www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Roman Catholic changing to Greek Orthodox

Family member considering changing to Greek Orthodox,has anyone done this and or considered this, or know of someone who has,and what was the reason for doing so. Can you tell me what is the differece between the two. I would appreciate all opinions on this question. Please excuse the spelling and grammer,God Bless all of you for your help.

The Greek Orthodox Church is one of many united Orthodox Churches in communion with one another, but not in communion with Rome or its Bishop (the Pope), and thus is not in communion with the Catholic Church. They are Eastern Christians (unless you're viewing things from and Oriental Orthodox standpoint, right Mor? ) and are liturgically identical to most Eastern Catholic Churches (which ARE part of the Catholic Church and ARE united with the Holy Father). So, the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church are both liturgically and theologically dissimilar in some cases, though most/almost all beliefs are common to each Church.

People have various reasons for switching from Catholicism to Orthodoxy and from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. Some of it is doctrinal, some of it is moral, and some of it is based on people's emotions. Your family member may be a Roman Catholic who is disaeffected with some of the liberalist heresies with which the Roman Church has struggled. I think this would classify as leaving based on emotions and I strongly discourage this. On the alternative, she/he may be switching because she/he truly believes Orthodoxy to be the One True Church.

Talk to your family member, and encourage them to research Eastern Catholicism before leaving communion with the city "from which no errors can come." Find out the reasons for the abandonment, but don't force the issue. Ultimately, it is his/her decision, but good luck.

ChristTeen287

Angelica:

I'll continue. Both Churches, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Communion, are in state of schism (separation) since the year 1054. The causes of the separation, and the main differences between both Churches are, basically:

1. The Role of the Pope:

Catholicism teaches that the Pope is the Supreme Pastor and Successor of St Peter, Vicar of Christ in the Earth who has a universal supremacy over all the bishops, his authority is absolute and infallible in matters of faith and morality.

Eastern Orthodox Churches do not accept that the Pope has a supreme authority. The Greek Patriarch of Constantinople is the �first among equals� but the national Orthodox Churches (Church of Russia, Church of Romania, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, etc.) are autocephalous (independent) and there is not a supreme authority.

2. Filioque

In the 7th century, Catholic bishops added the word �filioque� (and the Son) to the Creed (�And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, giver of life, who proccedeth from the Father and the Son). Thus, the Roman Church teaches that the Holly Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The Orthodox rejected those changes and state that it only proceeds from the Father.

2. Purgatory

The Eastern Church teaches that, after the death, remain in a condition of waiting called "Particular Judgment." When Christ returns, the soul rejoins its risen body to be judged by Him.

But Catholicism teaches that those souls destined for heaven (with a few exceptions) must have a state of purgation, or purification before the final judgement (Purgatory).

As you can see, there�s a difference of interpretation and tradition.

3. Original Sin

The Orthodox Church believes that men, inherited the consequences of the original sin (the first sin) of Adam and Eve. The consequence of that sin is death and an innate tendence to sin.

The Western theology teaches the same thing, but it also states that all men and women suffer the guilt of the original sin.

4. Development of Doctrine:

The Orthodox Church only accepts the doctrine of the (firts) Seven Councils and that the faith of these Councils cannot be changed at all.

The Catholic Church teaches that the doctrine is in constant development. Catholicism shares the first seven Ecumenical Churches with the Orthodox, but it has had many other Councils and adopted doctrines that were not contained in the first seven.

5. Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God

As I explained before, the West teaches that all men and women after Adam are guilty of his sin, but not the Mother of God, who, according to the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, proclaimed by the Roman Church in the 1800's.

On the other side the Eastern Church states that this was not necessary, because it does not accept that men also inherit the guilt of the first sin.

Ritual differences

There are other minor differences, these are ritual. When both East and West were united, this plurality of rites was a way to express the same faith. While the Roman Church's heart was the Latin tradition, the Orthodox were part of the Byzantine tradition.

This is why there are differences in the way Mass (called Divine liturgy, in the Orthodox Church)and the liturgical ceremonies are celebrated. For example, the Byzantine Churches have plain painted and images (icons) in their churches and never statues like in the Roman Church. The Eastern Churches use leavened bread instead of hosts, and communion is given in the tongue by the priest under both kinds, etc. In the Orthodox liturgy, no musical instruments are permitted and all the liturgy is sung, not recited, etc.

