Why are you not orthodox

[andrewstx]

Considering that this thread has been moved to the non-Catholic board it should now be appropriate to discuss Orthodoxy here and now anyway.

 

[Darryl_B]

Just to add a clarifying note: “catholic” means “whole & complete”.

I propose that this misunderstanding of the meaning of the word “catholic” could be the root cause of any confusion.

I’ll explain a bit further: In Spanish the word “everyone” is often translated into a figure of speech: “todo el mundo” which literally means “the whole world” even though everyone knows that “the whole world” phrase is just a figure of speech to indicate that there were many people present. Similarly, some people believe the word “catholic” literally means “universal” even though it’s just a figure of speech Not the actual meaning of the word. “Catholic” means “whole & complete”.

I would say they are both saying the same thing in terms of definition. Universal means “one” ie whole “all encompassing” ie complete Christian Church.Though distinct culturally, still the same essentially.

Therefore “catholic” literally does mean “universal”. Perhaps the understanding of “universal” in incorrect, which is why some people think it funny that there is no martian representative at the Miss Universe contest.

 

[Nicea325]

what are your objections to the eastern orthodox faith

bonus question: what are your arguments for the Roman Catholic church

I cannot reject a faith which I was not raised with or brought into. Indeed we are separated from each other,sad state of affairs,but unfortunately a reality. I pray for unity.

 

[Darryl_B]

But your point is inaccurate. Orthodox is not an identifier adopted in opposition to ‘Catholic’ or even to the West, as the rather learned Fortescue points out, but rather it was adopted in opposition to the Non-Chalcedonans and Nestorians who also self-identified as Catholics.

Universality is not a mark of the Church, but rather Catholicity is. Your argument is flawed, for the Church was Catholic when it was only a small band of Jesus’ disciples and the Virgin Mary in the upper room on the day of Pentecost; it was Catholic when it was a small persecuted sect within the Roman Empire; It was Catholic before the introduction of Christianity into China; and it was Catholic before the Americas had even been discovered by the Europeans.

I think you are reading much much more into what I said, than what I was conveying.

 

[dzheremi]

I would say they are both saying the same thing in terms of definition. Universal means “one” ie whole “all encompassing” ie complete Christian Church.Though distinct culturally, still the same essentially.

Therefore “catholic” literally does mean “universal”.

I would still say that this is incorrect, unless you are speaking Church Latin (in which case, it is also incorrect, but for different reasons, i.e., that Latin as used in the Church predates the development of the understanding that you’re advocating). The difference is a nuanced one, I’ll admit, but important. Looking at the etymology, at the root of the word is the Greek phrase katha holou, meaning ‘throughout the whole’, and when applied to the doctrines of the ancient church, ‘universally accepted’. It’s important to recognize that the Latin catholicus ‘universal, general’ from which the English word more directly descends comes from the Greek, and thus is naturally a later development. In English, the original sense of ‘catholic’ is attested from the mid-14th century, while later, geographical sense (rather than the conceptual, ‘whole’ sense) as well as the identification with the Roman/Latin Church specifically, occurred from the 1550s onwards. In no sense has it ever meant “all encompassing”, and “universal” likewise does not mean “one” (it has nothing to do with singularity, but rather with pertaining to the entirety of something or occurring everywhere).

 

[Adamski]

what are your objections to the eastern orthodox faith

bonus question: what are your arguments for the Roman Catholic church

It was something I strongly considered on my journey and in the beginning of my transition out of the evangelical world thought strongly about it. My reasons are/ where

1- Eastern Orthodoxy is to mono cultural where Rome really felt like the true church with its diversity after leaving a world of rich white evangelicals

2-it wasn’t available I viewed orthodoxy as a valid option but I would have had to drive 100 miles past 12+ Roman Catholic Churches which in the beginning both seemed like good options

3- Peter is the head of the 12 and he clearly has the chair in Rome

4- the orthodox where not strong enough against remarriage and birth control

 

