www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Why are you Catholic and not Orthodox?

Care to share? Why remain Eastern Catholic and not become Orthodox? What made you make this choice?

From my current viewpoint - there is no reason to remain Eastern Catholic.

Unless someone can convince me otherwise - I am considering converting from Eastern Catholic to Orthodoxy - I do not see the advantages to practicing an Eastern religion under the heavy hand of Latinization. I am currently waiting for 1 year to make sure I'm not just jumping ship. I also wonder if I am jumping ship - am I jumping ship because it is going to sink?

I would like to hear good reasons why I should remain Eastern Catholic from others.

Are you Orthodox or Eastern Catholic?

John

p.s. I love the Pope - but I love the Pope as The Patriarch of Rome

I was originally Roman Catholic but had considered Orthodoxy beforehand and found that Byzantine Catholicism worked better for me (and was tired of bad liturgy and the unhealthy atmosphere going around) and since I believe that the Papacy makes logical sense and is a unique identifier that the Orthodox lack but was there from the beginning, I stay Catholic. I personally think it's great to have someone to put their foot down - I've noticed varying opinions on some more important things among the Orthodox that just *cannot* be solved with their current ecclesiology. Of course, having someone demand order can only work so well when others don't listen! But still... both sides acknowledge the Bishop of Rome's importance, and I can't bring myself to acknowledge that the Lord would let the 1st millennium's court of appeal go into heresy. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, the waves might be a bit more still on the other side of the pool, but consider this: if the Catholic communion is the true Church, then wouldn't it make sense for us to have the most problems? I mean, the Devil would naturally be up our wazoo perpetually. Look at the Church before the Great Schism - was it a peaceful time? No! It was just as nuts as now!

If people are becoming Orthodox thinking they do not have problems, well, they're in for a rude awakening. No Church on earth is free from problems. The very nature where the Church is, a world that still feels the effects of sin and death, means that nothing here is perfect.

Shlomo Aho (Brother) Constantine,

I would like to point out that your question is based on a number of false premisses. They are:

1) Eastern Catholics all belong to the Byzantine Tradition. I know that you did not mean to come across this way but that is how your question reads.
A) For those of us who do not follow the Byzantine Tradition, if we converted to our counterparts we would then have to follow a heretical sect since there are NO non-Byzantine Eastern Orthodox Churches.
B) Further, in my case (I am Maronite) there is no direct Oriental Orthodox counterpart to my Church.

2) Your question is to open ended since you do not list what type of Orthodoxy one should convert to (Eastern or Oriental). To help add to the confussion, even though the Church of the East does not list itself as "Orthodox" that Church too should be listed since your question is so open ended.

Since liturgy is an important part of "Orthodoxy"; Eastern Orthodoxy and the Church of the East are both the most restrictive Churches for this since they only have have "one" Liturgical Holy Tradition that they use.

For me this is an important part of why I am Eastern Catholic. Catholicism encompasses all legitimate Holy Liturgical Traditions.

3) Even though I too resent the "Colonical Office", I feel that the only way to change the Church is by being an active member inside of it. For others it is too much and they convert out, but I do not feel that it would productive for me to do such. I will add to this, but I have to go.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

I never said "Eastern Orthodox", I just said "Orthodox". I do know that the "different kinds of Orthodox", so to speak. The Oriental Orthodox are Orthodox, although not in communion with the Chalcedonian Orthodox.


Yes, I know. The Church there is no counterpart, but it does, by Catholic viewpoint, belong to a Liturgical tradition shared by other Churches that have Orthodox counterparts. Therefore you can still choose to become Orthodox in the same tradition, albeit another Church.


To me it doesn't matter which one. If one felt their faith is better served being in the Catholic side of their tradition, I want to know why they made that choice over being on the Orthodox side.


Yet we hear complaints from Eastern Catholics that the Liturgical traditions are not as faithful and as authentic as they are on the Orthodox counterparts.


I do believe in this too. However, sometimes I wonder how much my presence within the Church is actually changing it.

The reasons I gave myself when I was baptized sixteen years ago on Pentecost Sunday seem unconvincing to me today. All I can say is this is where God intended me to be, and here is where I will stay until He tells me to go elsewhere.

