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

The Eastern Orthodox Church stands for and affirms life from conception until natural death as does the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches.

Now, within the Orthodox Church there are different opinions on birth control but I don't believe that makes the Orthodox Church not 100% pro-life.

If the differences on contraception makes the Orthodox not pro-life then would you argue that the Orthodox Church is not 100% for the family because she allows, under certain circumstances, divorce?

Everybody allows divorce. It's the remarriage that gets sticky.

For my own conscience' sake, a few statements I made in the past on this particular post I repudiate, after having made a more in depth study of the holy faith. They include:

1. The idea that BOTH Catholics and Orthodox formally make up the Church of Christ. They do not. The Catholic Church has always taught that the Church is one, and it's formal members are those in union with the head of the Church, the Successor of St. Peter. To believe otherwise is religious indifferentism, and a denial of the Catholic faith-in actuality it also destroys the idea of having any sort of Eastern Catholic Churches. What's the point of the Eastern Catholic Churches if the Orthodox are fine as they are, and "conversion from one Church to another" is now "outdated ecclesiology"?

2. The idea of Papal Primacy AND Infallibility are heretical-no they are not. I thankfully had the good fortune to have a very kind Coptic Catholic help me on these points.

I'm sure many-most-here will not agree with anything I have said, and I am not going to argue or debate with anyone here on these points, but I am no longer going to promote religious indifferentism in my life on this forum or anywhere. The traditionalists in the Church-will all their faults and wrong ideas-I admit, are right about this: the relativism in the Church today. I never saw so much in my life until I started on this forum. I even fell for it myself for a time! There is one true Church, the Catholic Church, period. The modernism that was once faught against by the hierarchs before Vatican II seems to be now the accepted norm, and most of the faithful follow it.

Really. What is the earliest document that uses that particular formula?


So, I'm indifferent. The Eastern Catholic Churches are an accident of history. Our only purpose for existing today is to facilitate reconciliation between the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Churches--both of which are equally culpable for their separation, and both of which are equally damaged by that separation. As Bishop John Michael of Canton puts it, "Our vocation is to disappear". Anything that interferes with that vocation is bad.


Since these are essentially issues of ecclesiastical governance and not central to the faith of the Church, they are not really issues to be discussed as heretical or not. Rather, they are issues to be understood and judged against an objective reading of Church history and the development of doctrine. The Papacy exists to serve the Church, not the Church to glorify the Papacy.

(emphasis added)

Non-sequitor. What does the first part of that sentence (before the "if") have to do with the second part?

But anyhow, thank you for your last post. It's good to have a clear view of what your position is.

Well, my general reaction to Branch Theory is that it's simply wrong.

On the other hand, I think one could say that it depends what we mean by "Branch Theory". Even so, to say that they are "equally damaged by that separation" seems a bit presumptuous to me (which is saying a lot, coming from me, since I hardly ever think you're being presumptuous ;)).

I am not seeking to cause any emotional rifts or issues. *NOT a troll* I truly am on the fence. Like many Catholics, my faith was severely injured by the sex abuse scandals, and I spent several years wandering in the Episcopalian denomination and elsewhere.

But in my time away, I took account of Orthodox arguments against papal supremecy, and they frankly make sense. Even reading Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem- the earliest days of the Church- they do not evince supreme Roman domination of the entire global Church.

But the ethnic and jurisdictional divisions in Orthodoxy are severely damaging, in my humble opinion, and it prevents millions of potential converts from joining them. Though they are united by the common faith, yes, the appearance of division is a reality for many; it appears like Protestant anarchy, even though the churches are indeed united by faith.

I am a fence-sitter. I think part of the reason I remain in the Roman Catholic communion is to retain unity in my soon-to-be marriage; my fiancee is a devout and lovely Catholic woman, and I have currently stayed religiously identified as Roman Catholic because of her.

The Orthodox accept the traditional papal primacy of the ancient Church, do they not? Do they not support the "first among equals?"

It is the supremecy they reject. There was a time when St. Paul even rebuked St. Peter. How the ages changed the Church!

Well, it was because of the New Roman Missal as well as hearing news that my old friend Fr. Dennis Hrubiak was being elevated to Mitred Archpriest that got me interested in coming back to the Byzantine tradition after 20 years in the Latin Rite. I just felt that it would also provide a better, more deeper theology and more uplifting spirituality to eventually even canonically become Byzantine after a while.

