How has becoming Orthodox from Roman Catholic changed you?

[elijahmaria]

This much I will say - the SSPX are closer to the spirit and theology of Orthodoxy - the true church - than most of the Latin schismatic church.

If they are or were schismatic, it was NOT by choice, the traditional latin mass in latin may have ceased to exist without them.
They're motives for avoiding local RC churches are only to protect their families and protect the faith.
I would hope they would elicit a small amount of compassion and understanding even though they are not Orthodox.

There are times when heresies have been promoted in the RC churches of today in a way greater than before 1960.
It could come in various forms, whether in the actions, the words of the homlies, words of the music or pamphlets in the back of the church, they are out there and they are harmful.

The idea that there is no classical western theology, doctrine, spirituality or liturgical practice in Novus Ordo parishes, based on upon the errors of the few, is false.

[Christopher McAvoy]

The novus ordo archbishop:

http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2012/05/dalai-lama-attends-pentecost-mass-of.html

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A293rBalloonMass.html

The SSPX archbishop:

[finbar]

"compassion and understanding" you are right...like the SSPX woman I knew,
Who told her sons and husband to shun me because I was a "schismatic and heretic"
When I became Orthodox, and the SSPX member who informed me I was destined
For Hell, since I was an "apostate" from Roman Catholicism.
Who had no respect any more for the Holy Father. In my experience there's a lot
Of Papistry in the SSPX , not meant in the pejorative Protestant sense, but in the
Objective descriptive sense , meaning a worship of Popes and the Papal taking a
Prominent place in their mindset.
I am pretty certain they say the Creed with the Filioque in it too, so I won't
Be losing any sleep about any lack of "compassion" for them, I found them quite
Sinister, and a number of them I met informally have what I would describe as a fairly
'forgiving" attitude to European Fascism of the 1930s and 1940s, and a soft spot
For Generallissimo Franco....sorry THAT definitely wasn't my cup of tea...

[Peter J]

If they are or were schismatic, it was NOT by choice, the traditional latin mass in latin may have ceased to exist without them.
They're motives for avoiding local RC churches are only to protect their families and protect the faith.
I would hope they would elicit a small amount of compassion and understanding even though they are not Orthodox.

I'm definitely sympathetic, but it WAS by choice. After all, Spanish Catholics didn't go into schism in order to protect the traditional Mozarabic mass.

[elijahmaria]

Ok...so now we know that you have learned to witness falsely without saying many words.  Given your choices, I suppose it is going to come in handy.

The novus ordo archbishop:

http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2012/05/dalai-lama-attends-pentecost-mass-of.html

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A293rBalloonMass.html

The SSPX archbishop:

[Christopher McAvoy]

That's true, that the SSPX is part of the papal system and is likely to refer to an Orthodox Catholic christian as potentially going to hell for example, but is that really any different than what the Orthodox think of them in return? That for me is a given.

The "compassion and understanding" I refer to is ment to be seen within the context of the papal system they're in, it is a given that they are not Orthodox. We have no requirement to sympathize with them. It is only a wishful thought on my part, as one who was once one of them. I wouldn't losing any sleep not having "compassion" for them either, though I personally do.

There's not much choice in avoiding far right political leanings if one meets traditional latin catholics. That goes with the territory and is unavoidable.

SOmetimes in order to find the true faith you have to deal with the secular political baggage that comes with it. You may not agree with it, but you ought to understand this is where other people were led to be. For better and for worse, far right has always supported and or exploited traditional forms of christianity more strongly than the left. That ought to be common sense.

[Christopher McAvoy]

I did not bear a false witness against Cardinal Schonborn who installs homosexuals on parish councils and puts the dalai lama behind him in the pentecost mass - both within the last 6 monthes.

What is wrong with pictures? Pictures are worth a thousand words. I am no worse than Michael Voris in that regard.
I am not the one who helped smash stained glass windows , break and remove altars that were bought with parsishoners hard earned money during the 1960's and replace than with either nothing or something very ugly that was intentioned to lead us into heresy and protestant ideaology. Perhaps many are too young and ignorant to know how intense the revolution of the 60's was in the latin churches and how much of its effects are profoundly within them today.

