Treading a fine line between Catholic and Orthodox

[truthseeker32]

I feel I can speak to this as someone who intended to become Catholic, went through two years of RCIA, but ultimately chose Orthodoxy.

You will find intelligent, reasonable people on both sides; you will also find deceptive and overzealous people on both sides. Steer towards the former.

If you are anything like me, you will often be tempted to settle for whichever option is more convenient or comfortable. I urge you to join for no other reason than you are convinced that whichever you choose is the more true option and will best help you to obtain theosis.

Be very critical of all the arguments for and against both sides and find someone to help you understand these arguments properly.

Ask yourself what you will and won’t be giving up by choosing one over the other, and whether that is problematic for you. You are lucky in that the things you love about both traditions are all accessible to you wherever you end up. Catholicism believes in theosis, and several Orthodox saints appreciated the Rosary.

While truth propositions are important, also look at the beliefs and traditions of both churches and consider which has the methods and tools to best help you live the Christian life. We often get caught up on philosophical arguments and historical facts, but if our faith becomes a mere series of ideological propositions it does us little good.

Finally, take your time and talk to a lot of people on both sides. Read the stories of people who converted to each respective tradition and see whether one side or the other resonates more. Both sides have a great roster of converts. Here is a list of some:

Orthodox converts:

Richard Swinburne
Albert Raboteau
H. Tristram Engelhardt
Gabriel Bunge
Troy Palomalu
Arvo Part
John Tavener
David Bentley Hart

Catholic converts:

Walker Percy
Alasdair MacInyre
Leah Libresco
Mortimer Adler
Thomas Merton
GEM Anscombe
G.K. Chesterton
Dorothy Day

Many more, these are just a few.

 

[truthseeker32]

But I think it’s an advantage for Catholics to have the successor of Peter and the authority therein.

We have successors of Peter as well. We call them bishops. Many Eastern Catholics share this perspective as well.

 

[Lucretius]

I feel I can speak to this as someone who intended to become Catholic, went through two years of RCIA, but ultimately chose Orthodoxy.

You will find intelligent, reasonable people on both sides; you will also find deceptive and overzealous people on both sides. Steer towards the former.

If you are anything like me, you will often be tempted to settle for whichever option is more convenient or comfortable. I urge you to join for no other reason than you are convinced that whichever you choose is the more true option and will best help you to obtain theosis.

Be very critical of all the arguments for and against both sides and find someone to help you understand these arguments properly.

Ask yourself what you will and won’t be giving up by choosing one over the other, and whether that is problematic for you. You are lucky in that the things you love about both traditions are all accessible to you wherever you end up. Catholicism believes in theosis, and several Orthodox saints appreciated the Rosary.

While truth propositions are important, also look at the beliefs and traditions of both churches and consider which has the methods and tools to best help you live the Christian life. We often get caught up on philosophical arguments and historical facts, but if our faith becomes a mere series of ideological propositions it does us little good.

Finally, take your time and talk to a lot of people on both sides. Read the stories of people who converted to each respective tradition and see whether one side or the other resonates more. Both sides have a great roster of converts. Here is a list of some:

Orthodox converts:

Richard Swinburne
Albert Raboteau
H. Tristram Engelhardt
Gabriel Bunge
Troy Palomalu
Arvo Part
John Tavener
David Bentley Hart

Catholic converts:

Walker Percy
Alasdair MacInyre
Leah Libresco
Mortimer Adler
Thomas Merton
GEM Anscombe
G.K. Chesterton
Dorothy Day

Many more, these are just a few.

Do you have a list of Catholic->Orthodox and Orthodox->Catholic converts?

Thank you

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[truthseeker32]

Do you have a list of Catholic->Orthodox and Orthodox->Catholic converts?

Thank you

Christi pax,

Lucretius

I know of some.

