Why would a Roman Catholic become Orthodox?

[AgnosTheist]

I’m becoming increasingly hostile to the idea of anyone converting from one religious tradition to another under any circumstances

Dont become too narrow, my friend. People have different needs. All that really matters is how you live your life. Thats what Jesus emphasized, not the brand name.

 

[a_pilgrim]

Since the Eastern-rite Catholics are in communion with the Latin Church, they must accept the practices of the Latin Church as approved practices of their Church.

And vice versa.

From my observation of the Western Church since the Great Schism of 1054, she seems to have disregarded this organic development and has felt no special fidelity to her ancient traditions of iconography, liturgy, fasting, forms of prayer and devotion, style of theology, canonical tradition, ancient hagiographical details and countless other minor traditions of her heritage.

But the Eastern Church - the Eastern Catholic Church, in communion with the See of Peter - has, indeed, maintained fidelity to the very same ancient traditions of which you speak! True, a period of intense latinizations had caused many of these traditions to be “put on the back burner” for decades. But there can be no denying that we are enjoying a current, welcome resurgence of these ancient liturgical and devotional traditions due in no small part to the mandates of our late Holy Father, +John Paul II (“vic’naja jemu pamjat!”). Reference the late Holy Father’s 1995 apostolic letter, Orientale Lumen, in which he extols the riches that these ancient, sacred traditions bring to the entire fabric of Catholicism and, indeed, urges our Latin Catholic brethren to learn of and understand that these traditions, so different than those which developed in the West, are just as valid - just as Catholic - as those traditions and devotions adopted by the Church of the West.

That’s what being “in communion” is all about - unity, not uniformity. Clearly, it cannot be said that the Catholic Church (and by “Catholic” I mean those in communion with the Pope of Rome) had carte blanche discarded the ancient traditions of which you speak, as your post would tend to lead one to believe. I hold myself up as proof: I am a Catholic… I and my Church are in full communion with the Pope of Rome… my liturgical and devotional praxis includes virtually all of the very traditions and devotions (iconography, liturgy, fasting, etc., etc.) that you claim were abandoned by the West. Yet they still exist as part and parcel of the unity that is Catholicism! The “special fidelity to her ancient traditions” that you claim had been abandoned by the West is, indeed, alive and well within today’s Catholic Church, coexisting along side many other traditions - some ancient, some new; all *Catholic! *

Again I say - that’s what being “in communion” is all about - unity, not uniformity!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

This raises a question: how does an individual (such as you or I) discover the form of the ancient Church apart from an interpretation of her writings and actions? If I were to interpret these things with Roman Catholic eyes, it would not be surprising if I found them in agreement with Roman Catholic views. Likewise for the Orthodox. It’s possible for that process to be nothing more than saying, “I discovered that a Roman Catholic interpretation is consistent with itself” or “I discovered that an Orthodox interpretation is consistent with itself.”

Is the historical record sufficiently vast and comprehensive to allow us to reconstruct the form of the ancient Church apart from a Catholic or Orthodox bias?

I think the Protestants have answered this one.

 

[Joab_Anias]

And vice versa.

But the Eastern Church - the Eastern Catholic Church, in communion with the See of Peter - has, indeed, maintained fidelity to the very same ancient traditions of which you speak! True, a period of intense latinizations had caused many of these traditions to be “put on the back burner” for decades. But there can be no denying that we are enjoying a current, welcome resurgence of these ancient liturgical and devotional traditions due in no small part to the mandates of our late Holy Father, +John Paul II (“vic’naja jemu pamjat!”). Reference the late Holy Father’s 1995 apostolic letter, Orientale Lumen, in which he extols the riches that these ancient, sacred traditions bring to the entire fabric of Catholicism and, indeed, urges our Latin Catholic brethren to learn of and understand that these traditions, so different than those which developed in the West, are just as valid - just as Catholic - as those traditions and devotions adopted by the Church of the West.

That’s what being “in communion” is all about - unity, not uniformity. Clearly, it cannot be said that the Catholic Church (and by “Catholic” I mean those in communion with the Pope of Rome) had carte blanche discarded the ancient traditions of which you speak, as your post would tend to lead one to believe. I hold myself up as proof: I am a Catholic… I and my Church are in full communion with the Pope of Rome… my liturgical and devotional praxis includes virtually all of the very traditions and devotions (iconography, liturgy, fasting, etc., etc.) that you claim were abandoned by the West. Yet they still exist as part and parcel of the unity that is Catholicism! The “special fidelity to her ancient traditions” that you claim had been abandoned by the West is, indeed, alive and well within today’s Catholic Church, coexisting along side many other traditions - some ancient, some new; all *Catholic! *

Again I say - that’s what being “in communion” is all about - unity, not uniformity!

