Why I am drawn to Orthodoxy in one word

[Alethiaphile]

All I would say is “the grass is always greener on the other side.” The more we study any Church, in the ideal, the better it will look. In “real life,” though, the ideal is never present. That’s original sin in action. Wherever there are people, there is sin and division.
As far as “sumblimity” (if that’s a word), yes, certain spiritualities in the Catholic Church can seem rather analytical, calculating, etc. If you find that to be the case, there are plenty of other spiritualities that are mysterious, awesome, etc. The main point is that God, in the Church, has provided us with the freedom to pursue our own spirituality. With so much history and so many members, there is an amazing variety in the Catholic Church.
Dan

I understand what you’re saying, Dan, but I don’t like the idea of picking and choosing among different “spiritualities”. I’m not saying there isn’t room for some diversity in rites and practices, but it seems to me Christ talked about one basic “way” to salvation. When I have been in an Eastern Catholic community, I feel like part of an “elite” in the Catholic Church as a whole, some sort of secret society almost. I don’t like that feeling. The “communion” I am supposed to be in with western Catholics seems like an artificial, unreal thing. And I certainly don’t feel in communion with the Orthodox.
An Orthodox writer, Fr. Thomas Hopko, made what seems to me to be an excellent point, which is related to what I’m saying. He says that there is really no reason for practices like fasting and venerating icons and prostrations, etc. unless you think those are good things that are good for every Christian, not just a select group. I mean, for example, either fasting is an essential component of the “way” or it isn’t.

 

[samcarter14]

Alethiaphile, I understand where you are coming from. I do want to caution you that while in theory Orthodoxy is very sublime and attractive, you may not find in your local Orthodox churches that sublimity in practice. People are people, wherever they are, and I know my experience of our (only) Orthodox parish here left me feeling sad and disillusioned, as though I had been lured in with something beautiful, only to be left with dirt and mud in my hands after reaching for something gilded. I found that while the theology was beautiful, the people and the priest were no different than at the Catholic church I had left.

In the end it is up to each individual to help make the Church what it was meant to be.

As for feeling in communion with the Western Church, I actually do feel more in communion now, as a prospective Eastern Catholic, than I did as an Orthodox. Before, my mother in law, who is very much a part of our lives, could not attend Liturgy and receive communion with us (well, she could attend, but not receive, which is very important to her), and we could not attend her Mass and receive, which frankly broke her heart and caused much strain in our relationship. The Easter we began attending the Byzantine Catholic church and they came to partake in the Liturgy with us was a beautiful, healing experience. Now my mother in law is interested in learning more about the Eastern Church than she was when we were Orthodox. And my sister in law, who is my second son’s godmother, finds Eastern Catholic books and resources to help me educate them in the faith, which is wonderful. And as an Eastern Catholic, I know that if I were to attend a Divine Liturgy at an Orthodox parish, out of neccessity, I would not feel lost or at sea. I would feel comfortable with the liturgy and the practices there. Whereas, as a Roman Catholic, I would have been lost.

If you do explore Orthodoxy, please, please, take your time. Attend the parish, attend liturgies, even take part in bible studies if they are offered, before entering the catechumenate. And before exploring Orthodoxy, explore Eastern Catholicism if it’s an option in your area. In our case, we were shuffled through the catechumenate period very quickly (I felt) and chrismated in less than a year after we began attending liturgy. I truly believe if I had taken a year or even more, I would have seen that the grass was not greener, and I had left communion with Rome for nothing better, in the end.

This is simply my opinion and my experience. If you find a wonderful, spiritual community in an Orthodox parish, than God bless you and may you be happy in that spiritual home.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I feel like part of an “elite” in the Catholic Church as a whole, some sort of secret society almost. I don’t like that feeling. The “communion” I am supposed to be in with western Catholics seems like an artificial, unreal thing. And I certainly don’t feel in communion with the Orthodox.

Feelings come and go brother. One day you may feel that prayer is pointless, but that isn’t what your mind willl tell you (hopefully).

 

[Alethiaphile]

Feelings come and go brother. One day you may feel that prayer is pointless, but that isn’t what your mind willl tell you (hopefully).

Yeah, I should have known better to have used “feelings” without further explanation. Feelings can be entirely subjective, or they can be indicative of an objective situation. In the case I’m talking about, there is rational observation to back up my feelings.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Yeah, I should have known better to have used “feelings” without further explanation. Feelings can be entirely subjective, or they can be indicative of an objective situation. In the case I’m talking about, there is rational observation to back up my feelings.