Because when I asked the Lord in prayer to answer this same question for me, He gave me this, via Stephen Ray:

John 21:10-11 Jesus said, 'Bring some of the fish you have just caught. Simon Peter went aboard and dragged the net ashore, full of big fish, one hundred and fifty-three of them; and in spite of there being so many the net was not broken.

The number 153 represents, according to some, the number of nations in the world at the time. So it is Peter who, by the Lord's command, drags the nations to the shore BY HIMSELF in a net that is not torn. To me, this means that it will be the person in the Chair of Peter who drags all the nations to the Kingdom in unity.

Stuart

What were the reasons you gave yourself.

How have they changed.

John

Hmmm...'true church'--now there is a loaded phrase used to attack and counter attack.

How can either side of the cultural divide be the 'true church' when one bishop (albeit the acknowleged seat of the 'first among equals') has gone it alone, and the remaining bishops have gone it alone without him?!?

One might say that the latter have adhered to traditions more closely and genuinely (the Orthodox) and truly they have.

The other side might say that as seat of Peter they have the right to have changed traditions, but I don't know if that is as convincing as the prior.

My final conclusion: Neither is the true church, but are equal and broken parts of the first original true Church of Christ.

As for where one should be, I think that is between him and God, and I don't think that God takes sides (either in this world or in Heaven) other than knowing what is best for the individual (in this world) in taking into account his or her overall picture (spirituality, family, culture, tradition, understanding, approach, etc.)

Peace,
Alice

Dear John,
Glory be to Jesus Christ!

I also for a time seriously considered joining the "Orthodox side" of the fence, but after much study, and prayer, realized that it would be a bad move.

For all the problems with Latinization in the Eastern Catholic Churches (and it IS a problem that needs MORE attention), you won't escape similar, and other-worse-problems in Orthodoxy:

1. Just look historically: Hellenization, Russification, etc...whoever becomes the "big guy" in Orthodoxy, a powerful patriarchate, tries to impose their rites, customs, language, etc...on other, smaller, Orthodox Churches. Greeks did it to Syrians, Bulgarians, etc... Russians did it/do it to the Georgians, Ukrainians, etc... Look at Moscow Patriarchate today with the Ukrainian Church(MP)-the daughter ruling the mother!-some just couldn't take it anymore and broke communion-Kyiv Patriarchate, Ukrainian Autocephalous, etc... Basically, "Latinization" eastern style! We can't run but should fight where we are in our parishes for a return to tradition, and, Rome actually supports this today!-at least on paper.

2. Latinization bothers you...me to. But how about contraception, in-vitro fertilization, divorce & remarriage w/communion, artificial insemination, fertility drugs, etc... all receive open approval or quiet acceptance among Orthodox today-Moscow Patriarchate approves condom use, despite it's "war on secularization"!(yea, that'll help!)-through "oikonomia", of course. So, would you be comfortable joining a Church which approves such immoral practices? (and I bow LOW before Orthodox bishops who do not accept such things-there ARE some left). As bad as Rome is, and as corrupt as some clergy are, at least these immoral practices are still officially condemned.

3. Roman tyranny over the Eastern Catholic Churches bother you, again, me to. But what is worse, by a Pope or by the state? Byzantine depotism unfitted Eastern Christians to resist Tsarist, Turkish and Communist tyranny-open terror, yes, but subordination to the state and state dominated churches are accepted and defended. Remember Peter the Great abolishing the Patriarchate of Moscow to replace it with the "holy governing synod"-totally uncanonical, unjust, etc...yet all the other patriarchs APPROVED-IT-as a "brother"! What happened when Metropolitan Sergius held his Soviet "synod"?-approval by all the other Orthodox patriarchs-they all agreed with "adaptation to atheism"!
Again, we need to stay where we are and fight for our rights.

4. Do think the primacy of Rome is merely honorific, a canonical arrangement, or more than that? Rome HAS gone too far in exaggerating the power of it's primacy-but something purely "honorific" is nonsense. Even the head of a rotary club has SOME authority over the others, otherwise, nothing would get done! Would you accept idea of a "purely honorific" primacy?-and look at the chaos among the Orthodox today who do not have the primacy-they can't even agree who is canonical, let alone major moral issues threatening the Christian lives of the faithful today! At least Rome gives SOME stability!