Dear Christeen827,

You say "The Greek Orthodox Church is one of many united Orthodox Churches in communion with one another, but not in communion with Rome or its Bishop (the Pope), and thus is not in communion with the Catholic Church". May I ask you what do you mean when you speak about the "Catholic Church"? If I am not wrong most Catholic (Catholics in Communion with the Roman See) theologians consider our Orthodox brothers members of the "One, Catholic and Apostolic Church". Orthodox are not considered heretical or schismatic by the Roman Chuch any more. The historical concept of "Catholicity", which we find for first time in the ecclesiology of our father Saint Ignatius of Antioch, has nothing to do with the primate of the bishop of Rome.

Yours in Christ,
F

Dear Francisco,

Yes, I'm often confused by Catholic theologians whenever they write or speak on that issue!

I think they would agree that the "fullness" of the Catholic Church is contained in the Catholic Churches in communion with Rome.

And that there can be a "less perfect" membership in the Catholic Church, depending on how much of the Catholic doctrine is accepted (in this case, as defined by the RC Church).

So the RC Church would see the Orthodox Church as an Apostolic Church with faith, Sacraments, episcopacy etc.

But the fact that the East is generally not in communion with Rome would be considered a negative that is not shared by those Churches IN communion with Rome.

The same holds true in horse races, I believe . . .

Alex

Dear Angelica,

I think that for a Roman Catholic embracing Orthodoxy, one of the most glaring difference would have to be the ritual.

When Rome decided to simplify its ritual, the Orthodox maintained the glory of its historic liturgies, icons, architecture etc.

That would be a welcome change for most RC's!

Statues are not only not to be found in the East, they are forbidden. Only icons, lots of icons, are used.

The services are longer and much more elaborate.

As far as devotion to the Mother of God is concerned, the East has many more shrines and feasts to her than the West, as well as beautiful prayers and miraculous icons. She is "All-Immaculate" and "Most Holy" and reigns, body and soul, with Her Son in heaven. Again, a change for the better!

The East prays and prays for the dead and has many more opportunities to do so. It doesn't speculate about purgatory however. But with all the praying for the dead, one won't even feel the need for the doctrine . . .

There is no pope in Orthodoxy. But the Patriarchs, Metropolitans and Bishops can be stern enough, standing in the beauty of all their robes and miters.

And you make the Sign of the Cross differently and many more times.

You hold your thumb, middle and index fingers together to signify the Trinity and the last two fingers are folded down to signify Christ's Two Natures.

You go to the right first and you bow after making the Sign of the Cross.

Once you get the hang of it, its no problem.

The Orthodox Church is very mystical and emphasizes Theosis, the way in which the Spirit transfigures us and our lives in the life of Christ, divinizing our beings.

There's always lots to learn and read about.

Your friend is at the beginning of a great adventure.

Alex

Brother Alex,

I'm considering you to be my " Spiritual Brother"!

In Christ,
James

Dear Jacomus,

Niech bedzie pochwalony Jezus Christus, Brother!

Alex

Francisco,

Please refer to Alex's first post. Every Catholic priest I've ever spokne to regarding this issue (I spoke to one yesterday about it) says that the fullness of the Faith is found only within the visible Catholic Communion, though the Orthodox are truly part of the Church as far as valid Orders and possess all Truths of the Faith save the Papacy. The priest I spoke to yesterday said:

ChristTeen287

Brothers and Sisters:

I have to agree with Remie, Francisco, and Alex. I believe that on another thread I made the connection that all of us who enter into the Liturgy and have kept Apostolic doctrine and connections somehow are already in communion. Although we are divided when we look at where we think we are, when we experience the relationship of Communion (coming into union, if you will) with Christ, we are at some deeper level at one with each other. Why? Because Christ cannot be divided any more than the Trinity can be divided.

