do you refer? I’m not aware of a canonical Orthodox Church of Canada. The OCA churches in Canada are in communion with the Antiochians and with ROCA, the Moscow Patriarchate, etc.

It’s what the Russians would call a “non-canonical” church. But the Antiochians are in communion with them.

I think it is also in communion with the Orthodox Church of France, which was founded by Archbishop John Maximovitch (recognized as a saint by the Russian Orthodox, though they regard his church as “non-canonical”). There is also a “Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada”, which has apostolic succession from the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (not to be confused with the rival Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church), and its current bishop was given his vestments and an episcopal staff by the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Frankly I think it’s silly to have to look through hundreds of denominations and figure out which are in communion with which in order to cobble together some sort of “Orthodox Church”. The true Church is one, and all of its members obey a supreme head. It’s easy to tell whose Catholic and who isn’t, because it’s a visible Church: Catholics are people who go to Mass in parishes under dioceses whose bishops report to - and are usually appointed by - the Pope. There may be plenty of dissidents within the Catholic Church - just as Orthodoxy has its heretics too - but externally at least it is always clear whether someone is Catholic or not.

 

[Cecilianus]

Which Serbian Orthodox?

A Serbian Orthodox mission in Wisconsin, in communion with all the rest of the Serbian Orthodox churches as well as with the Russian Orthodox churches in the U.S. (rather than with a traditionalist or old-ritualist sect). She attributed this position to most of the Serbian and Russian bishops. Obviously, without any single authority to determine what church teaching is, it devolves to private judgment to determine for yourself what “church teaching” is and how the councils should be interpreted, so to speak of the teaching of the “Serbian Orthodox Church” as a whole or the “Orthodox Church” as a whole becomes about as meaningless and subjective as Protestant fundamentalists talking about the “meaning of Scripture”. There are Serbian Orthodox who regard the Ecumenical Patriarch as “non-Orthodox”.

 

[Formosus]

And there are Catholics who believe in women’s ordination and that doesn’t make them right. All your criticisms of Orthodoxy are basically parody’s based off one particular congregation or misinformation. The Old Ritualists outside of canonical orthodoxy are basically as much of a non-issue as Old Catholics and Anglicans are for the Catholic Church.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Cecilianus:

If the “Western Rite” is a legitimate, authentic expression of the Faith of equal dignity with the Eastern Rites, why shouldn’t it have its own dioceses? Sounds to me like that’s just giving them second-class status.

That’s not the experience I had, quite the opposite. When I visited, the Antiochian bishop drove all the way across the state to visit the parish for the feast of St. Patrick (the church’s patronal feast day). Perhaps in time they will have their own particularly Western dioceses. They’re still a small outfit relative to the other Orthodox in the country.

Secondly, if the “Orthodox Church” is the one, true Church, why would you be afraid of conflicting with dioceses of Churches whose apostolic succession you do not even recognise? (And if you are not the one, true, Church, then by what right can you separate yourself from the One, Whole (Catholic) Church?)

Relations between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church already have been strained by the circumstances behind the creation of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Any active division of Latin dioceses into Latin Catholic and Latin Orthodox sides would do incalculable harm to both sides.

The reason why I put “Orthodox Church” is quotation marks because quite honestly I have never figured out what this elusive entity is. I have never seen the “Orthodox Church” as a visible body.

Really? I am lifted to heaven and worship with all the angels and saints every Sunday… Maybe the clouds are blocking your view.

There are at least 216 sects (the usual number quoted, at any rate) that call themselves Orthodox.

Ok… but are they mainstream? There are many non-mainstream sects on the Catholic side as well.