[SIGN]Great Post![/SIGN]

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dont become too narrow, my friend. People have different needs. All that really matters is how you live your life. Thats what Jesus emphasized, not the brand name.

Jim Jones, Sun Yung Moon and David Koresh will be happy to hear that.

He who does not gather, scatters. Someone (+) said that somewhere.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

There is nothing wrong with converting to Eastern Catholicism if that is where your cultural ties lay.

To convert to the EO on the other hand is a matter of leaving obedience to authority and for this there should be no reason.

Though dispair may be one reason there is no good theological or scholastic reason to do so.

Peace.

Except when you find out that someone has exceded his authority, and “we ought to obey God rather than men” comes into play. That’s a good theological reason.

I agree that perhaps there is no scholastic reason to do so, which itself might be a reason to do so.

You’re right, there should not be a reason. That there are should tell you something.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Untrue. They most certainly may maintain their eastern practices and culture and are encouraged to do so.

There is no break with tradition in the Roman Church.

I think your confusing the practices of men and the Laws of Christ.

Sure we develop methods for devotion out of love for Jesus but they do not then become binding laws.

Peace.

As someone posted on a replacement forum, Latins have berated the uniates as much as the Orthodox for, say, not having Eucharistic Adoration. A deficiency they say.

In the ancient Church the baptized was chrismated. Not so now at Rome.

No one received Eucharist until after chrismation. Not so now at Rome.

In the ancient Church married men were received as candidates for ordination. Not so now at Rome.

The “eastern practice” is not encouraged outside the East. Don’t wander off the reservation.

The Creed at Constantinople said “Who proceeds from the Father. (that’s a period there).” So too at Rome, Pope St. Leo so posting on the doors of St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s, and so at the Pope’s insistence at Rome until 1017. Not so now at Rome.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Except when you find out that someone has exceded his authority, and “we ought to obey God rather than men” comes into play. That’s a good theological reason.

I agree that perhaps there is no scholastic reason to do so, which itself might be a reason to do so.

You’re right, there should not be a reason. That there are should tell you something.

What is to me if someone exceeds his authority and what has that to do with theology?

God is the author of theology and He holds the ultimate authority. He has however delegated those below Him with bits of His authority. So long as they do not abuse His gift I am obligated to oblige. And even if they were to abuse His gift I am still bound by the Church as a whole. Not to walk away in pride in focus on the spec in my brothers eye.

The body of the deposit of faith contains more scholarship than I would ever be able to absorb so what use is rite hoping? If you’re talk about rebellion such as in the case of the EO then I see no faith in that.

There certainly is nothing in disobedience or falsehoods that will teach me much as evidenced by those who walk away from what they refuse to try and understand.

Peace.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So, then where is the respect for the biggest Church in the world…

…now. We don’t live for the present.

The only thing your response has with what the orig(name removed by moderator)oster said is the word “big.”

As for the original poster’s comment: God and you make a majority.

 

[Joab_Anias]

…now. We don’t live for the present.

Though we are called to be not OF the world we are still called to be IN the world to make a difference. If we hide our heads then perhaps our charism is that of a hermit.

The only thing your response has with what the orig(name removed by moderator)oster said is the word “big.”

One other thing, “Respect”. Thats the point.

Peace.

 

[Contarini]

Dont become too narrow, my friend. People have different needs. All that really matters is how you live your life. Thats what Jesus emphasized, not the brand name.

Well, so says your dogma

We are saved in community. It is not just about how we live our lives as individuals. That is the great lie of the modern world.

Edwin

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Though we are called to be not OF the world we are still called to be IN the world to make a difference. If we hide our heads then perhaps our charism is that of a hermit.

One other thing, “Respect”. Thats the point.

Peace.

One reason I respect Holy Tradition is that it is big. I respect Communist China only because it is big. Two different points entirely.

 

[Joab_Anias]

One reason I respect Holy Tradition is that it is big. I respect Communist China only because it is big. Two different points entirely.

Good point. Then we need to examine the definition of tradition and how its defined.

Tradition is defined by our ecclesiological praxis. All are valid and none should be excluded because another views them as irrelevant or innovative progression. This is precisely how the West remains open to Eastern praxis and values the tradition of the East in addition to its own while the same is not reciprocal. If it were the EO would have no problem with the West or other Eastern traditions in whom we ARE united with us. Traditionalism is different and contrary.

