Why would a Roman Catholic become Orthodox?

[paradoxy]

I agree that there have been a number of changes in the RCC since Vatican II and perhaps even before that. Of course, the number of changes in the E Orthodox Church has been very small, but is it zero or is it small but non-zero? I heard that there been some small number of changes in the E Orthodox Church:
For examples:

1. Should women wear headcovering in Church? According to 1 Cor 11:4-16, women are to wear headcovering in Church. And Early Christian art shows all women wearing headcovering in Church. Clement of Alexandria and Hermas recommended that women wear headcovering.
   But in the USA today, in the E. Othodox Churches, the teaching has changed and women are allowed to worship in Church without headcovering.

I’m an EO woman in Serbia, and yes, I was strongly advised by my spiritual father to cover my head in church AND wear a long skirt/dress.

1. The use of musical instrumentation during Liturgical services. This was generally forbidden in the Orthodox Churches and it was recommended to use only the human voice unaccompanied by any musical instrumentation. However, the teaching has been changed and there are Greek Orthodox Churches in the USA which allow organ music.

NO instrumental music here for worship at all.

1. The use of contraceptives. It had been previously taught that the use of contraceptives was wrong, however, now they are allowed under certain restricted circumstances. An E. Orthodox priest told me that in many cases, he would allow them to be used by a married couple if they already had 3 children.

In certain circumstances non-abortifacient contraceptive methods or the use of NFP can be ALLOWED by a spiritual father, which doesn’t mean they’re “OK” - just like a person might be allowed to fast less strictly, due to specific circumstances and personal weakness, but this does not change the official fasting guidelines, which it would normally be a sin to break. A discerning spiritual father may allow such waverings and still have the person receive the Eucharist and slowly grow in faith.

Perhaps the problem is the USA, and not EO/RC, for many instances of change/abuse. I questioned my good RC friend, tongue-in-cheek, about Clown Masses, liturgical dancing, guitar music at Mass, etc. The guy is 60+ yo and has lived in most of Europe, Africa and Latin America and has never even heard of any of the stuff people here keep complaining about.

 

[jam070406]

Perhaps the problem is the USA, and not EO/RC, for many instances of change/abuse. I questioned my good RC friend, tongue-in-cheek, about Clown Masses, liturgical dancing, guitar music at Mass, etc. The guy is 60+ yo and has lived in most of Europe, Africa and Latin America and has never even heard of any of the stuff people here keep complaining about.

I think you make a good point. People like to take this one isolated, tragic instance of so called “clown mass” and use it to discredit the entire Catholic church. It has been used time and time again as if it is the norm or proper litugical practice. I have NEVER seen such a thing in my entire life. If I did, I would certainly complain and I’m sure others would as well. It was clearly a horrible abuse and I wish people would stop using this incident to throw in the face of other Catholics just as appalled. I don’t even know where this took place, California?

 

[jam070406]

And where are they now?

With Luther? But only God can judge so I best not speculate.

 

[psalmody]

Re: Why would a Roman Catholic become Orthodox?

Are we implying that Roman Catholics are not if fact “Orthodox”

what does “orthodox” mean.

Does it not mean “Correct Belief”

or “Right Belief”

or “Correct Worship”

or"Correct Glory"

does it not mean conforming to established Doctrine ??

So if the Roman Church is not truly Orthodox within itself and within the boundaries of its own territory and See of Rome and all of the West then what is it?

Is it Un Orthodox ?meaning that it

-Doesnt conform to the established Doctrines of the Church

-Doesnt have the correct beliefs

and Doesnt have correct worship

So why “wouldnt” the Roman Catholic Church want to become “Orthodox”?
and in turn becoming on the same level with all the other “Orthodox” churches of the world and being in a state of union and communion with all the other ancient ,historical Holy Sees and churches from all around the world which all make up one great big “Orthodox” or “Correctly Believing Church” .

It would be great if the See of Rome could restore its position back within the Body of the “Correctly Believing Churches” with its head bishop the pope of Rome being on an equal level with his other fellow Patriarchs to whom all been given the right by Christ and the whole church to preside with full authority over each of their own churches and jurisdiction.

Do you Roman Catholics not understand that the See of Rome is just one out of the many other Great and Holy Sees of the Christian Tradition and yes of course,all churches under Rome are under the spiritual authority and jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome,but just like the other Holy Sees , the Head Bishop or Patriarch only has authority over his own See and cannot interfere with the affairs of Other Holy Sees which have their own head bishop/patriarch.

Are there any Roman Catholics who agree?.

And are there some who disagree?

 

[Stathios]

Only when they can’t agree among themselves and it comes down to one apostle to settle it.

Otherwise they are always humbly asking themselves what Jesus wants.

Peace.

It is like the saying goes, I gave him the ROPE and he hung himself with it.

