Why I Didn't Convert to Eastern Orthodoxy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bballer32
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Perhaps you’re right but it certainly didn’t help the cause of folk religion.
Honestly, I don’t get why people kept blaming Vatican II. The problem originated in the Reformation. Vatican II tried to solve the problem but apparently it was already at the boiling point by then. One council cannot change the nature of the faith in such a small amount of time. There was something there for a long time brewing that just happened to manifest itself so profoundly coincidentally after Vatican II.
 
Honestly, I don’t get why people kept blaming Vatican II. The problem originated in the Reformation. Vatican II tried to solve the problem but apparently it was already at the boiling point by then. One council cannot change the nature of the faith in such a small amount of time. There was something there for a long time brewing that just happened to manifest itself so profoundly coincidentally after Vatican II.
I’m not blaming Vatican II for anything, just observing that part of its mandate was to prune excessive folk-religious practices from the faith, which the Catholic Church does from time to time. That’s my understanding at least.
 
I’m not blaming Vatican II for anything, just observing that part of its mandate was to prune excessive folk-religious practices from the faith, which the Catholic Church does from time to time. That’s my understanding at least.
Sorry, I’m not saying its you, but we all know around this Forum that the Vatican II is the convenient scapegoat for many of the ills of the Roman Catholic Church. But an honest analysis of the world and the Church prior to Vatican II would reveal that we would be where we are today even though Vatican II didn’t happen.
 
Aren’t these Catholic Churches not in communion with Rome anyway? Aren’t the out-in-the-open “Catholic” Church in China the Nationalist Church the Chinese government set up?

Orthodoxy is virtually non-existent there because they were kicked out by the Maoist revolution. One of the most recent saints in the OCA is St. John Maximovitch of Shanghair and San Francisco. He served as bishop of San Francisco at the time of his death, but prior to that he was the bishop in Shanghai up until the expulsion of foreigners by the revolution. He helped facilitate the transfer of the Russians to the Philippines and the US, and he eventually himself ended up in the US.
You’re missing the point.

Eastern Orthodox were never persecuted any more than Protestants or Catholics, nor are they today. And yet, while Protestantism and Catholicism both flourish (at my local parish there are at present hundreds of people baptized every 6 months or so) and have relatively numerous churches, Eastern Orthodoxy doesn’t exist. It’s not that it’s a minority. Among normal, ethnic Chinese, Koreans and Japanese it simply doesn’t exist. It has never existed to the point where it would even remotely resemble a small minority. As mentioned, despite the fact that Eastern Orthodox are under no more or less restrictions than Catholics or Protestants, their churches are almost non-existent, and the ones that do exist consist entirely of expats from traditionally Eastern Orthodox countries. Eastern Orthodoxy is a cultural phenomenon, not a global one.

As for the church in China, it’s in far better condition than most people think. At every mass we express our communion with Rome and the Holy Father, confession and other sacraments are offered by validly ordained priests, masses are generally quite reverent, etc. The main two problems are 1) A ban on proselytizing and 2) A ban on talk about contraceptives and abortion.
 
You’re missing the point.

Eastern Orthodox were never persecuted any more than Protestants or Catholics, nor are they today. And yet, while Protestantism and Catholicism both flourish (at my local parish there are at present hundreds of people baptized every 6 months or so) and have relatively numerous churches, Eastern Orthodoxy doesn’t exist. It’s not that it’s a minority. Among normal, ethnic Chinese, Koreans and Japanese it simply doesn’t exist. It has never existed to the point where it would even remotely resemble a small minority. As mentioned, despite the fact that Eastern Orthodox are under no more or less restrictions than Catholics or Protestants, their churches are almost non-existent, and the ones that do exist consist entirely of expats from traditionally Eastern Orthodox countries. Eastern Orthodoxy is a cultural phenomenon, not a global one.

As for the church in China, it’s in far better condition than most people think. At every mass we express our communion with Rome and the Holy Father, confession and other sacraments are offered by validly ordained priests, masses are generally quite reverent, etc. The main two problems are 1) A ban on proselytizing and 2) A ban on talk about contraceptives and abortion.
Ban #1 should be imposed world wide. Proselytizing is not a good way to convert people regardless of where you are.
 
Eastern Orthodoxy is a cultural phenomenon, not a global one.
I’m afraid that’s a sweeping generalization, and frankly a bit offensive.