It portraits an attitude Jesus certainly didn’t exemplify, even to those who were obstinately bound by their human laws. He did however call them a stiff necked peoples. Though they were to murder Him and drive the apostles out of the synagogs for not adhering to the false laws, Jesus, being divine, remained open to them and never excluded them in spite of their folly.
The same is untrue of the reactions to the united Eastern and Western Catholic Church by the non-Catholic EO who prefer to take a radical tact that no one is orthodox save themselves. Of course there is always a left and right wing take on the situation but only Jesus and Catholicism is in the center with open arms.

We expect to be persecuted for Christ’s sake because He told us we would. We just never expect it from our own and when it comes from our apostolic brethren its even more heart wrenching.

Peace.

 

[Prometheum_x]

Good point. Then we need to examine the definition of tradition and how its defined.

Tradition is defined by our ecclesiological praxis. All are valid and none should be excluded because another views them as irrelevant or innovative progression. This is precisely how the West remains open to Eastern praxis and values the tradition of the East in addition to its own while the same is not reciprocal. If it were the EO would have no problem with the West or other Eastern traditions in whom we ARE united with us. Traditionalism is different and contrary.

It portraits an attitude Jesus certainly didn’t exemplify, even to those who were obstinately bound by their human laws. He did however call them a stiff necked peoples. Though they were to murder Him and drive the apostles out of the synagogs for not adhering to the false laws, Jesus, being divine, remained open to them and never excluded them in spite of their folly.
The same is untrue of the reactions to the united Eastern and Western Catholic Church by the non-Catholic EO who prefer to take a radical tact that no one is orthodox save themselves. Of course there is always a left and right wing take on the situation but only Jesus and Catholicism is in the center with open arms.

We expect to be persecuted for Christ’s sake because He told us we would. We just never expect it from our own and when it comes from our apostolic brethren its even more heart wrenching.

Peace.

I doubt that you truly believe that all tradition in the Church is valid. For example, one tradition of the East that the Catholic Church does not value is the Orthodox tradition of not submitting to the Pope. If this tradition is not from the beginning, then it is an Orthodox innovation, but this innovation is likewise not valued.

 

[Joab_Anias]

I doubt that you truly believe that all tradition in the Church is valid. For example, one tradition of the East that the Catholic Church does not value is the Orthodox tradition of not submitting to the Pope. If this tradition is not from the beginning, then it is an Orthodox innovation, but this innovation is likewise not valued.

Hard to follow but I agree. A tradition must be sanctioned in truth that draws us closer to God.

I would not consider a tradition of obstinate prejudice a valid tradition.

The authority of the hierarchy is more than tradtion, it is dogmatically and theologically expressed throughout the ages.

Peace.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Good point. Then we need to examine the definition of tradition and how its defined.

Tradition is defined by our ecclesiological praxis. All are valid and none should be excluded because another views them as irrelevant or innovative progression. This is precisely how the West remains open to Eastern praxis and values the tradition of the East in addition to its own while the same is not reciprocal. If it were the EO would have no problem with the West or other Eastern traditions in whom we ARE united with us. Traditionalism is different and contrary.

It portraits an attitude Jesus certainly didn’t exemplify, even to those who were obstinately bound by their human laws. He did however call them a stiff necked peoples. Though they were to murder Him and drive the apostles out of the synagogs for not adhering to the false laws, Jesus, being divine, remained open to them and never excluded them in spite of their folly.
The same is untrue of the reactions to the united Eastern and Western Catholic Church by the non-Catholic EO who prefer to take a radical tact that no one is orthodox save themselves. Of course there is always a left and right wing take on the situation but only Jesus and Catholicism is in the center with open arms.

We expect to be persecuted for Christ’s sake because He told us we would. We just never expect it from our own and when it comes from our apostolic brethren its even more heart wrenching.

Peace.

The only non-Catholic EO would schimatics (Old Ritualists, Old Calendarists, etc).

There is a reason why the Fathers defined the Church as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic and Orthodox. St. Maximos the confessor had his tongue cut out and his right hand cut off for telling the emperor and the “whole church” i.e. the Monothelites, “If the whole universe were to commune with you, I alone would refuse to commune with you.”

Was St. Maximos being narrow? You bet. Enter the narrow gate.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hard to follow but I agree. A tradition must be sanctioned in truth that draws us closer to God.

