Why should someone choose Orthodoxy over Catholicisma?

[Traditionalism]

I attended both Orthodox and Catholic parishes before choosing what I wanted. I felt much more at home in the Traditional Catholic parishes, and I also felt something inside much more than I did at the Orthodox parishes. The presence of Christ was much greater for me at the Traditional Catholic ones, so I chose it, and I am very happy with my choice. I have the kindest priest I(or anyone I’ve talked to who’s ever met him) know, and I am in love with the Catholic faith.

 

[Peter_J]

As Catholics we have an obligation to avoid indifferentism.

Very true. But on the other hand, to say to a prospective convert “You should become Catholic without looking into Orthodox first” would be quite strange imo (not to mention very unecumenical, especially considering how we Catholics are always expecting non-Catholics to be highly ecumenical-minded toward us).

I think you could say that this is essentially a matter of finding a “happy medium”.

 

[Peter_J]

What are you afraid of?

Everything. Dogs. Dutchmen. The gathering darkness. (cf Abe Simpson)

 

[Vico]

Very true. But on the other hand, to say to a prospective convert “You should become Catholic without looking into Orthodox first” would be quite strange imo (not to mention very unecumenical, especially considering how we Catholics are always expecting non-Catholics to be highly ecumenical-minded toward us).

I think you could say that this is essentially a matter of finding a “happy medium”.

One could spend their entire lifetime considering all the options and die in before being baptised. We have an obligation to evangelize people in the Catholic Church because it has the fullness of the faith. We do not have an example of the Apostles advising people to try various other religions first.

 

[ConstantineTG]

One could spend their entire lifetime considering all the options and die in before being baptised. We have an obligation to evangelize people in the Catholic Church because it has the fullness of the faith. We do not have an example of the Apostles advising people to try various other religions first.

We also do not have an example of the Apostles being divided amongst ourselves. Also it seems Christianity spreads even before the Apostles actually establishes a Church in an area. They are not the only ones to spread Christianity. In Antioch, Peter and John had to investigate and make sure that the people there were actually Christians and following the correct teaching. Whoever is not against us is for us.

 

[Vico]

We also do not have an example of the Apostles being divided amongst ourselves. Also it seems Christianity spreads even before the Apostles actually establishes a Church in an area. They are not the only ones to spread Christianity. In Antioch, Peter and John had to investigate and make sure that the people there were actually Christians and following the correct teaching. Whoever is not against us is for us.

That is a good point.

1 John 3:-11
He that commmitteth sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God, commmitteth not sin: for his seed abideth in him, and he can not sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil. Whosoever is not just, is not of God, nor he that loveth not his brother. For this is the declaration, which you have heard from the beginning, that you should love one another

 

[GaryTaylor]

I attended both Orthodox and Catholic parishes before choosing what I wanted. I felt much more at home in the Traditional Catholic parishes, and I also felt something inside much more than I did at the Orthodox parishes. The presence of Christ was much greater for me at the Traditional Catholic ones, so I chose it, and I am very happy with my choice. I have the kindest priest I(or anyone I’ve talked to who’s ever met him) know, and I am in love with the Catholic faith.

Sounds good.

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

We also do not have an example of the Apostles being divided amongst ourselves. Also it seems Christianity spreads even before the Apostles actually establishes a Church in an area. They are not the only ones to spread Christianity.

The laity of the Church have always played an enormous part in spreading the Gospel. That is an aspect on the IC often overlooked. It follows the philososphy of Lex orandi, lex credendi. Which is also why you see the Rosary recommended.

The Gospel is spead here daily. We don’t know where everyone ends up.

 

[Marybeloved]

The references given for that little snippet are all Papal pronouncements.

If all the bishops were in alignment on the Orthodoxy of the Catholic Church we would not have the issue of the Great Schism. The horrifying thought should not be that they have never all defined it as anything, but rather that for half the Churches history the Bishops of the Church (defining it here as you did) have been in disagreement about its Orthodoxy.