How does all the doctrine that is opposed fit here? God knows. He has somehow preserved each of the Apostolic communities and their liturgical experiences by which they come into living relationship with Him. I will always believe that on some deep, perhaps mystical level, there is not and cannot be division because God cannot be divided. There are communities that do no believe that the Communion we talk about and experience does not happen--that Communion is just some type of ritual remembrance. That is alien to all the communities that meet here. And perhaps, through His Plan, He gives to each community what it believes and hopes for. He can work where we cannot see and where we cannot understand. That's what's so exciting to me about this relationship and the pilgrim journey into ever-deeper relationship.

And maybe that's what the Vatican Council pointed to and so many theologians are moving toward today. Maybe I'm coming at it from a different angle.

But I do believe that all of us who believe that Christ is truly present to us in the Liturgy are somehow not only experiencing Him and an intimate relationship with Him but also coming into communion with each other, both within the communities we belong to, but also to all the communities we are in communion with and all those we do not appear to be in communion with, even when we don't realize it at all.

When I say I belong to the Catholic Church, it means to the Church that I live in at this moment in time and also to the Church that has lived before me and the Church that will live after me. All this is one instant in the eyes of God--from the vantage point of eternity, the never-changing now. I cannot see all the places where the Church is or may be, though I can see the visible Church of which I am a member. Given the riches the Holy Spirit has given to the many apostolic communities, no one can deny that people who may not be visibly in communion are totally outside relationship with the Trinity we all worship.

Dear Alex,

Just when you thought that you had it all figured out.....you find out that I've got a statue of the Holy Apostle Jude on my front lawn! I imagine that if you think of me as a hopeless case, then it shouldn't surprise....anyway.

Orthodox Catholics (not in communion with Rome) may use statues as long as they are iconographic. This is to say that they are appropriately portrayed (as in a transfigured way) have a shroud around the back so that one may only view it from the front. In this way, it continues to be a window into the transfigured life.

I agree that looking at St. Jude's backside would not offer such a window.

With love in Christ.

Dear Andrew,

No one is saying that Orthodox Christians can not have statues privately - but liturgically, in Church, that is another thing as your pastor will be quick to point out!

Wood carved statuary and even reliquary statues can be seen in Orthodox Shrines. Our Macedonian Orthodox Church of St Kliment Okhridsky has such a wooden statue of St Kliment alongside his icon at the door.

Certainly, a statue can be a source of inspiration when it is well done, as I am sure your statue of St Jude is.

I've a statue of Our Lady of Prompt Succor and one of Our Lady of Chartres.

I really couldn't imagine an icon for these two beautiful and historical shrines, although that doesn't mean there shouldn't be icons for them.

You are right, statues are dissuaded in the East because of their inability, as art-forms, to bring across the participation in Theosis of their subjects.

But it is possible I suppose.

Alex

Dear Brethren,

Let us compliment Theophan on his deep insights!

Lines have been drawn in the sand by men to say who is in and out of the one true Church. While these lines are certainly necessary, the only ones that will matter in the end are those delineated by the Lord when he sends his sheep to one side and the goats to the other.

I'd like to think that Theophan's residence in the God-protected Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has something to do with his acuity. The water is really healthy here!

On Francisco's point, the word "catholic" comes from the Greek "kata 'olon" or "according to the whole."

Catholicity is wholeness. The catholic faith awaits no further revellations, no further scriptures, etc. East and west agree on what this faith is, but have seriously diverged "around the edges" on the points enumerated above in this thread.

Alex, you are right about statues liturgically. They certainly don't lend themselves to eastern traditions of veneration and processions. And according to the feast, we're constantly moving our icons around. I can't imagine doing this with my heavy plaster St. Jude!

In Christ.

Dear Andrew,

I'm putting up shelves for my icons and that way I can move them around without making more holes in the wall . . .

A number of Latin Catholics have home shrines with statues, much like an icon corner, and St Joseph's Altars.

These traditions, in the Slavic East at any rate, come from the pagan hearth shrines. In Ukraine, the home guardian deities were called "Tsur" and "Pek."

To this day, the Ukrainian word for "danger" is "nebezPEKa" or "not without Pek" who was a nasty little deity . . .

Alex

Aha! So that's where Peck's Bad Boy comes from. He must have been a Ukrainian hooligan. Will wonders never cease.

Blessings!