You can back up feelings for anything to be quite honest. But I wouldn’t call what you’ve described in the thread rational by any means. You’ve compared the “faith” of a “typical American suburban Catholic” with that of a Catholic who prefers the TLM. So? What conclusions did you draw except that they are “different”? The truth is they are not different. Its the same Sacrifice of the Altar. You also mentinoed that Eastern Theology is “different”, I think that is a fair statment, and that is what makes the Church “CATHOLIC”, not just Constantinopolitan (Greek, Byzantine) tradition as it basically is in the EO Churches. But I think you forgot to mention they are all equal Eastern and Western theology are equal, and as a Catholic you can fully believe in anything taught in whatever particular theology (western/eastern) and never have a problem.

 

[GladCatholic]

Just want to state something regarding your attraction to theosis in Orthodoxy–Catholicism has not lost the doctrine of deification…you should start reading more books put out by wonderful Catholic writers/theologians/ such as Fr. John Arintero (The Mystical Evolution in the Development and Vitality of the Church). Just do a search on Deification and you’ll turn up hundreds of books.

I’ve spent a long time on the balance beam of Orthodoxy/Catholicism. I’ve spent many hours in a Greek Orthodox Church, Latin Rite Church, and Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, as well as some other Eastern Catholic Churches. Discovering the Catholic church’s sublime and mystical theology has turned around my attitude. I can now go to the Greek Orthodox church and not feel sad and the extreme desire to join them, but rather appreciate the beauty of their Divine Liturgy…also, they don’t stand around instructing their folks on theosis (as far as I can tell) and they are regular people like the rest of us.

Please explore more Catholic writings on the doctrines you like about Orthodoxy–they’re all there, only called something else. Don’t wait to hear it from the pulpit–you won’t hear it from either side.

Glad

 

[Alethiaphile]

Please explore more Catholic writings on the doctrines you like about Orthodoxy–they’re all there, only called something else. Don’t wait to hear it from the pulpit–you won’t hear it from either side.
Glad

As I said earlier, I hear deification preached in Orthodox churches all the time, so my experience is quite different than yours. Thank you for the book suggestions. Fr. Arintero’s sounds quite interesting. Believe me, I’ve read a lot of Catholic theology: Aquinas, Newman, Karl Adam, Bouyer, von Balthasar, Congar especially. I love Congar, but what he says sounds consistently closer to Orthodoxy than to Catholicism, to me.
I agree that a lot of the same themes in Orthodoxy can be found here and there in Catholic theology, but it’s hidden under a layer of other stuff.
Besides the simple fact that I don’t believe in papal infallibility or the double procession of the Holy Spirit, and have doubts about the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Melchior]

As I said earlier, I hear deification preached in Orthodox churches all the time, so my experience is quite different than yours. Thank you for the book suggestions. Fr. Arintero’s sounds quite interesting. Believe me, I’ve read a lot of Catholic theology: Aquinas, Newman, Karl Adam, Bouyer, von Balthasar, Congar especially. I love Congar, but what he says sounds consistently closer to Orthodoxy than to Catholicism, to me.
I agree that a lot of the same themes in Orthodoxy can be found here and there in Catholic theology, but it’s hidden under a layer of other stuff.
Besides the simple fact that I don’t believe in papal infallibility or the double procession of the Holy Spirit, and have doubts about the Immaculate Conception.

I wish I had time to share with you my several year journey from Evangelicalism to Orthodoxy (nearly) and finally (almost) back to the Catholicism of my childhood.

All I can tell you, married to a former Orthodox, married in the Orthodox Church and with nearly a decade of intense study and experience in the Orthodox Church is all that glitters is not gold. The one plus, the only plus in actual practice, over a real period of time is a beautiful liturgy because of a marriage to one particular period in Christendom - Byzantium. It is also a definciency because it tends to make an idol of a time and place that was centuries after the apostles as if it all stopped then. Plus, Palamism is as much a development as anything in Catholicism.

You will find no clear advantage in Orthodoxy over nominalism. In fact the Orthodox tend to praise and honor, in the church, famous ethnic Orthodox who are pro-abortion and basically anti-Christian, so long as the are Greek, Russian etc.