You just made my case for me. In 1054, the Bishops of the east agreed with The Bishop of Constantinople. In other words they over rit the Pope. He still would not budge till a 1,000 years later when he said he was wrong. (John Paul) The Pope is no king nor President. He is like Pelosi is to the House. She only has ONE VOTE.
The 44 Bishops of the East had spoken and It Is the Pope that is at fault. The truth is The Pope wanted the result of 1054 and he got it. So NOBODY in the West could challenge him. The Bishops of the West were merly Pupets. I recommend the movie “Luther” You will then see how The Pope was like a Midevil King.
You could NOT say this or that. NOW I do not agree what Martin Luther did. But some of his points were valid.

 

[jam070406]

It is like the saying goes, I gave him the ROPE and he hung himself with it.

You just made my case for me. In 1054, the Bishops of the east agreed with The Bishop of Constantinople. In other words they over rit the Pope. He still would not budge till a 1,000 years later when he said he was wrong. (John Paul) The Pope is no king nor President. He is like Pelosi is to the House. She only has ONE VOTE.
The 44 Bishops of the East had spoken and It Is the Pope that is at fault. The truth is The Pope wanted the result of 1054 and he got it. So NOBODY in the West could challenge him. The Bishops of the West were merly Pupets. I recommend the movie “Luther” You will then see how The Pope was like a Midevil King.
You could NOT say this or that. NOW I do not agree what Martin Luther did. But some of his points were valid.

The fact that the other Eastern churches sided with Constantinople doesn’t give credance to Rome being wrong. The Eastern churches were wrong during earlier periods while Rome held the Faith. The early Church Fathers stressed that one must not depart from the See of Peter.
Are you aware that in early centuries, before the great schism, Alexandria, Antioch and Constaninople all had heretical Bishops at once while Rome held to the true belief? So the fact that the entire East could split off is not too shocking given the past history of the East before the schism.
You assertion that Rome wanted to split is way off base. Rome brought Eastern churches back from past schisms and tried other times after the great schism to end the schism. It even reinstated orthodox Bishops that heretical Bishops deposed. To say that Rome wanted the split is wrong and you should not bare such false witness.

 

[jam070406]

It is like the saying goes, I gave him the ROPE and he hung himself with it.

You just made my case for me. In 1054, the Bishops of the east agreed with The Bishop of Constantinople. In other words they over rit the Pope. He still would not budge till a 1,000 years later when he said he was wrong. (John Paul) The Pope is no king nor President. He is like Pelosi is to the House. She only has ONE VOTE.
The 44 Bishops of the East had spoken and It Is the Pope that is at fault. The truth is The Pope wanted the result of 1054 and he got it. So NOBODY in the West could challenge him. The Bishops of the West were merly Pupets. I recommend the movie “Luther” You will then see how The Pope was like a Midevil King.
You could NOT say this or that. NOW I do not agree what Martin Luther did. But some of his points were valid.

And even the Orthodox admit that the Pope and Rome had a place of honor and was successor to Peter. Whom the Fathers call the prince of the Apostles.

My first point is evident at the council of Chalcedon when the bishops declared “Peter has spoken through Leo”

 

[bogoljub]

And even the Orthodox admit that the Pope and Rome had a place of honor and was successor to Peter. Whom the Fathers call the prince of the Apostles.

My first point is evident at the council of Chalcedon when the bishops declared “Peter has spoken through Leo”

God bless!

1. The case with the clown masses; I only witnessed clown masses and not some more “correct” and I am living in western europe, in usuall 95 % rcc countries. I never ever has seen an normal Liturgy because even the normal Mass is blasphemious - like I have said even the Mother of God said this. Like I have written even rcc priests tell the people here not to participate in such Masses it would be a sin- but of course many rcc do not know where to go else ! We have here many rcc parishes without any priest and the parishes with priest are so modernised that traditional catholics are angered by their masses.
   So it is not only one or two parishes it is the whole rcc church here.

Like we have discussed the Topic of the Pope so often without any effort. We believe that the Patriarch of Rome was the Primus inter pares, we do not deny this- he was the first of the equal. We have many great Popes in our calender and we honor and love them very much. One of my “favorite” Saints are St. Gregory the great Pope of Rome and St. Leo the great and the great Pope Sylvester. I also have not problem with: Peter has spoken through Leo - great. But we also say Paul has spoken through Chrysostom ( this is the reason why his ears are complete incorrupt still today). He was the great Patriarch of the whole west the beloved Brother of Brothers BUT this was changed with time ! The Popes began to be proud and think they are like Christ on earth and they can do what they want - like a Monarch or Emperor - this is not the faith of the fathers and not of the orthodox church !

And also the Dogma that the Pope is infallable; is not the faith of the Fathers and can be proofed easily ! And I ask u again when he is infallable why did they change and introduce so many things contrary to the faith of old ? How can they allow "clown"masses and blaspheming the Most holy Communion , please tell me ?