Many of them are in the same country and in rivalry with each other - such as Ukraine, where the Kiev Patriarchate, the Autonomous Orthodox Church, and the Autocephalous Orthodox Church all anathematize each other as well as the over two dozen “non-canonical” Ukrainian Churches (not to mention the large Ukrainian Catholic Church)

The Orthodox communion outside of Ukraine only recognizes the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate as canonical.

then there is Russia, where the True-Orthodox Church of Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church, ROCOR, the “Living Church”, and hundreds of Old Ritualist sects all claimed to be the “true” Russian Orthodox Church during the 1940s (some of them are now defunct due to the collapse of communism). Is the Orthodox Church of Canada part of your “Orthodox Church”? It’s in communion with the Antiochian Orthodox but regarded as non-canonical by the Russian Orthodox, although the Antiochian Orthodox and Russian Orthodox are in communion with each other. What about the Jacobite heretics? They’re also in communion (oddly enough, given their geographical proximity) with the Antiochians. Some Antiochian bishops are even in communion with the “Moorish Orthodox Church” (a Nation of Islam precursor - black American racism). What about Catholics of the Zoghby initiative? Is the True Orthodox Church of Greece (an old-calendarist sect which opposes the Greek Orthodox Church) part of the “Orthodox Church”?

Where Jesus Christ is [in the sacraments] there is the Catholic Church.

And what about the Serbian Orthodox - a rather large body of faithful - who claim that the Ecumenical Patriarch “isn’t really Orthodox” because he’s too ecumenical? (I don’t know if this is the official teaching of the Serbian Orthodox, but a friend of mine who is the daughter of a Serbian Orthodox priest claimed that most of the Serbian and Russian bishops reject the Ecumenical Patriarch as non-Orthodox.)

Ok.

What is the ground of unity for the “Orthodox Church”? Without Peter, I don’t see how there can be any consistent ecclesiology.

That which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.

 

[Madaglan]

It’s what the Russians would call a “non-canonical” church. But the Antiochians are in communion with them.

I think it is also in communion with the Orthodox Church of France, which was founded by Archbishop John Maximovitch (recognized as a saint by the Russian Orthodox, though they regard his church as “non-canonical”). There is also a “Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada”, which has apostolic succession from the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (not to be confused with the rival Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church), and its current bishop was given his vestments and an episcopal staff by the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Frankly I think it’s silly to have to look through hundreds of denominations and figure out which are in communion with which in order to cobble together some sort of “Orthodox Church”. The true Church is one, and all of its members obey a supreme head. It’s easy to tell whose Catholic and who isn’t, because it’s a visible Church: Catholics are people who go to Mass in parishes under dioceses whose bishops report to - and are usually appointed by - the Pope. There may be plenty of dissidents within the Catholic Church - just as Orthodoxy has its heretics too - but externally at least it is always clear whether someone is Catholic or not.

Should be glad you weren’t born in late 14th century Europe.

 

[Madaglan]

A Serbian Orthodox mission in Wisconsin, in communion with all the rest of the Serbian Orthodox churches as well as with the Russian Orthodox churches in the U.S. (rather than with a traditionalist or old-ritualist sect). She attributed this position to most of the Serbian and Russian bishops. Obviously, without any single authority to determine what church teaching is, it devolves to private judgment to determine for yourself what “church teaching” is and how the councils should be interpreted, so to speak of the teaching of the “Serbian Orthodox Church” as a whole or the “Orthodox Church” as a whole becomes about as meaningless and subjective as Protestant fundamentalists talking about the “meaning of Scripture”. There are Serbian Orthodox who regard the Ecumenical Patriarch as “non-Orthodox”.

That’s about the first time I’ve heard the Orthodox Church compared to Protestant fundamentalists. As if there were no such thing as Tradition.

My priest says, we don’t slap our Bible, we venerate it.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cecilianus,

If my argument is what you’re referring to, then I should clarify it.

My argument runs as follows.

If there is a single “Orthodox Church”, then the boundaries must be clear and distinguishable and there must be a way of seeing unity.

But there is no clear unity or boundaries (e.g., Orthodox Church of Canada which has communion with the Antiochians but not the Russians, while the Antiochians and Russians have Communion with each other).

Therefore, there is no single “Orthodox Church”.

We identify the Catholic Churches as CATHOLIC by the common FAITH we hold.

We identify Eastern Orthodox as EASTERN ORTHODOX by the common FAITH they hold.

We identify Oriental Orthodox as ORIENTAL ORTHODOX by the common FAITH they hold.

The Catholic Church is a communion of true Churches.

The Eastern Orthodox are a communion of true Churches.

The Oriental Orthodox are a communion of true Churches.