For one, the presumed intent is malicious and polemical. Is it to push the “catholicity” of Roman Catholicism against Orthodoxy? If so, it’s simply a poor argument for a number of (particularly ecclesiological) reasons.

Second, you’re restricting your statement specifically to the regions of China, Korea, and Japan with an over-simplified assumption of Catholics and Orthodox having similar historical-political context combined with evangelization in these areas when they don’t. After all, much of the religious introduction into countries had to do with countries’ relations with each other.

Third, by positing that it is purely a cultural phenomenon denies the mass conversions taking place in missions in Latin America and Africa. Hardly a cultural phenomenon of expats.

Fourth, you’re neglecting other factors such as modern persecution, oppression, political resistance by the state, resistance by the culture, etc. Would you deny Roman Catholicism as a “global phenomenon,” for a couple examples, when there are no RC priests in North Korea and Roman Catholics aren’t a “substantial minority” in Greece? Of course not.

Fifth, Protestantism in China constitutes a substantially larger minority. Is it thereby more of a global phenomenon than Catholicism because of its larger presence in China?
 
I’m afraid that’s a sweeping generalization, and frankly a bit offensive.

For one, the presumed intent is malicious and polemical. Is it to push the “catholicity” of Roman Catholicism against Orthodoxy? If so, it’s simply a poor argument for a number of (particularly ecclesiological) reasons.

Second, you’re restricting your statement specifically to the regions of China, Korea, and Japan with an over-simplified assumption of Catholics and Orthodox having similar historical-political context combined with evangelization in these areas when they don’t. After all, much of the religious introduction into countries had to do with countries’ relations with each other.

Third, by positing that it is purely a cultural phenomenon denies the mass conversions taking place in missions in Latin America and Africa. Hardly a cultural phenomenon of expats.

Fourth, you’re neglecting other factors such as modern persecution, oppression, political resistance by the state, resistance by the culture, etc. Would you deny Roman Catholicism as a “global phenomenon,” for a couple examples, when there are no RC priests in North Korea and Roman Catholics aren’t a “substantial minority” in Greece? Of course not.

Fifth, Protestantism in China constitutes a substantially larger minority. Is it thereby more of a global phenomenon than Catholicism because of its larger presence in China?
First, I think it’s a completely legitimate argument. "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Secondly, the only reason I’m restricting it to these 3 countries, is because these are the only three countries in which I have direct experience. Having talked to people from Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand and other Asian countries, I gather it’s a similar phenomenon. I would welcome correction though, if there exist masses of local Eastern Orthodox populations in non-traditionally Eastern Orthodox countries such as the aforementioned ones; I very much doubt their existence though.

Third, exceptions do not make a rule. Anyone who has done significant travel can attest to the fact that independent of any religious claims, Eastern Orthodoxy is not generally speaking a global phenomenon, no matter what linguistic contortions are made with the phrase.

Fourth, I’m not sure if you read my last post. I addressed the issue of persecution. I’ll sum it up again.
  1. There is no traditionally non Christian country which persecutes Eastern Orthodox to a greater extent than Catholics.
  2. There is no example of a traditionally non Christian country which at any point in it’s history has had local Eastern Orthodox populations representing even a sizable minority. (Or should I say, virtually no examples, I’m sure an obscure, non-representative example could be dug up somewhere)
So despite the fact that Eastern Orthodox have no relative disadvantage, they end up with probably under 0.1% (not hyperbole) of Christian converts, who have no emotional connection to a traditionally Eastern Orthodox culture. I agree that the majority does not define truth, but still…

Fifth, Protestantism is larger than Catholicism in some traditionally non-Christian societies. In others, Catholicism is bigger. In all traditionally non-Christian societies, they both have a sizable presence. This is a global phenomenon. Essentially not having any converts at all in countries which represent half of the world’s population is not a global phenomenon.
 
Eastern Orthodoxy is a cultural phenomenon, not a global one.
In the sense that you seem to mean “global phenomenon”, i.e. having a large, visible presence all over the world, I agree with you.

But this begs the question if one will recognize the true Church by it being a “global phenomenon” (in your sense). I would argue that Orthodoxy is present practically everywhere in the world, albeit not prominently so. To me, that is what someone would expect of the true Church. Would I rather that Orthodoxy were more prominent worldwide? Absolutely. There are historical reasons that I’m sure you’re aware why it is not.
 