While the Roman Catholic Church might be fine, and still the larger Rite in this country, and I have been brought up Latin, though had previous experience with the Ruthenian tradition having served, and having dual-Rite education in the Catholic faith, etc... It just seems that it's a great time to recapture the old spirit, and unite myself into the "second lung" and bring myself to closer prayer with the Divine Lord through this.

My mother and I were sitting at a table during the coffee social after today's Matins and Divine Liturgy that actually came from Protestant Churches, one was a minister at what my mother called the, I forgot what she called it, but those Non-Denominational Churches. It was an interesting chat, they were talking about the 1517 history, and how they said that the Catholic Church got "too Catholic" if there's such a thing, and that Martin Luther noticed this, and was the reason behind the 95 Theses. But at the same time, it seems like they are trying to work Catholic Theology into their homilies, and felt they had plenty of input and inspiration through the Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church to do so. Really a lot to digest, and I felt some of what they talked about went over my head at times, but it was worth the listen.

All in all, I think I'm rather proud with the Ruthenian Church, and hope that through prayer, and through making sure that the voice is heard in both Rites, that we will rebound, and become stronger over time, and that true union will come, and that we may all be one again. The Divine Lord will definitely guide us through all paths leading to our heavenly reward. There are many different spiritualities, many different expressions, but we all come to the same truth, and the same Christ and Saviour for all. We can all agree on that.

Wow, this thread is still ongoing?

Anyway, I'm Orthodox now, if anybody is keeping tabs on the original theme of this thread.

Definitely. There is even a special day in the Liturgical year, at least in the OCA, dedicated in praying for the preservation of life in the womb.


There is a differentiation between killing a conceived human being, and preventing one from ever existing. Also the Orthodox Church doesn't just allow contraception. Remember that the goal of every Orthodox Christian is control of the passions. We just acknowledge that we can't ask people to stop cold turkey on their passions. So if someone becomes Orthodox, we can't say, "okay, you're baptized and chrismated now, stop having sex unless you really want kids." Or the other way around, "we'll only baptize and chrismate you if you can control your sexual urge." No. It is a process. Allowance for contraceptives is an aid in that process as you wean the person off this and hopefully through prayer and fasting and other spiritual exercises, the person can have better control over their urges and one day you don't even need to have the person use contraceptives.


Well divorce is always a sin in the Orthodox Church. There is no reason to dissolve a marriage, it is never hid under a pretense of "nullity" based on trivial factors. Sacraments are always about getting you to the Kingdom of God. So if remarriage is more beneficial for a person than forcing them to be celibate (and they can and they end up fornicating and also leaving the Church) then it is better to remarry than to hang the person out to dry. This will be up to the priest to determine and bishop to approve, the Church doesn't remarry just anyone who wants to remarry. Of course this doesn't discount that some priests and bishops may be more lax about this than others, it does happen. But we'd rather have someone remarry and stay within the Church and hopefully grow spiritually, rather than impose celibacy then the person leaves the Church and remarries anyway.

I understand and agree with the Orthodox teaching you laid out. I was just responding to the acquisition that Orthodoxy isn't 100% pro-life.

I meant accusation. When will the edit button come back?

Cheers!

I was also just elaborating on your points. Admittedly I'm lazy and I don't want to back read

I am Catholic simply because I do believe with all my heart, mind, and soul that Christ Himself established a head servant for HIS ENTIRE Church, and that this is what the early Church believed and practiced as well. This is a theological-ecclesiological premise and reality that cannot be found in any apostolic Church to any unified/dogmatic degree except in the Catholic communion of Churches. Even with all its problems, it was still Christ's wish that HIS ENTIRE household should have a head servant.

I do think that Orthodox Churches can have a tendency to place an unhealthy emphasis on small "t" traditions that becomes detrimental to Church unity. This feature is more marked in the Eastern Churches, rather than the Oriental Churches, though. No doubt, lack of appreciation of small "t" traditions can also have a detrimental effect on Church unity -- though I notice it's normally the "traditionalists" who will cause the disunity.

While Orthodoxy keeps the unity of Faith just as well as the Catholicism, it must be kept in mind that Church unity per se, according to Christ, is supposed to be a witness to the world that does not know Christ -- so it is a unity that must be obvious to the non-believer right off the bat. In this particular facet of our common mission to the world, I do believe that the Catholic Churches do a much better job of advancing this witness than the Orthodox Churches ever could.

Otherwise, I am Coptic in heart, mind and soul.

Blessings,
Marduk