(I would give an account of the COE Churches, but I am even less familiar with their internal affairs than I am with EO internal affairs)

In each group, there are also groups that claim the names (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox) who are ECCLESIOLOGICALLY separated from the main group. E.g., among the Catholics, there are the SSPX (I would count the “Old Catholics,” but - really - aside from the PNCC who have ongoing discussions for formal unity with the Catholic Church, the rest of the Old Catholic Churches are really no longer Catholic at all), among the Oriental Orthodox, there are the Malankara Orthodox, and among the Eastern Orthodox - I really don’t know since EO internal affairs are not my strong suit, but I guess the Old Calendarist and Old Believers would fall in that category of ecclesiological separation.

This argument “Orthodox are not united” or “Catholics are not united” is hypocritical, at best. It’s really bad rhetoric on the whole. These are not reasons to become or not become Orthodox. or to become or not become Catholic. It’s best to focus on the real issues, which are the theological matters.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

We identify Catholic Churches by their visible communion with the Pope of Rome AND by their orthodoxy in faith; both are required.

 

[TristanCross]

In my experience, I’ve found that Catholics are much more loving, gentle, and kind. In my expreiences with Orthodox Christians, I haven’t felt so much love, but was rather publicly humiliated and hated. I believe the Orthodox Church has become a bit loveless.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cecilianus,

I have other comments, but I’m running out of time, so I’ll just respond to the following for now:

Do you know where (2) is specifically taught? I’d been planning to read through Vatican I this week but I’m lagging behind a little bit - I’m still on Trent (I have both councils in the same volume).

This power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appoitnment of the Holy Spirit, succeeded in the place of the apostles, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them. Rather this latter power * is asserted, confirmed, and vindicated by this same supreme and universal shepherd in the words of St. Gregory the Great: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. Mu honor is the solid strength of my brothers, I am truly honored when due honor is paid to each and every one."
(Chapter 3, Pastor Aeternus, Vatican 1)

By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church, but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular Churches and their groupings. This reinforces and defends the proper, ordinary and immediate power which the Bishops have in the particular Churches entrusted to their care.
Canon 333-1. Code of Canon Law (Latin Church)

The Eastern Code is even more explicit that the Pope’s supreme power is in fact for the very purpose of safeguarding the powers of his brother bishops:
The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office, not only has power over the entire Church, but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.
Canon 45-1. Code of Canon Law (Eastern Churches)

Note also that the Canons assign to the local ordinary’s prerogatives a descriptive not assigned to the Pope’s - namely, “proper.”

Vatican 2 expressed the matter differently, and better, IMO. Whereas V1 expressed the teaching in the context of the papal prerogatives, V2 expressed it in the context of the bishop’s prerogatives:
The pastoral charge, that is, the permanent and daily care of their sheep, is entrusted to them * fully; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiff; for they exercise the power which they possess in their own right and are called in the truest sense of the term prelates of the people whom they govern. Consequently, their authority, far from being damaged by the supreme and universal power, is much rather defended, upheld and strengthened by it, since the Holy Spirit preserves unfailingly that form of government which was set up by Christ the Lord in his Church.*
(Chapter 3, Lumen Gentium, Vatican 2)
As you can see, V2 is even more direct about the fact that it is the will of the Holy Spirit that the Pope’s supreme authority is supposed to “defend, uphold, and strengthen” the proper authority of his brother bishops.

I agree with this, but would extend it to the whole Church. My reason for this is that there is no Christ-given “patriarchal” jurisdiction given to the Pope, and I have never seen a Counciliar-given “patriarchal” jurisidiction. Pope Benedict XVI dropped the title for “theological reasons”, and yet still gave a motu proprio

(regarding the Latin Mass); since he no longer has the title “Patriarch of the West”, by what authority did he give the motu proprio? I always understood the motu proprios - all encyclicals and motu proprios - as coming from his authority as Supreme Pontiff, not through the jurisidiction of “Patriarch of the West”