Catholic to Orthodox

Dr. Albert Raboteau (Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at Princeton)
Dr. H. Tristram Engelhardt (Philosopher/ Bioethicist at Rice University)
Rico Vitz (Philosophy Professor at Asuza Pacific University)
Hieromonk Gabriel Bunge (Catholic hermit who became Orthodox)
Hieromonk Ambrose Omayas (Franciscan monk who became Orthodox)
Fr. Constantine Simon (vice-rector of the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome)
Fr. David Kirk (Melkite priest who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy)
Rod Dreher (American political blogger and author)

Orthodox to Catholic

Timothy Flanders (blogger, nice guy)
James Likoudis (He wrote a book that even my Byzantine Catholic friends think is terrible)

I am sure there are more, but being Orthodox I know of far more Orthodox converts. There were a lot of 19th century Russians who became Catholic, such as Vladimir Solovyov, but apparently he returned to Russian Orthodoxy just before his death:

"On his death bed Solov’ev received the Last Rites from a Russian Orthodox priest.“That Soloviev chose to receive the sacrament of Holy Unction from an Orthodox priest should be viewed as decisive.” (orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/CouretasRussia.php)

 

[JoyToTheWhirled]

Thank you all for you thoughtful contributions, this has been a tremendously useful thread.

 

[Peter_J]

We have successors of Peter as well. We call them bishops. Many Eastern Catholics share this perspective as well.

Bish-ops … Yes, that does ring a bell.

 

[josie_L]

I know of some.

Catholic to Orthodox

Dr. Albert Raboteau (Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at Princeton)
Dr. H. Tristram Engelhardt (Philosopher/ Bioethicist at Rice University)
Rico Vitz (Philosophy Professor at Asuza Pacific University)
Hieromonk Gabriel Bunge (Catholic hermit who became Orthodox)
Hieromonk Ambrose Omayas (Franciscan monk who became Orthodox)
Fr. Constantine Simon (vice-rector of the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome)
Fr. David Kirk (Melkite priest who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy)
Rod Dreher (American political blogger and author)

Orthodox to Catholic

Timothy Flanders (blogger, nice guy)
James Likoudis (He wrote a book that even my Byzantine Catholic friends think is terrible)

I am sure there are more, but being Orthodox I know of far more Orthodox converts. There were a lot of 19th century Russians who became Catholic, such as Vladimir Solovyov, but apparently he returned to Russian Orthodoxy just before his death:

"On his death bed Solov’ev received the Last Rites from a Russian Orthodox priest.“That Soloviev chose to receive the sacrament of Holy Unction from an Orthodox priest should be viewed as decisive.” (orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/CouretasRussia.php)

Not sure about that last bit about Soloviev being true , but it doesn’t matter anyways, his books are a goldmine either way.

p.s. Maybe he chose to receive the sacrament of Holy Unction because there wasn’t a Catholic priest around to administer it to him.

 

[Casilda]

Not sure about that last bit about Soloviev being true , but it doesn’t matter anyways, his books are a goldmine either way.

p.s. Maybe he chose to receive the sacrament of Holy Unction because there wasn’t a Catholic priest around to administer it to him.

That was my first thought.

 

[phil19034]

We have successors of Peter as well. We call them bishops. Many Eastern Catholics share this perspective as well.

I think this is a significant point. We Catholics believe the bishops are the successors of all of the Apostles, as all of the Apostles were Bishops.

Acts 1:20

*For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his **bishoprick **let another take.
*
KJV

We believe the successor of Peter is the Bishop of Rome, just like the Bishop of Alexandria is considered the successor of St. Mark (historically based in Alexandria, Egypt, is commonly known as the Holy See of St. Mark)

Now, while Peter was a Antioch first, the See of Antioch isn’t considered the successor of Peter for the same reason the Archbishop of Buenos Aires isn’t considered the “Successor of Pope Francis.” The current Archbishop of Buenos Aires did not succeed the Pope after his final office.

Likewise, the successor of Peter is follows Peter after this final office.

God Bless

 

[frizzgrig]

The problem is that Oriental Catholic Churches are harder to come by than Oriental Orthodox Churches, and both are harder to find than Byzantine Catholic/Orthodox Churches. The only Oriental Church I know of in the US is a Coptic Orthodox Church in Washington, D. C., though I’m sure there are a few more.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

There are many Eastern (Oriental) Catholic Churches in the US. Finding a specific rite in a particular area might be a challenge…

Check with the local Roman rite bishop’s office - they can tell you where the Eastern Catholic Churches are in the local area. As an example, the Diocese of Arlington lists in the diocesan directory 3 Eastern Catholic Churches:

Blessed Virgin Mary in Manassas (Byzantine Ukrainian Catholic Church)
Epiphany of Our Lord in Annandale (Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church)
Holy Transfiguration in McLean (Melkite Greek Catholic Church)

I know there is a Maronite parish in Washington DC (Our Lady of Lebannon on Alaska Ave NW)

If you are looking at churches not in communion with Rome, there are 2 Coptic churchs nearby too (St. Mark Coptic Orthodox on Braddock Road in Fairfax VA and the newly formed St. Abanoub Coptic Orthodox Church of Springfield) along with numerous Orthodox parishes.