[House_Harkonnen]

what are your objections to the eastern orthodox faith

bonus question: what are your arguments for the Roman Catholic church

After I left the Catholic Church I spent about six months attending two separate Orthodox churches, one Russian and one Greek. The Greek parish was mostly Greeks with a few American converts in there. I could clearly see that the converts were the red headed stepchildren of the parish. They sat by themselves, ate by themselves. No one but the priest talked to them. I asked the priest what was up. He actually apologized for the racism and clanishness of his flock. I decided that I would never participate in a church where I would never be a full equal member. The Russian was different. The non Russian converts were much more integrated into the parish. And it was much more friendly than the Greek parish. I stopped just short of asking to be a catechumen. The break came when there was some special icon that was going to come by and all the folks were going to venerate this miraculous icon. It supposed wept oil tears or something. I asked the priest if this icon had ever been scientifically tested to see if this miracle is authentic. He said no, and it never would, because it was better that the people unknowingly believe a false miracle if it helps their faith than to find out its false. I ran for the hills after that, for the waters of liturgical Protestantism.

 

[dzheremi]

1- Eastern Orthodoxy is to mono cultural where Rome really felt like the true church with its diversity after leaving a world of rich white evangelicals

Monocultural? Palestinians, Romanians, Georgians, etc. are all the same people?

 

[Darryl_B]

I would still say that this is incorrect, unless you are speaking Church Latin (in which case, it is also incorrect, but for different reasons, i.e., that Latin as used in the Church predates the development of the understanding that you’re advocating). The difference is a nuanced one, I’ll admit, but important. Looking at the etymology, at the root of the word is the Greek phrase katha holou, meaning ‘throughout the whole’, and when applied to the doctrines of the ancient church, ‘universally accepted’. It’s important to recognize that the Latin catholicus ‘universal, general’ from which the English word more directly descends comes from the Greek, and thus is naturally a later development. In English, the original sense of ‘catholic’ is attested from the mid-14th century, while later, geographical sense (rather than the conceptual, ‘whole’ sense) as well as the identification with the Roman/Latin Church specifically, occurred from the 1550s onwards. In no sense has it ever meant “all encompassing”, and “universal” likewise does not mean “one” (it has nothing to do with singularity, but rather with pertaining to the entirety of something or occurring everywhere).

Unusual. We are essentially saying the same thing but I am still being corrected. I wonder if that has happened any time in history?

 

[dzheremi]

We are not saying the same thing.

 

[Stilldreamn]

I was born into a Lutheran family, and steeped in the history of that faith which goes back into the history of the Western Church through the Roman Catholic Church from which we grew. It is easier for me to understand the doctrines and traditions since we have this common history.

The Eastern Church, the Orthodox, is almost alien to me in a way and yet the timelessness and unchanging feel opens a direct window to the ancient faith in a way I haven’t yet encountered. I have just begun Timothy Ware’s book, “The Orthodox Church” in hopes of gaining some knowledge of these brothers and sisters in Christ.

The Orthodox liturgy is so beautiful but makes me painfully aware of my “otherness.” If that makes sense.

 

[NorthTexan88]

I was talking about this with someone just Friday!

I myself was extremely close to converting to Orthodoxy, I had been reading the early church fathers and attending DL at a Greek Orthodox parish.

However, over time there were a few things that I came to realize and hence did not convert to Orthodoxy but rather to Catholicism. The first, and by far the biggest reason, was the role of the Rome and the See of Peter in the early Church and the role of unity that this brought with it. The Patriarch of Constantinople does not exercise the same amount of authority and the various EO/OO are largely autonomous.
Another thing was that the Orthodox Churches seemed to be very nationalistic (I was one of only 4 non-Greeks at the parish I attended, that I knew of). Wheres Catholicism is universal, as a former protestant the Great Commission was very important to me and was taught heavily to us, and to me the Catholic Church took the Great Commission more seriously than the EO/OO Churches.

I do however love the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which is the only DL I have attended. I think the Orthodox have preserved their liturgy WAY better than the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, however, as I came to realize preservation of the liturgy does not always mean correctness. So I will attend an Eastern Catholic Church on occasion as of recently if I would like to experience this.

This is a very small testimony of why I did not convert to Orthodoxy, I am strapped for time so I apologize about the brevity. To me, this topic is better discussed in person rather than over the computer.

 

[Tax_Collector14]

Abstain from anything on Sunday, a non-penitential day?!

Let’s face it, folks, how many of us are Catholic because the fasts are easier? Ok, ok, just kidding…

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I have no objections to our Orthodox brothers and sisters. We share all of the sacraments and most of the teachings. We were all one Church until the Orthodox left (or we left them, depending on which side of the fence you are on).