1. The Pope is still Patriarch of the Latins, though he has given up the title “Patriarch of the West.”
2. Btw, the bishop of Rome’s PATRIARCHAL authority and jurisdiction was established by the First Ecum Council. The concept of Patriarchal jurisdictions, which came about in the 3rd century at the earliest, is not apostolic, but established by ecclesiological law for the good order of the Church. Before this time, there were three recognized centers of Christianity - Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria (in connection with their Petrine lineage)- and of the bishops of these, the bishop of Rome was the head bishop. The head bishopric of Rome was established long before patriarchal jurisdictions were established in the Church. However, the bishop of Rome’s Patriarchal authority established by ecclesiastical law in the 4th century did not/does not/and CANnot cancel the bishop of Rome’s universal authority established by divine precept (i.e., from Christ to Peter and his succesors).
3. I did not say that motu proprios are given by the bishop of Rome with his authority as Patriarch of the Latins. Motu proprios are indeed given by the bishop of Rome with his authority as Pope. What I am saying is that this authority is exercised according to the considerations of patriarchal jurisdiction. Just because Rome’s universal authority is divinely established, this does not mean that the Church cannot regulate it for the good of the Church. The Church has always regulated, and has always had the authority to regulate, divinely established things (e.g. the Sacraments, the exercise of a bishop’s divine authority, etc.), and it should not be hard for you to imagine that the same could be done of the Pope’s divinely established universal authority.

CONTINUED*

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

I am unsure of this. The Pope does not in fact do so, but I don’t know whether he is in principle incapable of doing so. There are plenty of good reasons for the Pope not to arbitrarily meddle with the Eastern Churches - they are perfectly competent on their own, abolishing ancient traditions is generally a catastrophe (e.g. the “Novus Ordo” Mass), and relations have been so poor historically that doing so could lead to another schism. But to say that the Holy Father lacks an intrinsic jurisdiction to act motu proprio on the Eastern Churches seems to me to be not fully consistent with the “sovereignty of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdictin of the Roman pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate” (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ chapter 3).

As stated, just because the Pope’s authority is divinely established, this does not mean that it cannot be regulated by the Church. The Church has done so in the past, and it is the same now. For example, the most ancient canons of the Church state that though BISHOPS even in different patriarchal jurisdictions can directly appeal to the Pope, priests can’t do that, because they are under the direct authority of their own bishop). This was recently reinforced in matters involving the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Malankara Catholic Church. In both instances, dissident groups of priests and laypersons appealed to the Pope to permit them in their Latinizations. The Pope refused to even hear their appeals for a long time (IIRC), and when he finally spoke up, he simply sided with the decisions of the local Synods. A lot of people probably viewed this as a “papal decision,” but in truth, it was not his decision to make. The Pope was simply adhering to the ancient standard that only bishops can directly appeal to the Pope. This ancient rule is really for the good order of the Church, and it is not hard to imagine why.

I know that many view the Pope’s restraint as merely self-imposed, and that if the Pope wanted to - say - depose a bishop because he doesn’t like his beard (I’m exaggerating, but you know what I mean ), he actually has the authority to do so, I am not of that view. I look at it this way:

A father has plenary authority in his household, but does that mean he has the authority to abuse his wife or beat his kids, or establish laws that disrespect his wife and kids? Scripture says that a wife cannot refuse herself to her husband, and vice-versa, but does this give the husband the authority to rape his wife?

Can the Pope, for instance, deny me confession if I ask for it? Can he deny the Viaticum to a sick or dying person? If you say he has universal authority, then why can’t he? So the issue is not whether the Pope has plenary (or universal) authoriity in the Church, but, rather, what are the things that he is permitted to do with that authority. More to the point of our discussion, can he perform actions that violate the rights and prerogatives of his brother bishops? Vatican 1, Vatican 2 and our canons assert very clearly that he cannot. Vatican 2 teaches that this is the will of the Holy Spirit.

Let’s take the topic under discussion - a motu proprio. Canon law says that a motu proprio that violates the acquired rights of individuals is INVALID. Canon law also says that every bishop is competent (i.e., on his OWN authority) to discipline and instruct the faithful under him. Let me ask you this: If the Pope decided to issue a motu proprio to a group of Maronite Christians, instructing them to do something, hasn’t he violated the inherent right of the Maronite bishop as pastor of his flock? I mean, at that point, the Pope has acted as if the Maronite bishop did not even exist. You can’t tell me that he has not violated the rights of the Maronite bishop. He has not only violated the canons, but also the infallible teaching of V1 and V2.