Orthodoxy is much smaller on the inside after the honeymoon. Catholicism is much bigger on the inside - warts and all. And there are certainly warts. But it is the church and it is universal. Orthodox can simply not credibly claim that. The Church would never hide it’s lamp under a bushel.

It took me a long time and much heartache to realize that there is alot of literature and epologetics from the Orthodox perspective that makes many bold historical and theological claims that are simply either untrue, half truths or conveniently ignore all the facts. It was devestating to stumble upon false claim after false claim over and over again after digging deeply into historical documents about several hot button events and issues. One such is the Orthodox partisans who refuse to even allow Catholics to explain what they mean by the filioque while insisting on imposing all sort of anachronized theological issues that did not even exist for centuries after the first controversy about it. Forcing nuanced Greek word meanings onto Latin texts is one of the worst offenses and simply disingenuous and issue fabrication based on deliberate misunderstanding to accentuate the differences to remain separate.

I am serious when I tell you that the majority of converts Orthodoxy I know personally (those who did not convert for marital reasons that is) have lasted 3 to 5 years and became so dissolusioned that they abanonded Christianity altogether or because ultra liberal protestants. The ethnic thing get’s old real quick if you are not Greek or Russian etc.

As a wise old anglo-Cahtolic preist once told me, “the Orthodox liturgy is simply too heavenly”. We all crave heaven, it is a mistake to think Chrsyostom’s liturgy, as wonderful as it is, is heaven. We are the church militant down here. Beauty is important in worship. Truth is more important. Spare yourself my heartache and find a good Eastern Catholic Church if you need a better, more sublime liturgy. That part I do get.

 

[Alethiaphile]

Chaldean Rite:
But I wouldn’t call what you’ve described in the thread rational by any means. You’ve compared the “faith” of a “typical American suburban Catholic” with that of a Catholic who prefers the TLM. So? What conclusions did you draw except that they are “different”? The truth is they are not different. Its the same Sacrifice of the Altar.

First of all, there have been polls taken indicating that a large percentage of American Catholics believe that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is purely symbolic. There are significant differences in the attitudes to doctrine and morality taken by the typical American suburban churhgoer and the tyoical TLM attendee.

You also mentinoed that Eastern Theology is “different”, I think that is a fair statment, and that is what makes the Church “CATHOLIC”, not just Constantinopolitan (Greek, Byzantine) tradition as it basically is in the EO Churches. But I think you forgot to mention they are all equal Eastern and Western theology are equal, and as a Catholic you can fully believe in anything taught in whatever particular theology (western/eastern) and never have a problem.

I don’t know what you mean when you say “Eastern and Western theology are equal”. If you mean they are interchangeable, that is simply not true. Many Eastern Catholics I know struggle heavily with the differences. And the idea that the Church can embrace two different and somewhat incompatible theologies and still have unity of faith is one I simply can’t accept. “Theology” is not spearate from faith. In the eastern Church, “theology” is not just an abstract system of thought divorced from practical spirituality.

 

[jam070406]

Chaldean Rite:
But I wouldn’t call what you’ve described in the thread rational by any means. You’ve compared the “faith” of a “typical American suburban Catholic” with that of a Catholic who prefers the TLM. So? What conclusions did you draw except that they are “different”? The truth is they are not different. Its the same Sacrifice of the Altar.

First of all, there have been polls taken indicating that a large percentage of American Catholics believe that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is purely symbolic. There are significant differences in the attitudes to doctrine and morality taken by the typical American suburban churhgoer and the tyoical TLM attendee.

You also mentinoed that Eastern Theology is “different”, I think that is a fair statment, and that is what makes the Church “CATHOLIC”, not just Constantinopolitan (Greek, Byzantine) tradition as it basically is in the EO Churches. But I think you forgot to mention they are all equal Eastern and Western theology are equal, and as a Catholic you can fully believe in anything taught in whatever particular theology (western/eastern) and never have a problem.

I attend the TLM and also a Byzantine liturgy. They are the same Sacrifice of the Altar. I receive the real presence of Christ in both. I feel blessed to be able to attend two different expressions of the same sacrifice which helps me to grow in Holiness, to love God and love my neighbor deeper. God is great and I am thankful to be able to worship in both Eastern and Western spirituality. Deo Gratias!