5. Rebaptism-"the Church was filling an empty vessel-in extreme cases even bestowing the priesthood and all aspects of grace by Chrismation and vesting..."-this is a quote I got from an Orthodox bishop. Some Orthodox do not believe this today, but it is still considered the normal teaching of Orthodoxy. Are you willing to accept that you were never really baptized, have no grace, the sacraments you have gone to for years were/are invalid, etc... Rome, horrible Rome, on the other hand, does not teach this, but that even heretics can have valid sacraments and grace-and this is supported historically, theologically, by the miracles, (the plain evidence)throughout the ages!

Rome has lots of problems, so does Orthodoxy. Both sides need to clean house and fix the corruption, false teachings, modernism, etc... that are found in themselves. Jumping from on side to the other will not solve anything-before long one finds the same errors, only in different forms, on the other side. An old monk I know told me about his experience going from Catholic to Orthodox back to Catholic. He saw all the problems in the Catholic Church, fled, went to Orthodoxy, found the same errors in different forms there, and worse, (acceptance of immorality, contraception, as one example-and he asked them to their faces if these things were acceptable, and they said YES-he spoke to bishops), so, he came back to the Catholic Church and began fighting the problems he found therein.
So, in my humble opinion we need to stay put and fight for the truth of Christ where we are, and as we try to clean house, encourage our Orthodox brothers to do the same on their side, so that someday, mabey, we can be reunited. Don't jump ship. Don't you see that you are "Orthodox" already?-"Orthodoxy"-right belief. You ARE in Christ's Church.
My two cents. God Bless you and be assured of my prayers! Please pray for me!

Alexis

RussianCath.

Points well taken. I will research those

an article I ran across

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/PaulBallaster_Convolier.en.aspx

The author (a former franciscan - turned orthodox) claiming that the Latin Church is embroiled in Monarchy of the Pope and total submission to the monarch

Thank you brothers and sisters for responding -

I seek THE TRUTH - no matter where that leads me

If the THE TRUTH is in the Latin Church that is where I will reside. If THE TRUTH is in an Orthodox church - so be it.

The only problem with THE TRUTH (as Stuart points out) is that we THINK ... and our thinking may change while THE TRUTH does not (or does it)

John

RussianCath, good points. However, one of the concerns I have that lead to this question is that I do find the expression of the Eastern faith lacking in the Eastern Catholic Church. At least where I am. I of course cannot speak for others. So far my experience is a typical Latinized spirituality, a "Roman Catholic parish with an Eastern Liturgy". I'm not pretending that the Orthodox Church is perfect, even before you came up with your list. I am looking for a faithful expression of the Orthodox faith, and if I have to trade one set of problems for another to get that, I might just do it.

I agree, Alice. I actually hate that term as used in polemics.

In specific answer to the question, though, I am not especially bothered, except that communion with the Bishop of Rome is of great importance to me.

Irenaeus is emphatic that communion with Rome is a sure sign of fidelity to the authentic tradition of the Church (Adv. Haer. 3.3.2), and while I am equally convinced that the Orthodox Churches outside of that communion are faithful to the authentic tradition, the sign of Rome seems to me to be a fortuitous and happy addition.

But there are also entirely romantic reasons. I love much of the Western tradition, including the lives, works, and thought of so many of the great saints prior to the Counter-Reformation, but post-11th century. So, for example, St Hildegard of Bingen, together with the such figures as the late-medieval English mystics. And I fancy that, by being in communion with Rome, I am able to acknoweldge in a real, organic way, the connection with teh tradition represented by them.

Finally, and on a personal level, I have a great attachment to Pope John Paul II, and believe that his prayers are in large part responsible for the happy events that eventually made it possible for my family and I to come into communion with the Catholic Church.

As a result, I would say that, however frustrating Rome can be from an Eastern point of view, I am inclined to do what I can to address the sources of those frustrations than to become Orthodox.