So, to address the main point of your statement above, the Pope’s “sovereignty of ordinary power over all Churches” is not contradicted by the fact that he can’t issue motu proprio’s validly to individuals within another sui juris Church. If he MUST involve himself in a discplinary matter to individuals within another sui juris Church, he must and can only do it through the hierarchical authority in that Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

We identify Catholic Churches by their visible communion with the Pope of Rome AND by their orthodoxy in faith; both are required.

Thanks, brother Aramis. I actually imagined communion with the Pope of Rome as part of the “Faith” to which I referred, but it couldn’t hurt to point it out more directly.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

mardukm:

Besides this EO teaching that St. Peter and his successors are not heads of the Church does not seem to be patristic (as far as the united Church of the first millenium is concerned). I’m sure I don’t have to give the quotes of the numerous Eastern and Western Fathers who called Peter the coryphaeus of the Apostles. It’s just a lot more sensible and consistent that, through the principle of apostolic succession, the apostolic college down through the centuries (i.e., the body of bishops) likewise possesses its own coryphaeus. I’ll quote just one of the many statements from the Fathers that indicate that this headship was handed down to the bishop of Rome. This one is from the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, while they were strongly urging Rome to consent to its decrees: If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the most holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four Councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, father and primate. Since Pope Vigilius’ consent was given… Note also that the Council appealed to the model of the Apostles and the Church before them. Remeber - we’re talking about an ECUMENICAL Council here, which represents the WHOLE Church

I see nothing foreign to the Orthodox understanding in that quote. The Fathers and the other Patriarchs are inviting their fellow brother, the Patriarch of Rome, to join with them in deciding on the Three Chapters.

I would have to disagree that there is nothing foreign to EO’xy in this assertion from an Ecumenical Council. The very fact that the Council recognized the principle of a temporal head for the Church runs counter to the “Truth” that you expressed.

It’s interesting that the language is not “since we hold you as our head, father and primate,” but rather “if…[you] give in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith…we will hold thee as our head, father and primate.”

I wholeheartedly agree with you. However, I should point out that the Pope in fact did fulfill the condition, so he was indeed the head of the Church, as asserted by the Council Fathers. And I would remind again the fact that the Council was appealing to the model of the Apostles and the Church before them, This headship of the Church was not restricted to the time of Pope Vigilius alone, but was the belief of the Church from the beginning up to that time. It is ALSO the belief of the Catholic Church today, but, according to you, it is not the belief of the EOC.

The Pope of Rome is to work with, not over, brother Patriarchs and bishops in reaching common agreement.

Agreed. This is the principle of the “High Petrine” view that I have been espousing. It is not the “Absolutist Petrine” view of certain Catholics where the head can disregard the body, nor is it the “Low Petrine” view of the EOC where the body can disregard the head (as I have heard from many EO apologists - though you may not be one of those who agrees with that understanding).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cecilianus]

And there are Catholics who believe in women’s ordination and that doesn’t make them right. All your criticisms of Orthodoxy are basically parody’s based off one particular congregation or misinformation. The Old Ritualists outside of canonical orthodoxy are basically as much of a non-issue as Old Catholics and Anglicans are for the Catholic Church.

But my point is that there is an authority in the Church - the Pope - who tells us that they are not teaching Catholic doctrine. We have an authority to decide what is the Faith and what isn’t; the Old Catholics and Anglicans aren’t in communion with this authority, so they aren’t Catholic. But why should I believe that the “Russian Orthodox Church” is more Orthodox than the Old Believers? The Old Believers claim to be Orthodox, and there is no Orthodox Pope that they lack communion with. The fact that we call them “Old Believers” instead of “Orthodox” is simply verbal propaganda - they look practically the same. I will give you a reason why I keep harping on them: I do believe that they have a better claim than the “Russian Orthodox” to having the “Orthodox Faith”. Russian Orthodoxy was founded when they chose to go into schism rather than accept the “heretical” doctrinal and liturgical developments of the Western Church, so what grounds do they have to complain when the Old Believers do the same to them? What makes someone “canonical” anyway, if not union with the Holy See? I still have not gotten an answer to this.