I never get the logic of this argument. The Vatican I definition of the papacy certainly did not stop Latins from schism in the West. It hasn’t stopped the modernist rejection of that authority after Vatican II either. What logic says that if certain people reject something it must be false? Does the doctrine have a magic power to it that stops people from rejecting and disobeying unlike all other, even more basic, doctrines?

Did the early rejections of the Trinitarian formulations and resulting schisms mean that it could not have been the faith or belief of the church? Belief in the authority of the church to teach definitevely on matters of faith and its visible unity did not stop Martin Luther and the other Reformers from that enourmous schism- They simply rejected it. Doesn’t mean the doctrines had been missing. Similarly, the rejection of Christ by the great majority of Jews doesn’t mean that Christ’s claims were not part of the revelation and prophecies of God from the OT.

Again, I never get this argument people like to bring up only for the papacy when it clearly applies nowhere else- I believe its special pleading. Why should the doctrine on the papacy be the only one that must be proven in this fashion when the others don’t? On what basis do we get this special little requirement that applies only to the teaching on the papacy when it would fail even for our most basic beliefs?

 

[Holly3278]

They shouldn’t. While Orthodoxy does have a great deal of the Truth, they do not have all of it. The Catholic Church alone has all of the Truth. An example of this is that the Catholic Church has the papacy while the Orthodox Church does not. I have also heard that some Orthodox bishops and patriarchs allow for certain types of contraception and contraception is always immoral to use to prevent pregnancy.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I never get the logic of this argument. The Vatican I definition of the papacy certainly did not stop Latins from schism in the West. It hasn’t stopped the modernist rejection of that authority after Vatican II either. What logic says that if certain people reject something it must be false? Does the doctrine have a magic power to it that stops people from rejecting and disobeying unlike all other, even more basic, doctrines?

Did the early rejections of the Trinitarian formulations and resulting schisms mean that it could not have been the faith or belief of the church? Belief in the authority of the church to teach definitevely on matters of faith and its visible unity did not stop Martin Luther and the other Reformers from that enourmous schism- They simply rejected it. Doesn’t mean the doctrines had been missing. Similarly, the rejection of Christ by the great majority of Jews doesn’t mean that Christ’s claims were not part of the revelation and prophecies of God from the OT.

Again, I never get this argument people like to bring up only for the papacy when it clearly applies nowhere else- I believe its special pleading. Why should the doctrine on the papacy be the only one that must be proven in this fashion when the others don’t? On what basis do we get this special little requirement that applies only to the teaching on the papacy when it would fail even for our most basic beliefs?

I think his point is that it is a bad argument to point to the authority of the Church. It is interesting to me that in all of their anti-Eunomian polemics, I have not yet once come upon a passage where the Cappodocian Fathers ever make the argument that the Eunomians were rejecting some presupposed infallible authority of Nicaea, implying that they either saw the weakness of such an argument, or were unaware of such a concept altogether (I honestly think that the latter is more likely). Obviously, one cannot use the ‘because my Church says so’ line on one who does not believe in the authority of the Church which pronounced the belief in the first place. If one is going too argue against some sort of modern day Arian, for example, then he should be able to point out with reasoned arguments from the scriptures why the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith is true, without relying on the assumption that the Church has the authority to proclaim it to be true.

 

[Marybeloved]

I think his point is that it is a bad argument to point to the authority of the Church. It is interesting to me that in all of their anti-Eunomian polemics, I have not yet once come upon a passage where the Cappodocian Fathers ever make the argument that the Eunomians were rejecting some presupposed infallible authority of Nicaea, implying that they either saw the weakness of such an argument, or were unaware of such a concept altogether (I honestly think that the latter is more likely). Obviously, one cannot use the ‘because my Church says so’ line on one who does not believe in the authority of the Church which pronounced the belief in the first place. If one is going too argue against some sort of modern day Arian, for example, then he should be able to point out with reasoned arguments from the scriptures why the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith is true, without relying on the assumption that the Church has the authority to proclaim it to be true.