 

[Dauphin]

I have felt drawn, off and on, to Orthodoxy for several years, because I felt there was a quality there I was missing as a western Catholic. Today, it suddenly came to me what the quality was: Sublimity. There is a sublimity in Orthodoxy, especially in doctrine and worship, that I don’t sense in western Catholicism… And it seems to me the True Faith should be Sublime.

You’ll find that the Traditional Catholic faith and liturgy can easily compete on that measure. The western tradition is no less sublime than the eastern.

In the current crisis in the Church, with the widescale abandonment of tradition, it doesn’t surprise me that Catholics would consider converting into a schismatic Church. The New Mass frequently lacks an encounter with mystery - any sense of the transcendent. Frankly, I’m surprised more aren’t converting to Eastern Orthodoxy.

My advice to you, though, is to fight for the latin tradition and for the authentic apostolic faith. Find a traditional community near you, and attend the Traditional Latin Mass, which is your proper heritage and patrimony.

 

[Dauphin]

Chaldean Rite:
But I wouldn’t call what you’ve described in the thread rational by any means. You’ve compared the “faith” of a “typical American suburban Catholic” with that of a Catholic who prefers the TLM. So? What conclusions did you draw except that they are “different”? The truth is they are not different. Its the same Sacrifice of the Altar.

The Traditional Latin Mass has a fuller lex orandi, which brings about the complete* lex credendi*. Nothing of the faith is obscured - the doctrine of the sacrifice is laid out in the sublime, hallowed, words we have inherited. The Roman Canon in Latin is the proper heritage of the western Church, and it is used exclusively. The liturgy is entirely loyal to tradition, admitting no frivolous innovation or novelty. The periods of silence allow for a fuller, interior, participation in the Mass. The Latin language places a verbal veil over the sacred mysteries, emphasizing the sacramental nature of the liturgical action. The orientation of the priest towards the liturgical east reminds us that he offers the sacrifice for us in the person of Christ, and that our prayers and petitions are offered through him; he isn’t an actor putting on a show.

 

[Alethiaphile]

You’ll find that the Traditional Catholic faith and liturgy can easily compete on that measure. The western tradition is no less sublime than the eastern

Although there are many good things about the traditional western liturgy, it has one major flaw, which I alluded to earlier in the thread: it omits the epiclesis of the Holy Spirit. It thus obscures or neglects the essential role of the Holy Spirit in the Sacrament of the Mass. This is related to the more general neglect of the Holy Spirit which gradually took place in the western church starting in the early middle ages. In this respect, the Tridentine liturgy lacks catholicity.

 

[Dauphin]

Although there are many good things about the traditional western liturgy, it has one major flaw, which I alluded to earlier in the thread: it omits the epiclesis of the Holy Spirit. It thus obscures or neglects the essential role of the Holy Spirit in the Sacrament of the Mass. This is related to the more general neglect of the Holy Spirit which gradually took place in the western church starting in the early middle ages. In this respect, the Tridentine liturgy lacks catholicity.

The Roman Canon lacks no Catholicity, and it omits nothing. Just as I wouldn’t dare to make such an attack on the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, so too should you show more reverence for the Gregorian Rite.

This is the equivalent prayer. The action of the Holy Ghost is implicit:

*"Quam oblatiónem tu, Deus, in ómnibus, quaésumus benedíctam, adscríptam, ratam, rationábilem, acceptabilémque fácere dignéris ut nobis Corpus, et Sanguis fiat dilectíssimi Filii tui **Dómini *nostri Jesu Christi."

 

[Dauphin]

This is related to the more general neglect of the Holy Spirit which gradually took place in the western church starting in the early middle ages.

It isn’t, since the Roman Canon dates from the fifth century, and is unchanged in the Traditional Latin Mass.

 

[Alethiaphile]

The Roman Canon lacks no Catholicity, and it omits nothing. Just as I wouldn’t dare to make such an attack on the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, so too should you show more reverence for the Gregorian Rite.
This is the equivalent prayer. The action of the Holy Ghost is implicit:
]

Ok, where avoidable I want to avoid giving offense, so let’s just say that lack of an explicit epiclesis of the Holy Spirit violates the principle of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi that you ably stated a few posts ago. When dealing with the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, I believe explicit acknowledgement and praise is in order.