Honestly, I don’t get why people kept blaming Vatican II. The problem originated in the Reformation. Vatican II tried to solve the problem but apparently it was already at the boiling point by then. One council cannot change the nature of the faith in such a small amount of time. There was something there for a long time brewing that just happened to manifest itself so profoundly coincidentally after Vatican II.
I don’t think we Catholics have had the only hurtful schisms. The Orthodox also have had their fair share of schisms, which have caused pain.

Arsenite Schism (1265) Old Believers (1666) Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (1921) Old Calendar Schism (1935) Ukrainian Orthodox Church- Kiev Patriachate (UOC-KP) But who can forget the most Devastating for the Orthodox, the Eastern Catholic Churches (Alexandrian, Antiochian, Chaldean, Armenian, Byzantine, and Ukrainian liturgical traditions.)

And the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopian Tewahedo, Eritrean Tewahedo, Malankra Orthodox Syrian Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East.)

So, the claim that Schisms caused the downfall of certain rites/liturgies is an argument based on opinion. My Parish has thrived in keeping the Roman Rite while adhering to all the Eccumenical Councils. Now, I understand the Orthodox can make the rebutal about their being more protestant Churches. Let’s put it this way; what I listed above is general. I could go into greater depth with the individual Churches that had schisms just like the protestants.
 
First, I think it’s a completely legitimate argument. "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
Then is Catholicity variable (in degrees), or something that can be gained or lost?

EDIT: I see this thread has been moved out of the EC forum, so I’ll let this be my last post.
 
I don’t think we Catholics have had the only hurtful schisms. The Orthodox also have had their fair share of schisms, which have caused pain.

Arsenite Schism (1265) Old Believers (1666) Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (1921) Old Calendar Schism (1935) Ukrainian Orthodox Church- Kiev Patriachate (UOC-KP) But who can forget the most Devastating for the Orthodox, the Eastern Catholic Churches (Alexandrian, Antiochian, Chaldean, Armenian, Byzantine, and Ukrainian liturgical traditions.)

And the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopian Tewahedo, Eritrean Tewahedo, Malankra Orthodox Syrian Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East.)

So, the claim that Schisms caused the downfall of certain rites/liturgies is an argument based on opinion. My Parish has thrived in keeping the Roman Rite while adhering to all the Eccumenical Councils. Now, I understand the Orthodox can make the rebutal about their being more protestant Churches. Let’s put it this way; what I listed above is general. I could go into greater depth with the individual Churches that had schisms just like the protestants.
Oh, the Orthodox Church isn’t pretending that there were no schisms that happened within her. Where else did you guys think you came from? 😉

There have been schisms from day one. Everytime there is a heresy, there is a schism. The gnostics went their own way, the Donatists when their own way, the Arians went their own way, etc.
 
What about the effects? Jesus commissioned the Apostles to spread the Gospel to the world. How much of that has happened in the Orthodox Communions? They have typically ministered to their own communities, with little impact on the rest of the world. Whereas the Latin Catholic Church has spread to almost every country.

Quiz: How many non-Catholics can name the present Pope? I think a majority of people could tell you his name. Pope Francis (and his predecessors) are almost daily in the Google news feed. When a new Pope is chosen, it is on live TV on every network.

How many non-Orthodox can name the present Patriarch of Constantinople? (I can’t) Did anyone watch the coverage of his selection? (what coverage?) How many non-Orthodox can name ANY former Patriarch of Constantinople? (I can’t)

What IMPACT has the Orthodox Church had on history beyond its traditional borders? Or what IMPACT on human civilization?

Almost none.

Latins are Catholic, and Orthodox are Catholic. But only one of us has changed the face of the whole world. The other has barely scratched the surface.
 
What about the effects? Jesus commissioned the Apostles to spread the Gospel to the world. How much of that has happened in the Orthodox Communions? They have typically ministered to their own communities, with little impact on the rest of the world. Whereas the Latin Catholic Church has spread to almost every country.
That has little to do with anything endemic to either religion, and everything to do with the fact that Western Christianity in general has had the great felicity to be aligned with colonial powers which would spread its influence. There are already signs that this felicity soon shall end. Will Roman Catholicism then cease to be true, when its global impact dwindles because of the increasing secularization of this world?
Quiz: How many non-Catholics can name the present Pope? I think a majority of people could tell you his name. Pope Francis (and his predecessors) are almost daily in the Google news feed. When a new Pope is chosen, it is on live TV on every network.