But did Vico actually make this argument claimed here at all? Did Vico point to the authority of the Church as proof? Does it now mean that Catholics cannot point to the teachings and arguments of the Church for their own strength, reasonability and truth, but can only do so if they mean to point to the authority with which they are made? I’ve seen many debates on the papacy, the truth of the Church with non-Catholics etc- I’m yet to see Catholics defend the doctrines against non-Catholics by making this silly argument claimed here, but I’ve seen instead plenty of arguements made by them based on their truths, reasonability, grounding in the early Church and the teaching of the Lord. In fact, I’ve seen plenty of this “authority argument” in its negative form from non-Catholics arguing against the papacy. Basically, they point to their rejection of the doctrine as PROOF for its non-existence!

 

[Cavaradossi]

But did Vico actually make this argument claimed here at all? Did Vico point to the authority of the Church as proof? Does it now mean that Catholics cannot point to the teachings and arguments of the Church for their own strength, reasonability and truth, but can only do so if they mean to point to the authority with which they are made? I’ve seen many debates on the papacy, the truth of the Church with non-Catholics etc- I’m yet to see Catholics defend the doctrines against non-Catholics by making this silly argument claimed here, but I’ve seen instead plenty of arguements made by them based on their truths, reasonability, grounding in the early Church and the teaching of the Lord. In fact, I’ve seen plenty of this “authority argument” in its negative form from non-Catholics arguing against the papacy. Basically, they point to their rejection of the doctrine as PROOF for its non-existence!

I have seen it all the time. People will assume the authority of the papacy and will then interpret all history around that one fact, so that those who seem to accept the papal dogmas are construed as evidence, while those who seemed to reject them are dismissed as being ‘disobedient’ or ‘heretics’ (even those who died in good standing with the Church).

 

[Marybeloved]

I have seen it all the time. People will assume the authority of the papacy and will then interpret all history around that one fact, so that those who seem to accept the papal dogmas are construed as evidence, while those who seemed to reject them are dismissed as being ‘disobedient’ or ‘heretics’ (even those who died in good standing with the Church).

Just like people will assume the non-existence of the papacy and interpret History through that prism, while dismissing any evidence for it in History as “flowery language” and all manner of such unreasonable arguments? Yes, I’ve seen that too!

 

[ConstantineTG]

They shouldn’t. While Orthodoxy does have a great deal of the Truth, they do not have all of it. The Catholic Church alone has all of the Truth. An example of this is that the Catholic Church has the papacy while the Orthodox Church does not. I have also heard that some Orthodox bishops and patriarchs allow for certain types of contraception and contraception is always immoral to use to prevent pregnancy.

And NFP doesn’t prevent pregnancy?

 

[Peter_J]

And NFP doesn’t prevent pregnancy?

She didn’t say that. :tsktsk:

 

[Pierian]

I suggest some people here would benefit from googling “The Fourth Crusade” and spending a good few hours researching it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

She didn’t say that. :tsktsk:

Her last line was, “contraception is always immoral to use to prevent pregnancy.”

NFP IS CONTRACEPTION. The intent is the same, but you just use natural body functions to accomplish it. I mean, most of the time you even use technology to accomplish it, like a chart, thermometer, etc. You know that having sex on a particular day is not going to result in pregnancy, how is that not avoiding pregnancy?

 

[Nine_Two]

But did Vico actually make this argument claimed here at all? Did Vico point to the authority of the Church as proof?

Yes, and yes.

Does it now mean that Catholics cannot point to the teachings and arguments of the Church for their own strength, reasonability and truth, but can only do so if they mean to point to the authority with which they are made?

Of course they can, they just shouldn’t expect arguments to be taken seriously when used with those outside the Church.

 

[Marybeloved]

Yes, and yes…

Where? All he did was provide a document of the CDF. You are the one who presumed that he was pointing to the CDF’s authority instead of the points they raised in that document.

Of course they can, they just shouldn’t expect arguments to be taken seriously when used with those outside the Church.

Are you now saying you’ll dismiss something just because it was said by an authority of the Catholic Church? How is that any less irrational than what you’re accusing Vico of?