 

[Dauphin]

Ok, where avoidable I want to avoid giving offense, so let’s just say that lack of an explicit epiclesis of the Holy Spirit violates the principle of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi that you ably stated a few posts ago. When dealing with the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, I believe explicit acknowledgement and praise is in order.

The Roman Canon has explicit mention of the Holy Ghost. The offertory also invokes the Holy Ghost. Simply because it’s not done in the eastern way isn’t a good enough reason to attack it.

Attacks on the Roman tradition are examples of pure eastern chauvanism. It’s just like when Cardinal Humbert went to Constantinople demanding they amend their tradition, but the opposite.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

First of all, there have been polls taken indicating that a large percentage of American Catholics believe that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is purely symbolic. There are significant differences in the attitudes to doctrine and morality taken by the typical American suburban churhgoer and the tyoical TLM attendee.

what have you said except in the Church there are sinners and there are saints? You think those lukewarm souls have it good or something? They obviously are lost and we pray for them. The pitiful souls who fail to recognize the Real Presence of Maran Ysho’ Mshyha in the Holy Quarbana need a rude awakening.

I don’t know what you mean when you say “Eastern and Western theology are equal”. If you mean they are interchangeable, that is simply not true. Many Eastern Catholics I know struggle heavily with the differences. And the idea that the Church can embrace two different and somewhat incompatible theologies and still have unity of faith is one I simply can’t accept. “Theology” is not spearate from faith. In the eastern Church, “theology” is not just an abstract system of thought divorced from practical spirituality.

What you’ve said above is simply nonsense. They are not separate, “somewhat incompatible” theologies.

**1203 **The liturgical traditions or rites presently in use in the Church are the Latin (principally the Roman rite, but also the rites of certain local churches, such as the Ambrosian rite, or those of certain religious orders) and the Byzantine, Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite and Chaldean rites. In “faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity, and that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way.”

There is not a single thing that you could put forward which even begins to illustrate this facade I believe to be in your mind.

**1208 **The diverse liturgical traditions or rites, legitimately recognized, manifest the catholicity of the Church, because they signify and communicate the same mystery of Christ.

As I said earlier, I don’t think the Orthodox can say this since they have only one tradition.

Those eastern catholic you know are simply not docile to the Church teaching if you were to ask me. And would you care to share any of the problems they are having?

 

[chrisb]

What you’ve said above is simply nonsense. They are not separate, “somewhat incompatible” theologies.

**1203 **The liturgical traditions or rites presently in use in the Church are the Latin (principally the Roman rite, but also the rites of certain local churches, such as the Ambrosian rite, or those of certain religious orders) and the Byzantine, Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite and Chaldean rites. In “faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity, and that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way.”

There is not a single thing that you could put forward which even begins to illustrate this facade I believe to be in your mind.

**1208 **The diverse liturgical traditions or rites, legitimately recognized, manifest the catholicity of the Church, because they signify and communicate the same mystery of Christ.

As I said earlier, I don’t think the Orthodox can say this since they have only one tradition.

Those eastern catholic you know are simply not docile to the Church teaching if you were to ask me. And would you care to share any of the problems they are having?

Are you confusing Liturgy with Theology here?

If I were to express why I am drawn to Orthodoxy in one word… it would be continuity.

 

[Madaglan]

I have felt drawn, off and on, to Orthodoxy for several years, because I felt there was a quality there I was missing as a western Catholic. Today, it suddenly came to me what the quality was: Sublimity. There is a sublimity in Orthodoxy, especially in doctrine and worship, that I don’t sense in western Catholicism… And it seems to me the True Faith should be Sublime.

Very interesting. When Latin Catholic, I had an increasing sense that something was not right with the contemporary liturgy. After having attended only the ordinary form in my upbringing, I became aware of the TLM and attended several. I received a very odd series of reactions. For one brief second I realized that in this Mass the medieval and greater part of Latin tradition held together. St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis, St. Dominic, et al. through the centuries weaved into and were present (hard to explain in mere words…). I had and still have a significant respect for the Tridentine Latin Mass. I also experienced a genuine feeling of coming across something lost that was present in my earlier life. I grew up in the eighties, after the implementation of the new form, but the feel of everything drew to mind the Masses I experienced in childhood. Doctrine and worship went together there (in the TLM), so it seemed to me. I never felt completely at home there, although I thought the liturgy beautiful and reverent. I felt comparatively more at home amongst the Ruthenians/Rusyns.