How many non-Orthodox can name the present Patriarch of Constantinople? (I can’t) Did anyone watch the coverage of his selection? (what coverage?) How many non-Orthodox can name ANY former Patriarch of Constantinople? (I can’t)
I guarantee you that you overestimate the importance of the Pope. My mother, being Chinese, most certainly cannot name the current Pope of Rome, nor does she know that the current bishop of Rome just recently was elected after his predecessor stepped down. In fact, my mother is still confused after living in the United States for 29 years and does not understand that Catholics are generally thought of as being Christians (this is a common thing amongst Chinese speakers, who often know nothing about Roman Catholicism, not even that the religion is centered around the worship of Jesus Christ). As much as I hate using this term, your views are quite Eurocentric, and do not reflect very well how people from around the world actually perceive the Papacy or Roman Catholicism
What IMPACT has the Orthodox Church had on history beyond its traditional borders? Or what IMPACT on human civilization?
A completely nonsensical criterion. By this criterion, Enlightenment Era Deism or the Naturalistic underpinnings of modern physics ought also be offered up for consideration, since they have had perhaps a greater impact upon human civilization than Roman Catholicism. Furthermore, how does one assess the impact of something upon human civilization, outside of having the power to visit alternate universes?
 
What about the effects? Jesus commissioned the Apostles to spread the Gospel to the world. How much of that has happened in the Orthodox Communions? They have typically ministered to their own communities, with little impact on the rest of the world. Whereas the Latin Catholic Church has spread to almost every country.
In addition to Cavaradossi’s observation regarding the political reality of the RCC which makes this seem so, there is another way to approach this question: Much of your Christianity is based upon Orthodoxy and the work the Orthodox have done, without you knowing it. Every time you read from the most commonly accepted canon of the NT, you are confirming a list of books originally given by HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic of Alexandria, some ~1200 years before your own Latin canon was closed. When your monks practice according to the rule of St. Benedict of Nursia, the father of Western monasticism, they are living out a modified form of the life originally established by St. Pachomius of the 4th century Egyptian desert. The influence of the Orthodox on the rest of the world is not necessarily less than that of the West; it is, however, older. You have already forgotten it, so it seems like it’s not there, but it is.
Quiz: How many non-Catholics can name the present Pope? Pope Francis (and his predecessors) are almost daily in the Google news feed. When a new Pope is chosen, it is on live TV on every network.
Major confirmation bias here. You are probably in a Western country, reading news in English made primarily for and by other westerners. If you were to look to other sources, you might see a different story. I mean, if I wanted to post in this manner, I could say that the lack of coverage of Pope Francis on Aghapy or CTV (Coptic Orthodox TV channels) means that he is irrelevant, but it doesn’t. He’s just not important to the majority of the viewership of those channels, just like the majority of Western Google users don’t know or care about Orthodoxy. Funnily enough, when I search a major Egyptian newspaper, like Al-Ahram (the largest circulating newspaper in Egypt, and the second oldest) for the term “Pope” in Arabic, guess who comes up first? HH Pope Tawadros, not the Roman Pope (you don’t need to read Arabic to see this; just click the link and look at the pictures…the two men don’t exactly look like brothers).
How many non-Orthodox can name the present Patriarch of Constantinople? (I can’t) Did anyone watch the coverage of his selection? (what coverage?) How many non-Orthodox can name ANY former Patriarch of Constantinople? (I can’t)
And your admitted ignorance is supposed to prove something positive about your church? :ehh: Quick: Can you name the current Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches with whom you are in union, without having to look them up? If you can’t, does that mean that your communion is insignificant or a failure or whatever you’re trying to say about Orthodoxy by admitting that you don’t know anything?
What IMPACT has the Orthodox Church had on history beyond its traditional borders?
Its traditional borders were the entire world, unless you somehow want to argue that ecclesiastical divisions decide which church should be found where (which calls into question every church of your communion outside of the West, as Rome is the only apostolic see in the entire Western world). History shows us that there were in fact Latin churches in the East (or else Patriarch Michael would have had nothing to close down in Constantinople a year before the formal East-West schism), Eastern churches in the West (Byzantine Greeks in Italy, Malta, etc.), Oriental (Orthodox) churches in Nestorian/East Syrian territories (Syriac Orthodox dioceses in Central Asia in the Middle Ages, including Afghanistan, Eastern Iran, and today’s Turkmenistan), etc. The drawing up of traditional territories has more to do with what was recognized in ancient times to be the territory to be governed by a particular Patriarch (see, for instance, the canons of Nicaea), which also seems like an area that a Roman Catholic would not want to go into, since the recognition of this reality contradicts the current RC stance that their Patriarch has universal jurisdiction over the entire church in the whole world.
Or what IMPACT on human civilization?
Almost none.
Oh, I wouldn’t say that. What kind of impact do you think Christianity has had on human civilization? I would say it has had quite a bit.
Latins are Catholic, and Orthodox are Catholic. But only one of us has changed the face of the whole world. The other has barely scratched the surface.
Latins changed it largely through colonial successes, which were ultimately untenable. In its European homeland, the Roman Catholic Church is desperately ill. As a point of comparison (not a value judgment), in places where Christianity did not arrive with colonizers, e.g., Ethiopia, the native Orthodox Church is doing well (not perfect, of course, particularly as it is surrounded by Islamic and Protestant aggression both internally and beyond its national borders, but quite well, all things considered), and has responded to the missionary imperative that is natural to Orthodoxy by establishing many churches in the ‘diaspora’ (ugh) which have themselves continued on that activity. The same is true for every particular Orthodox church, with the possible exception of the Armenians (for historical reasons, i.e., the genocides).