A good source for locating Eastern Catholic Churches is byzcath.org/index.php/resources-mainmenu-63/list-of-eparchies-mainmenu-93

 

[truthseeker32]

I think this is a significant point. We Catholics believe the bishops are the successors of all of the Apostles, as all of the Apostles were Bishops.

Acts 1:20

*For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his **bishoprick ***let another take.

KJV

We believe the successor of Peter is the Bishop of Rome, just like the Bishop of Alexandria is considered the successor of St. Mark (historically based in Alexandria, Egypt, is commonly known as the Holy See of St. Mark)

Now, while Peter was a Antioch first, the See of Antioch isn’t considered the successor of Peter for the same reason the Archbishop of Buenos Aires isn’t considered the “Successor of Pope Francis.” The current Archbishop of Buenos Aires did not succeed the Pope after his final office.

Likewise, the successor of Peter is follows Peter after this final office.

God Bless

The Orthodox position is that all bishops occupy the Chair of Peter.

“Our Lord, whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and to the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter, I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18-19). Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates.” St. Cyprian, 33rd Epistle.

St. Cyprian directly ties the promise of Christ to St. Peter to the office of the episcopacy.

“66. Priests Britain has, but foolish ones; a great number of ministers, but shameless; clergy, but crafty plunderers; pastors, so to say, but wolves ready for the slaughter of souls, certainly not providing what is of benefit for the people, but seeking the filling of their own belly. They have church edifices, but enter them for the sake of filthy lucre; they teach the people, but by furnishing the worst examples, teach vice and evil morals; they seldom sacrifice, and never stand among the altars with pure heart; they |165 do not reprove the people on account of their sins, nay, in fact, they commit the same; they despise the commandments of Christ, and are careful to satisfy their own lusts with all their prayers: they get possession of the seat of the apostle Peter61 with unclean feet, but, by the desert of cupidity,62 fall into the unwholesome chair of the traitor Judas.”

-St Gildas, De Excidio Britanniae

“I beseech our common father Ambrose, that, after the scanty dew of my discourse, he may pour abundantly into your hearts the mysteries of the divine writings. Let him speak from that Holy Spirit with which he is filled, and ‘from his belly shall flow rivers of living water;’ and, as a successor of Peter, he shall be the mouth of all the surrounding priests. For when the Lord Jesus asked of the apostles, ‘Whom do you say that I am?’ Peter alone replies, with the mouth of all believers, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ What reward did that confession at once receive? Blessedness indeed, and the most glorious power of the heavenly kingdom.” -St. Gaudentius of Brescia (Tract. 16, De Ordin. Ipsius. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Commentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), pp. 105-107).

 

[josie_L]

The Orthodox position is that all bishops occupy the Chair of Peter.

“Our Lord, whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and to the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter, I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18-19). Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates.” St. Cyprian, 33rd Epistle.

St. Cyprian directly ties the promise of Christ to St. Peter to the office of the episcopacy.

“66. Priests Britain has, but foolish ones; a great number of ministers, but shameless; clergy, but crafty plunderers; pastors, so to say, but wolves ready for the slaughter of souls, certainly not providing what is of benefit for the people, but seeking the filling of their own belly. They have church edifices, but enter them for the sake of filthy lucre; they teach the people, but by furnishing the worst examples, teach vice and evil morals; they seldom sacrifice, and never stand among the altars with pure heart; they |165 do not reprove the people on account of their sins, nay, in fact, they commit the same; they despise the commandments of Christ, and are careful to satisfy their own lusts with all their prayers: they get possession of the seat of the apostle Peter61 with unclean feet, but, by the desert of cupidity,62 fall into the unwholesome chair of the traitor Judas.”

-St Gildas, De Excidio Britanniae

“I beseech our common father Ambrose, that, after the scanty dew of my discourse, he may pour abundantly into your hearts the mysteries of the divine writings. Let him speak from that Holy Spirit with which he is filled, and ‘from his belly shall flow rivers of living water;’ and, as a successor of Peter, he shall be the mouth of all the surrounding priests. For when the Lord Jesus asked of the apostles, ‘Whom do you say that I am?’ Peter alone replies, with the mouth of all believers, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ What reward did that confession at once receive? Blessedness indeed, and the most glorious power of the heavenly kingdom.” -St. Gaudentius of Brescia (Tract. 16, De Ordin. Ipsius. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Commentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), pp. 105-107).