For me, all discussions start and end with the Holy Father. The successor of Peter and Christ’s vicar ensure there is one Church, one consensus, one authority. Theoretically, could not the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church teach something at odds doctrinally with what the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church teaches? In that case, who is right? Whom do you go to for authentic teaching? Who is your authority?

Christ pryaed that we all may be one. I see the Orthodox as holy, as apostolic, as catholic (universal) but not as one. I see the Catholic Church under the Pope as one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

Sorry if my answer is too simple, but for me there is not much else to discuss.

Is oneness defined by a common faith or a common loyalty to a single Bishop?

 

[truthseeker32]

I must say that I am amazed that the reason many of you are giving for choosing Rome over Constantinople as it were is the reason I left RCIA and converted to Orthodoxy.

1. A lot of you are pointing to the unifying nature of the Papacy, but this unity does not equal soundness. Whether you believe the church should be headed by a college of bishops or by the pope you are appealing to faith. Orthodox Christians have faith that the Church will never be led astray by the bishops; Roman Catholicism has faith that the Church will never be led astray by the Pope, but in either case there is no absolute guarantee.
2. How is it that many of you think that it necessarily follows from Matt. 16:18 that the Pope of Rome is the unique successor of Peter? Why couldn’t it be the case, as many Orthodox Christians believe, that all bishops are the successor of Peter?

I encourage everyone to seriously scrutinize the Church Fathers and apologetical arguments made both for and against the Papacy. If your experience mirrors mine, you will see that such apologetics are quite fallacious. One of you said you had never seen a good argument for the Orthodox view of the Papacy. Well, I challenge folks here to present a convincing argument that the Pope of Rome is the unique successor of Peter who can legitimately speak ex cathedra on behalf of the entire church.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Abstain from anything on Sunday, a non-penitential day?!

Let’s face it, folks, how many of us are Catholic because the fasts are easier? Ok, ok, just kidding…

Lol - I have to admit that that my personal failure to keep the fasts is something that attracts me to Catholicism. Another is that I’m not a morning person and afternoon/evening Catholic Masses are available. The last is that Confession is totally anonymous in the Catholic Church (& doesn’t even have to be with the same priest) which elevates some of the guilt/embarrassment of having to confession the same things over & over.

 

[Brendan_64]

1. A lot of you are pointing to the unifying nature of the Papacy, but this unity does not equal soundness. Whether you believe the church should be headed by a college of bishops or by the pope you are appealing to faith. Orthodox Christians have faith that the Church will never be led astray by the bishops; Roman Catholicism has faith that the Church will never be led astray by the Pope, but in either case there is no absolute guarantee.

Yes there is such a guarantee, Matthew 16:18-19.

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

This guarantee is from the very mouth of Our Lord and Saviour, words uttered by God Himself.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Is oneness defined by a common faith or a common loyalty to a single Bishop?

Yes, that is a good question. Depending on how a person answers it will determine which they will make their Church-home.

I do have a couple of questions. I’ve been hearing more & more about something called “Western” Orthodoxy. From what I’ve come to gather is that they do Not share Orthodox Liturgies: St. James, St. Basil & St. John Chrysostom, but their Liturgy is from the Orthodox West (pre-schism).

Is the “Western” Orthodox actually the same Liturgy/Faith as ours but just in different tones?

Do the Bishops, under whom it is celebrated, have the unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession in the West or did they come from the East?

 

[dzheremi]

Not all, but the bulk of the Fathers identify the “rock” spoken of in that passage to be Peter’s faith as was confessed immediately preceding, rather than Peter himself. This remains the understanding of the Orthodox Church today.

 

[truthseeker32]

Yes there is such a guarantee, Matthew 16:18-19.

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

This guarantee is from the very mouth of Our Lord and Saviour, words uttered by God Himself.

Only if you can prove that this passage necessarily means that the pope is the unique successor of Peter who can speak for the entire communion of churches as a whole. Once again, you are making a faith-based assumption. If the passage can be interpreted differently (which it has been by maaaany Church Fathers and scholars) then we are right back to what I claimed: one believes the pope will not lead the Roman Catholic Church astray because of faith. There is no proof.