 

[Cecilianus]

That’s not the experience I had, quite the opposite. When I visited, the Antiochian bishop drove all the way across the state to visit the parish for the feast of St. Patrick (the church’s patronal feast day). Perhaps in time they will have their own particularly Western dioceses. They’re still a small outfit relative to the other Orthodox in the country.

Relations between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church already have been strained by the circumstances behind the creation of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Any active division of Latin dioceses into Latin Catholic and Latin Orthodox sides would do incalculable harm to both sides.

In the first paragraph you suggest that they should have their own dioceses, and in the second you suggest that they shouldn’t. Which is it?

And, secondly, do the Catholics have valid sacraments (which the Russians and Serbians today, and the Greeks previously, deny)? If not, what is the problem with creating a diocese to that of a Church which doesn’t even have valid baptism much less Holy Orders?

Really? I am lifted to heaven and worship with all the angels and saints every Sunday… Maybe the clouds are blocking your view.

So am I, at my Ukrainian Catholic parish. So does that make the Uniates part of the Orthodox Church?

Ok… but are they mainstream? There are many non-mainstream sects on the Catholic side as well.

What’s the difference? They look the same to me, and I don’t see any Orthodox Pope to appeal to as the ground of unity.

The Orthodox communion outside of Ukraine only recognizes the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate as canonical.

I still don’t know whether that’s the autonomous one or the autocephalous one, or the Kiev Patriarchate.

Where Jesus Christ is [in the sacraments] there is the Catholic Church.

So all of them? Even though the True-Orthodox Church regarded the Russian Orthodox Church as practically apostate, they’re both part of the Orthodox Church? Does this include the Catholic Church and those Anglican sects with valid Holy Orders? Or do you, with mainstream Orthodoxy, reject all the sacraments of “non-Orthodox” sects? (In that case, you’re going in circles. Which groups have valid sacraments, and how do you know that they form the “true Church”?)

That which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.

But the Anglicans think they hold to this too. So do many Protestants. How do you determine what is the Catholic Faith according to St. Vincent’s canon - or is it just private interpretation?

 

[Cecilianus]

In my experience, I’ve found that Catholics are much more loving, gentle, and kind. In my expreiences with Orthodox Christians, I haven’t felt so much love, but was rather publicly humiliated and hated. I believe the Orthodox Church has become a bit loveless.

I tried once expressing interest in converting to Orthodoxy (I at least wanted to talk about the differences between us with someone), and they didn’t even seem to want me - so why should I convert? The Catholic Church also holds that they are the one true Church that all must be saved through (extra ecclesiam nulla salus - whether those people know they’re being saved through the Church of Rome or not!) - and they have either the charity or just the evangelical zeal to try to save as many people as possible.

 

[chrisb]

I tried once expressing interest in converting to Orthodoxy (I at least wanted to talk about the differences between us with someone), and they didn’t even seem to want me - so why should I convert? The Catholic Church also holds that they are the one true Church that all must be saved through (extra ecclesiam nulla salus - whether those people know they’re being saved through the Church of Rome or not!) - and they have either the charity or just the evangelical zeal to try to save as many people as possible.

My experience with Eastern Orthodoxy ‘in person’ is very much different than my experience with Eastern Orthodoxy ‘on forums’.

That said, I did have a substative disscussion about the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism and wasn’t convinced that the Roman Church was in error although there are many things about the Eastern Church that I find very compelling.

 

[ByzCath08]

I can tell you my experience of just about making the move to Orthodoxy. I am a cradle Catholic who fell away from the church in college(1989) and only started my journey back in 2006. Along the way I tried an Episcopalian Church and considered other Protestant churches. However, I knew I was fooling myself and returned to the Catholic Church.

The parish I last attended in the 80’s was a traditional leaning parish in Illinois. When I returned to several churches in my diocese(Tucson), I was dismayed at how much the church had changed. One Mass I attended seemed more like a Protestant service than a Catholic service(guitars, drums, tamborines). At another one, people were arriving up to 30 minutes late and it was difficult to focus on the liturgy with all the comotion going on. I attended a variety of churches but struggled to find anything that resembled the Church of my youth. The more I attended, the more I struggled with what had become of the liturgy. I knew Jesus was present in the Eucharist, but everything else seemed foreign to me.