Perhaps “barely scratched the surface” could also be applied to the level of research undertaken before making claims about how Orthodoxy has not left any imprint on the world…
 
In addition to Cavaradossi’s observation regarding the political reality of the RCC which makes this seem so, there is another way to approach this question: Much of your Christianity is based upon Orthodoxy and the work the Orthodox have done, without you knowing it. Every time you read from the most commonly accepted canon of the NT, you are confirming a list of books originally given by HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic of Alexandria, some ~1200 years before your own Latin canon was closed. When your monks practice according to the rule of St. Benedict of Nursia, the father of Western monasticism, they are living out a modified form of the life originally established by St. Pachomius of the 4th century Egyptian desert. The influence of the Orthodox on the rest of the world is not necessarily less than that of the West; it is, however, older. You have already forgotten it, so it seems like it’s not there, but it is.
None of those Saints would be Orthodox, since they were all in union with the See of St. Peter.
 
Oh, the Orthodox Church isn’t pretending that there were no schisms that happened within her. Where else did you guys think you came from? 😉
Clever, very clever. :rolleyes: Obviously the table could be turned here 😃
40.png
Constantine:
There have been schisms from day one. Everytime there is a heresy, there is a schism. The gnostics went their own way, the Donatists when their own way, the Arians went their own way, etc.
Most of the heretical schisms are actually very interesting to look into. A thread on the discussion and researching of heresies would be a very interesting and lively topic.
 
None of those Saints would be Orthodox, since they were all in union with the See of St. Peter.
I do not think it works that way, unless you wish somehow to argue that the Fifth Ecumenical Council (which most certainly was not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, having struck him from the diptychs in the seventh session) was Orthodox and not Roman Catholic.
 
I do not think it works that way, unless you wish somehow to argue that the Fifth Ecumenical Council (which most certainly was not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, having struck him from the diptychs in the seventh session) was Orthodox and not Roman Catholic.
Actually, he was stricken with the diptychs because he refused to attend the council because of what his advisers were telling him that he shouldn’t go. Let me point out that he was excommunicated personally, not the entire Western Church just because he refused to attend. So, really, they were upset because he couldnt attend. Now, they did eventually lift the excommunication because the Pope admitted that his advisers informed wrongly and he banned the Three Chapters, so i’m not seeing your point
 
He couldn’t attend because his advisers told him not to? Wow. At least St. Dioscoros was under house arrest, surrounded by imperial guards…
 
Actually, he was stricken with the diptychs because he refused to attend the council because of what his advisers were telling him that he shouldn’t go. Let me point out that he was excommunicated personally, not the entire Western Church just because he refused to attend. So, really, they were upset because he couldnt attend. Now, they did eventually lift the excommunication because the Pope admitted that his advisers informed wrongly and he banned the Three Chapters, so i’m not seeing your point
He was struck from the diptychs during the seventh session because of his First Constitutum, and his flip-flopping over the issue of the Three Chapters.

Anyway, my point was that if AmbroseSJ wants to play this game where being Orthodox is determined by somebody’s not being in communion with Rome (thus disqualifying many saints like St. Athanasius), then I suppose the entire Fifth Ecumenical Council was Orthodox. Of course, I would advocate for the far more reasonable way of thinking is that we share this common patrimony of the first millennium.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top