IN CHRIST

 

[bogoljub]

The fact that the other Eastern churches sided with Constantinople doesn’t give credance to Rome being wrong. The Eastern churches were wrong during earlier periods while Rome held the Faith. The early Church Fathers stressed that one must not depart from the See of Peter.
Are you aware that in early centuries, before the great schism, Alexandria, Antioch and Constaninople all had heretical Bishops at once while Rome held to the true belief? So the fact that the entire East could split off is not too shocking given the past history of the East before the schism.
You assertion that Rome wanted to split is way off base. Rome brought Eastern churches back from past schisms and tried other times after the great schism to end the schism. It even reinstated orthodox Bishops that heretical Bishops deposed. To say that Rome wanted the split is wrong and you should not bare such false witness.

God bless!

You have a mis-concept of the church ! The roman church also had many heretic Bishops and even Popes.There was a time when most roman Bishops were arians. What u are saying of the orthodox church I also could say about the rcc church- there was no unity even with the Pope infallable- why the aglican church seperated, or why the protestants - the old catholics, and the many many other splitter groups of the catholic church ?

There will always be schism and seperation but this is not a sign that the orthodox church has no unity ! That’s nonsense ! It would be the same to say Christ is guilty of dis-unity of the Apostels and that Jude was his betrayer. There will always be betrayers of faith but this has nothing todo with unity or not.

I have quoted the commonitorium of St. Vincent of Lerin and he is quiet clear in explaining where the true church is to be found. He did not say where the Pope is !
The same when St. Maximus was asked; He said the truth is not in Rome or in constantinople the truth is the correct confession !
So he did clearly say that there is no infallable Pope.
But of course many Popes ( like other Patriarchs of alexandria, Antiochia…) were great defenders of the orthodox faith. I think the Pope Felix and others…and we honor them greatly- no question.

In CHRIST

 

[jam070406]

How can they allow "clown"masses and blaspheming the Most holy Communion , please tell me ?

Please tell me what a “clown” Mass is. I have never heard of such a Mass approved by Rome.

 

[jam070406]

God bless!

You have a mis-concept of the church ! The roman church also had many heretic Bishops and even Popes.There was a time when most roman Bishops were arians. What u are saying of the orthodox church I also could say about the rcc church- there was no unity even with the Pope infallable- why the aglican church seperated, or why the protestants - the old catholics, and the many many other splitter groups of the catholic church ?

There will always be schism and seperation but this is not a sign that the orthodox church has no unity ! That’s nonsense ! It would be the same to say Christ is guilty of dis-unity of the Apostels and that Jude was his betrayer. There will always be betrayers of faith but this has nothing todo with unity or not.

I have quoted the commonitorium of St. Vincent of Lerin and he is quiet clear in explaining where the true church is to be found. He did not say where the Pope is !
The same when St. Maximus was asked; He said the truth is not in Rome or in constantinople the truth is the correct confession !
So he did clearly say that there is no infallable Pope.
But of course many Popes ( like other Patriarchs of alexandria, Antiochia…) were great defenders of the orthodox faith. I think the Pope Felix and others…and we honor them greatly- no question.

In CHRIST

And there are plenty of Saints that said the Catholic church is the true church. Not sure your point.

 

[Stathios]

The fact that the other Eastern churches sided with Constantinople doesn’t give credance to Rome being wrong. The Eastern churches were wrong during earlier periods while Rome held the Faith. The early Church Fathers stressed that one must not depart from the See of Peter.
Are you aware that in early centuries, before the great schism, Alexandria, Antioch and Constaninople all had heretical Bishops at once while Rome held to the true belief? So the fact that the entire East could split off is not too shocking given the past history of the East before the schism.
You assertion that Rome wanted to split is way off base. Rome brought Eastern churches back from past schisms and tried other times after the great schism to end the schism. It even reinstated orthodox Bishops that heretical Bishops deposed. To say that Rome wanted the split is wrong and you should not bare such false witness.

So Antioch is Not The See of Peter. So it is no longer the see because it has no communion with The Pope.

 

[jam070406]

So Antioch is Not The See of Peter. So it is no longer the see because it has no communion with The Pope.

:doh2:

 

[Stathios]

And even the Orthodox admit that the Pope and Rome had a place of honor and was successor to Peter. Whom the Fathers call the prince of the Apostles.