Yes, we’ve all heard this before, however, even though all bishops are successors to all the apostles, there is only one bishop who ACTUALLY sits in Peter’s seat, which is in Rome. Moreover, Peter’s primacy of which Orthodox can agree upon (what that entails is another matter), would therefore continue on in his successor of which there could only be one, i.e., it would seem rather illogical/nonsensical, that if everyone was LITERALLY Peter’s successor, to what purpose would primacy have in Orthodoxy when the very word primacy means “one”?

 

[AKDee]

Yes, we’ve all heard this before, however, even though all bishops are successors to all the apostles, there is only one bishop who ACTUALLY sits in Peter’s seat, which is in Rome. Moreover, Peter’s primacy of which Orthodox can agree upon (what that entails is another matter), would therefore continue on in his successor of which there could only be one, i.e., it would seem rather illogical/nonsensical, that if everyone was LITERALLY Peter’s successor, to what purpose would primacy have in Orthodoxy when the very word primacy means “one”?

Respectfully, I think we should not hijack the OP’s thread to have a debate about who has it right, the Orthodox or the Catholics, on the issue of the Successor of Peter. It’s why I didn’t respond when Truthseeker put that comment up (it was a response to one of my posts). The debate is unlikely to be helpful to the OP, who specifically said they weren’t trying to start an argument.

 

[josie_L]

Respectfully, I think we should not hijack the OP’s thread to have a debate about who has it right, the Orthodox or the Catholics, on the issue of the Successor of Peter. It’s why I didn’t respond when Truthseeker put that comment up (it was a response to one of my posts). The debate is unlikely to be helpful to the OP, who specifically said they weren’t trying to start an argument.

I’m not trying to start an argument, just making a clarification that needed to be stated. But I completely understand your qualms, I do not wish it to be a debate about the papacy either.

 

[twf]

Theosis is very much a Catholic doctrine. It’s throughout our liturgy. It was lived by the saints. It’s explicitly taught in the catechism. Bugs me to no end that its highlighted as a Catholic vs Orthodox distinction.

 

[Peter_J]

Respectfully, I think we should not hijack the OP’s thread to have a debate about who has it right, the Orthodox or the Catholics, on the issue of the Successor of Peter. It’s why I didn’t respond when Truthseeker put that comment up (it was a response to one of my posts). The debate is unlikely to be helpful to the OP, who specifically said they weren’t trying to start an argument.

Well to be fair, I believe this thread started moving away from the Original Post right from the first hour. But I think I can relate to what you’re saying – that’s why I was reluctant to even respond to the people-who-have-switched-from-Catholicism-to-Orthodoxy vs. people-who-have-switched-from-Orthodoxy-to-Catholicism list.

 

[Lucretius]

Well to be fair, I believe this thread started moving away from the Original Post right from the first hour. But I think I can relate to what you’re saying – that’s why I was reluctant to even respond to the people-who-have-switched-from-Catholicism-to-Orthodoxy vs. people-who-have-switched-from-Orthodoxy-to-Catholicism list.

Did you really have to respond? I asked for the list because I wanted to personally look into each one’s reasons for conversion.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Peter_J]

Did you really have to respond?

I honestly cannot see how that’s suppose to build up the conversation.

But regardless, I still very much hope that this won’t turn into a polemical thread, particularly not about people-who-have-switched-from-Catholicism-to-Orthodoxy vs. people-who-have-switched-from-Orthodoxy-to-Catholicism.

 

[Lucretius]

I honestly cannot see how that’s suppose to build up the conversation.

I mean that the question I asked cannot lead to any polemical answers. X converted to Catholicism; Y converted to Orthodoxy. No controversy here

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Peter_J]

I mean that the question I asked cannot lead to any polemical answers.

That’s what “Did you really have to respond?” is supposed to mean? Give me a break.

I don’t know why you are being like this, but to answer your question: no I did not “really have to respond” to truthseeker32’s list of people-who-have-switched-from-Catholicism-to-Orthodoxy vs. people-who-have-switched-from-Orthodoxy-to-Catholicism. (Isn’t that already clear, just from the fact that I chose **not **to respond?)