I started to read about the Early Church and read the Orthodox Way by Kallistos Ware. I loved how the Orthodox liturgy had remained constant since the early days of the Church. I read stories of people who were at the end of their ropes and went to the Orthodox Church as a last resort only to find what they were seeking. I read about Orthodox theology, teachings of the Desert Fathers and became convinced that this was what I was looking for.

In March 2008, I got on the internet and searched for Tucson Orthodox Catholic. I was hoping to find postings from Catholics in Tucson who converted to Orthodoxy. The first entry that returned was for a Byzantine Catholic Church in Tucson. Having no idea what a Byzantine Catholic was, I investigated further. What I found was a church described as Orthodox in Communion with Rome. Basically, it was the Orthodox liturgy of St. John Chrysostom & St. Basil that reunited with the Catholic Church. I attended my first Divine Liturgy and was drawn into the liturgy like never before. I continued to attend the DL and studied more about the Eastern Catholic theology. I was hooked and am just about to submit my paperwork to make the Canonical switch from Latin Rite to Byzantine. My wife and I had our wedding convalidated shortly after joining the church and it has been an abundance of grace for us.

For me, breaking communion with the Bishop of Rome was a major stumbling block to joining the Orthodox Church. However, the changes in the Church during the time I was gone was just as much an issue pushing me to Orthodoxy. In the end, I was blessed to find the best of both worlds, a beautiful expression of faith in the Divine Liturgy that was still in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

From time to time I attend a beautiful expression of the Latin Mass at an Oratory belonging to the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. For me, this is so much better than the Novus Ordo mass that I encountered in the Diocese of Tucson. However, the Divine Liturgy works much better for me. We are truly blessed to have so many ways to experience Christ in our Church. For anyone considering a move from the Catholic Church to Orthodoxy, investigate the Eastern Catholic Churches as well.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

Matthew 16:18-19

18I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

19"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

The Orthodox church rejects both that one true church and Peter’s successor, they split away from it. Therefore, I stay catholic.

 

[Madaglan]

In the first paragraph you suggest that they should have their own dioceses, and in the second you suggest that they shouldn’t. Which is it?

I did not mean that they should have their own diocese right now, only that in the future they may, especially if they continue to grow.

And, secondly, do the Catholics have valid sacraments (which the Russians and Serbians today, and the Greeks previously, deny)? If not, what is the problem with creating a diocese to that of a Church which doesn’t even have valid baptism much less Holy Orders?

Just because it can be done doesn’t make it the wisest course of action.

So am I, at my Ukrainian Catholic parish. So does that make the Uniates part of the Orthodox Church?

Sure you’re not in a holodeck?

What’s the difference? They look the same to me, and I don’t see any Orthodox Pope to appeal to as the ground of unity.

Tradition. Many of the sects have promoted that which has never been taught by the Church since the beginning–e.g. allowing monks, clergy and bishops to marry.

So all of them? Even though the True-Orthodox Church regarded the Russian Orthodox Church as practically apostate, they’re both part of the Orthodox Church? Does this include the Catholic Church and those Anglican sects with valid Holy Orders? Or do you, with mainstream Orthodoxy, reject all the sacraments of “non-Orthodox” sects? (In that case, you’re going in circles. Which groups have valid sacraments, and how do you know that they form the “true Church”?)

Orthodoxy does not generally see in the terms of validity and licitness of sacraments as does the Latin Church. Questions concerning the sacraments of Anglicans and Catholics are addressed by the bishops as they pertain to the life of the Church.

But the Anglicans think they hold to this too. So do many Protestants. How do you determine what is the Catholic Faith according to St. Vincent’s canon - or is it just private interpretation?

The Catholic Faith is given to us, passed down, and lived.

You’re hard-pressed to find sola fideists the first fifteen centuries of Christianity.

There is room for the Holy Spirit, working within the Church, to help bring persons to holiness and to ensure that the truth is passed down to nourish future generations of Christians.