I would not consider a tradition of obstinate prejudice a valid tradition.

The authority of the hierarchy is more than tradtion, it is dogmatically and theologically expressed throughout the ages.

Peace.

How about a tradition of obstinate grandiosity?

The authority of the hierarcy is of divine origin and so expressed throughout the ages. The tradition of there being, in essence, only one bishop upon whom all hangs does not reflect the ecclesiology of the Fathers.

 

[Joab_Anias]

How about a tradition of obstinate grandiosity?

The authority of the hierarcy is of divine origin and so expressed throughout the ages. The tradition of there being, in essence, only one bishop upon whom all hangs does not reflect the ecclesiology of the Fathers.

I used to see grandiosity and pomp too years ago. Then the Holy Spirit led me to the knowlege of just how humbe the Holy Father really is and that the pomp of Rome, at least in my lifetime isn’t due to anything the Church does as it no longer patrons the arts but more-so by the generosity of the faithful.

It is not only a tradition that there is a primary bishop. There is a theological necessity and scriptural basis for it as well.

Not all hangs on this one primary bishop at all and he seldom acts for all. He does however act as a figurehead with the whole of the Church behind him. Most things he presents are the teaching of the respective offices of the Magisterium. He doesn’t have the power of veto as much as he has the power of settling dispute. Though while he is a manager of sorts his intention is to do so through the guidance of Christ.

This is so much the ecclesiology of the Fathers that it pre-existed the Fathers and is evident in the Apostles themselves. One only needs to accept the primacy of Peter as established by Jesus and then recognize (as he said) he was making this primacy permanent upon him. We do not recognize the man per se’ (because we know men can be faulty) but the office he fills which carries the special protection and promise of Christ to ultimately not be led into error.

Mat 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My assembly, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against her.

Mat 16:19 And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. And whatever you bind on earth shall occur, having been bound in Heaven. And whatever you may loose on the earth shall be, having been loosed in Heaven.

Joh 14:26 but the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things and shall remind you of all things that I said to you.

1Ti 3:15 But if I delay, that you may know how to behave in the house of God, which is the assembly of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

2Ti 2:19 However, the foundation of God stands firm, having this seal, "The Lord knew the ones being His;

1Ti 4:1 But the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, cleaving to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons,

1Co 15:2 by which you also are being kept safe, if you hold fast the Word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

The power granted to Peter to loose and bind is what were holding to. You will find it no where else carrying the promise of protection from error by Christ himself. Even if you disagree with a Pope you must know that what he binds here is bound in heaven, like it or not.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Respectfully, Adam, while I can agree with this in principle, the problem is only certain fathers, namely Greek fathers are represented and respected in such a view. In other words, I agree with you if we include the whole church at the time.

I include the complete religious experience of East and West during the first millennium in my assessment. I encourage you to read some accounts of the Roman, English and Irish Churches of the first millennium, focusing on the expression of their Faith. I think you’ll find a Church that is very much like the Orthodox Church of today. Of course, there was an authentic Latin Orthodox patrimony, but it bore the marks of the same doctrinal and expressional conservatism that the East had. Unfortunately, after 1054 this communion of attitude and expression of Faith grew apart, so that now the Latin West has abandoned almost all of her ancient traditions and is on an endless trajectory of change.

The Orthodox Church, sadly left without her Latin brothers, is the only Church left that can still bear witness to the organically developed form of the ancient Church. This is a good sign of her truth, as only the ancient Faith can maintain such connection with the form of the ancient Church. And given that the chief cause of separation between our Churches is the Papacy, and the Papacy is the cause of the West’s loss of so many her good traditions, it is not unreasonable to claim that this is a sign that the Papacy has been understood in a defective way since the Schism and that the Orthodox are indeed the true Church.

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

One reason I can think of, is the desire to be in a legitimately apostolic church whose practice and expression can tend to overwhelm someone with scrupulosity. I have this type of personality and frankly find freedom in Christ sometimes difficult between confessions, never sure if I am in a state of grace except right after confession. The Orthodox seem seem to not have such a psychological trap for people like me. But is my problem and does not make Orthodoxy the church or Catholicism not the church.

My friend, in the midst of your struggles remember that the true Faith will breed the good fruit of peace of soul and the grace to focus on repentance instead of the gravity of sins. I’ll also be praying for you to overcome your scrupulosity. Remember that the Lord has always called for repentance for sins and never for a weighing of their gravity (which is too relative to judge in any case).

God bless,

Adam