Defection is a term used in Roman Catholic canon law for those who leave Roman Catholicism for any other religion, be it Christian or non-Christian (either by the now-abolished procedure of formal defection, or by notorious defection). It’s a good word, really, in that it doesn’t tend to carry all of the pejorative weight of “apostatize”, nor does it become needlessly euphemistic.
Thanks for clearing that up……I just don’t view going from one to the other as “defecting” from anything
But, that’s just my personal opinion.Hmm…could it be this parish is one of those described in this article…and a book about it…ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/1ORTHO.HTM
I don’t quite think they were part of the EOC before merging into the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese, but the similarities are VERY similar. I think they went straight there. The article you linked is great perspective on this transition.
Seems kind of bitter. “They were just too anti-Catholic to become Catholic, so they became Orthodox instead because it was easier.”
The entire article is one enormous circumstantial ad hominem. The argument form “of course X would think Y (and therefore we should not even consider Y)” is a logical fallacy insofar as one’s motivations for believing in something do not account for the truth of that proposition. It also runs in to what the most level-headed among us, Novocastrian, wrote earlier in this thread. Out of charity, we should believe that people who convert to one religion or another do so out of sincerity and conviction that their newfound religion is true (even if we believe it to be entirely false), not out of love for divorce, hatred for the papacy, loving Western culture more than the truth, hardness of heart, or whatever other ridiculous reasons get thrown around to explain why people convert one way or another. In general, we should be attempting to rebut arguments, instead of trying to discredit those who make them.
I understand. I was just trying to use a rather “neutral” term as opposed to apostasy, schism, heresy, etc. I meant not to attach any implications of fundamental opposition between Christian groups. In general, I like the Augustinian approach which says that we are opposed to Christians outside of the Church only insofar as they are opposed to the truth, taking care not to censure them for beliefs which are true.Thanks for clearing that up……I just don’t view going from one to the other as “defecting” from anything
In light of some of the Catholic Church’s teachings versus the teachings of Orthodoxy (or in some cases, lack of definitive teaching), do you not agree that if one wants to become part of an ancient church that Orthodoxy would be the “easier” route, especially since many wouldn’t have to get annulments, discontinue birth control, accept priestly celibacy, etc.?
Point taken. I just believe that everyone has a presupposition or personal bias about something, whether they realize it or not. From my experience, many people will not naturally follow the path with more burdensome requirements. They’ll take the path of least resistance. That is human nature.
Having once been Catholic, I will say that being Catholic was far “easier” than being Orthodox. As for divorce and birth control, these are two areas where I personally believe the differences are not as big as they appear.
Could you please explain the easier part of Catholicism? I’m intrigued
I actually find Orthodoxy more difficult in some regards. The fasting regimen is much more intense. Not everyone follows it to the letter, because you are only supposed to do what you can. But technically, there are like 90+ days throughout the year where you aren’t supposed to eat meat (excluding only shellfish), dairy products, and oil (generally only olive oil). I grant myself regular fish during this period because of my Catholic origins though. I couldn’t handle it otherwise. This doesn’t even include most of the Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year where you are supposed to fast as well. So almost half the year you are fasting in Orthodoxy. Catholic fasting is a cakewalk compared to that, at least in the USA.Point taken. I just believe that everyone has a presupposition or personal bias about something, whether they realize it or not. From my experience, many people will not naturally follow the path with more burdensome requirements. They’ll take the path of least resistance. That is human nature.
And, quite honestly, I don’t truly know enough about the deep doctrinal differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy to know the difference. From my vantage point, as a Protestant, they are both the same except one has a Pope. (But now I know this is NOT true and that there are many, many differences). Yes, that is/was a very naive view but when coming from Protestantism, which is very shallow in its theology for the most part, it’s easy to get lost in the vast ocean of theology of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Only the most committed will research them both with equal fervor and open-mindedness, which would take a VAST amount of time and energy. Most people just want the Cliff Notes (revealing my age, here…lol) version and run with one. That’s really all you can do
I’m not trying to discredit anyone for whichever decision they made because in many ways, I think it’s a toss up between the two. If it weren’t for my believe that the papacy is a real authoritative office, I’d likely go with Orthodoxy, because it would certainly be easier
In addition, services are longer and more numerous, and doubly so during Lent. If you want to receive communion on Sunday, you ideally should have gone to Vespers the previous evening.
I see. In all the years that we have known our Orthodox friends, they have NEVER mentioned fasting or the longer services. What is the “penalty” so to speak by not keeping the fasts? Is it something you go to confession for?
The penalty is you lose all the spiritual benefits gained from physical asceticism. Depending on how strict your priest is, he might require you to keep the Wednesday and Friday fast before receiving communion on Sunday. I don’t know what other people do, but when I disregard the fast I confess it the same way I confess neglecting my prayer life.
One forgets that the Orthodox played these games amongst each other and among the Oriental Churches. It wasn’t just the Latins. Heck the Assyrian Church would bounce into and out of Communion with Rome depending on the political landscape. One often hears the Latins did this and did that underhanded act – they did and are to be chastized. One hardly hears the same about internal usurptions, assassinations, bribes and other intrigues - sometimes among the same family members.There is a whole bunch of history from the Ottoman period that doesn’t ever see the light of day. For example, the Jesuits in the Ottoman Empire took advantage of the situation when the Greek hierarchs asked them to help educate their flock. To their credit, they did give them an education, before promptly beginning to engage in sheep-stealing. But not the normal kind where you try to convert people and have them formally declare their defection—they converted them in secret, and told them to continue living in public as if they had not defected at all.
From this very successful campaign, the Melkite Church in submission to the papacy was born (I say submission because submission to Rome is precisely what the Jesuits encouraged Orthodox clergy and laymen to do—they would defect in secret by sending a letter of submission to Rome), when after a significant portion of clergy and laymen had submitted to Rome in secret, they broke away to enter into union with Rome formally, after the disputed election of one of their partisans, Seraphim (Cyril IV) Tanas, to the patriarchal throne. Cyril IV even attempted to repeat this victory in Alexandria, sending a priest to masquerade as the legitimate patriarch of Alexandria. The partisans of the pro-papal party even went so far as to attempt to appeal to the Ottoman authorities to suppress the Orthodox patriarch of Alexandria. This time they failed, partially because the Ottoman authorities refused to suppress the patriarch of Alexandria, but also because of the efforts of certain figures like Eustratius Argenti (this is all explained rather well in Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s study of Eustratius Argenti).
Thankfully, the Latins today have turned all friendly and sweet, but is it really that incomprehensible that Greeks and Arabs in particular should feel some degree of suspicion after essentially being subjected to several centuries of abuse at the hands of Jesuits? Yet according to some, we’re the hateful ones with little brother syndrome.
Many of other people’s posts, I agree with. When I chose Orthodoxy, it was not because it was easier. Technically on a practical level on how I would practice the faith, Orthodoxy is definitely more difficult than Catholicism. I think people who truly try to find the true faith do so out of conviction for the truth, and not how easy or difficult it may be.
But it varies, i.e., I know of some Catholics who were rebaptized (some of whom were on these forums) when they converted to Orthodoxy.
And this makes me sad. I would think that rebaptized implies that the Orthodox Church viewed those converting as non-Christians before entering the Orthodox Church.
This practice varies among jurisdiction etc. Some say that sacraments are devoid of grace outside the church (hence why some say the sacraments of the CC are invalid). However the general view is that sacraments have grace inside the church, and is uncertain outside the church (sort of like “we are certain that God is in the church, but not where He is not”).