My first point is evident at the council of Chalcedon when the bishops declared “Peter has spoken through Leo”

Yes he had Honor but not Complete rule. Why even have an Ecumenical Coucil then???
Why don’t he bark orders from the Throne. First amongst equals! I believe it was the 3rd or the 4th Ecumenical council that said ALL Bishops were equal. Rather they be a metropolitan, archbishop, or just a Bishop.
The Ecumenical Council was the higher authority. And if the council disagreed with The Pope then The Pope as well as any Patriarch had to back down. Now you say that the early church fathers said this or that. If you read the book, “Two Paths” that author takes transcrips from the Vatican and other Catholic places and shows the first millenuim fathers saw Peter as first amongst equals. He even talks about “You are Peter and apon this rock I will build my Church.” This frase was asked to Bishops that were scolars and you would be surprised tha 82% of these Bishops had an Orthodox point of view of these versus. I recommend you read the book. Once again it is called “Two Paths” go to your Orthodox Book store and you will see it for yourselves.

 

[Stathios]

:doh2:

And what is that suppose to mean.

 

[Stathios]

Please tell me what a “clown” Mass is. I have never heard of such a Mass approved by Rome.

Rock Mass. You know guitars and other modern stuff. My mother is Roman Catholic I seen the Mass been destroyed over the years.

 

[bogoljub]

OK, thanks bogoljub. I think you are right here. Of course the Orthodox Church is a great Church. I just remarked that it is a small overstatement to say that never has anything ever changed in the Orthodox Church. Of course, the changes are pretty small but they are there.
All of the ancient icons and paintings show that women had their heads covered during prayer, and I just mentioned that this is not universally observed today. In the Catholic Church women don’t cover their heads as a rule, and this is a change since before when they did. There is a Catholic group called SSPX which says only the traditional Latin Mass and they require that women cover their heads during Mass. But the Catholic Church has supposedly excommunicated them and they are supposedly in a state of quasi-schism from the Catholic Church.
I went to a Greek Orthodox Church service in the USA and observed that most women do not have their heads covered. I did see in Russia, that a great majority, if not all, women had their heads covered in the Orthodox Churches there.
It is a small change, but I was just observing that the number of changes was not zero as had been indicated.
Thanks again for your explanations.

God bless!

I try to do my best !

But u are soooo true ! In some so called orthodox churches in the usa and western europe they introduced some foreign things - it would be a ly to deny it. But I have to say for me they are not orthodox anymore. Not everything called orthodox is orthodox !
Oh how often Blessed Seraphim rose wrote about suffering orthodoxy ! I can tell u that in russia u are not even allowed to venerate a cross without covering. Usually it is not allowed for woman to wear pants or short sleeves it is also not liked when woman have short hair but the same with man - they are not allowed to wear shirts with short sleeves or short pants.
So is the new calender : for me it is uncanonical and many many orthodox Saints and Elders were against the change !

It is an old apostolic Traditon that w stand on the left side and man on the right and not mixed !

God also worked many great miracles not to change the calender- the appearance over Athens in 1925 thousends of greeks could see the Crosse of Light appearing on the old calender feast of the Veneration of the cross. The Holy Fire did not appear in Jerusalem so the Patriarch returned to the old. The Theotokos appeared to different orthodox and told them not to change the calender, she said only the old calender is ther correct one.

But we are living in time of apostasy, will Christ find faith when he returns ?

There will be only a few with the correct faith and Tradition only a few !

But this is the difference we do not say that we are infallable or that we can not err- of corse we can- when we leave the Tradition and the Holy canons ! But the catholics say that they have and infallable instance - when so many things are contrary to true faith and Tradition ! How can u believe it seeing the great errors and dis-unity in the rcc ?

IN CHRIST

 

[jam070406]

Yes he had Honor but not Complete rule. Why even have an Ecumenical Coucil then???
Why don’t he bark orders from the Throne. First amongst equals! I believe it was the 3rd or the 4th Ecumenical council that said ALL Bishops were equal. Rather they be a metropolitan, archbishop, or just a Bishop.
The Ecumenical Council was the higher authority. And if the council disagreed with The Pope then The Pope as well as any Patriarch had to back down. Now you say that the early church fathers said this or that. If you read the book, “Two Paths” that author takes transcrips from the Vatican and other Catholic places and shows the first millenuim fathers saw Peter as first amongst equals. He even talks about “You are Peter and apon this rock I will build my Church.” This frase was asked to Bishops that were scolars and you would be surprised tha 82% of these Bishops had an Orthodox point of view of these versus. I recommend you read the book. Once again it is called “Two Paths” go to your Orthodox Book store and you will see it for yourselves.

I suggest to you Upon this Rock and Jesus, Peter and the Keys.

 

[jam070406]

Rock Mass. You know guitars and other modern stuff. My mother is Roman Catholic I seen the Mass been destroyed over the years.

Now could you provide me with the specific Papal or council documents that authorize these things you just described?

 

[jam070406]

CYPRIAN [A.D. 251]

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]…On him he builds his Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17]; and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy was given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.” (Cyprian, Letter 59 (55), 14 to Cornelius of Rome, c. AD 252)