The idea that there is no classical western theology, doctrine, spirituality or liturgical practice in Novus Ordo parishes, based on upon the errors of the few, is false.

This I never said either. I agree that remanants of this remain, just as they remain in a Lutheran or Anglican church. I would also say those remnants within the average church of the roman communion of today are usually much stronger than those remaining in the protestants churches. Nevertheless they are typically weaker and less orthodox than the SSPX churches in my experience.  

I congratulate those prelates within the roman communion who are more orthodox and are fighting against the demonic influences or ignorance of other prelates. Unfortunately they are a minority whose influence has not yet been able to be strong enough and achieve all that much. I learned this first hand when Cardinal Wuerl helped appoint a liberal priest named Msgr. Steenson in January of 2012 as head of the USA anglican-use ordinariate who cracks down on the ex-anglicans that celebrate latin masses in private.
Who wants to be part of that? Who wants to be a priest who is banished and exiled only because you do the right thing?

The battle between good and evil exists everywhere.

[elijahmaria]

I did not bear a false witness against Cardinal Schonborn who installs homosexuals on parish councils and puts the dalai lama behind him in the pentecost mass - both within the last 6 monthes.

What is wrong with pictures? Pictures are worth a thousand words. I am no worse than Michael Voris in that regard.

The idea that there is no classical western theology, doctrine, spirituality or liturgical practice in Novus Ordo parishes, based on upon the errors of the few, is false.

This I never said either. I agree that remanants of this remain, just as they remain in a Lutheran or Anglican church. I would also say those remnants within the average church of the roman communion of today are usually much stronger than those remaining in the protestants churches. Nevertheless they are typically weaker and less orthodox than the SSPX churches in my experience. 

That is nonsense.  It leaves out millions of people who are orthodox in their faith at all levels.  That is why you have to speak in broad sweeping statements.  The life on the ground of real live Catholics gives the lie to your witness.  You cannot even begin to acknowledge that they exist.  Because of the way that you do things, you will never find real peace, however far you run.

I don't have a difficulty with Catholics moving into Orthodoxy, but I think you are in for a rude awakening one day.  I only wish you well and hope there is more awakening than rudeness in your future...

Mary

[Christopher McAvoy]

That is nonsense.  It leaves out millions of people who are orthodox in their faith at all levels.  That is why you have to speak in broad sweeping statements.  The life on the ground of real live Catholics gives the lie to your witness.  You cannot even begin to acknowledge that they exist.  Because of the way that you do things, you will never find real peace, however far you run.

Elijah, I never said this either.

In fact that is probably the most important point you make, which I agree with whole heartedly.
When I some time ago attempted to correct liturgical abuses at a local "novus ordo" mass, it was many other lay people who were in agreement and working harmoniously with me. It was the priest and bishop who refused to correct them who were primarily the problem.

The majority of the laity in this cases tended to accept whatever was given to them, even if they privately were uncomfortable with it (connected sometimes also to an overly authoritarian problem, refusing to question authority), or attend a different diocese/church if possible.  But for myself this proved over time, many years time, to be an inconsistent solution. Thus I concluded when there are numerous nearby Orthodox Churches that do not deviate from the faith or contain liturgical abuses, there would be no reason not to place myself in communion with them. This came after many years of study and experience however, I did not conclude in my mind they were the true church immediately over night, even though my heart was moved toward that belief very quickly.

If anything can save the Roman communion it is the lay people. Even though some are confused, or given in too much to evil, many of the "church militant" do not. Their wouldn't be that many home schooling families around the country and "independent non-diocesan" latin catholic schools if this were not true. http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/catholic/article/view/1034
www.napcis.org "The National Association of Private Catholic and Independent Schools".

 The lay people who remain comparatively orthodox in their practices and are not able to put their ideas into practice, much as during communist periods in eastern europe, they are in a sense underground in the catacombs.

It is without question that the bishops primarily, and lower ranking clergy under there thumb secondarily, are where the most profound problems lie at present within the latin church .

Those who are the most heretical will hopefully, as time takes its toll, no longer be with us, and have more traditional clerics replace them.

All of this being said may have a less severe, analogous situation within the Orthodox Church as well, but it would not be prudent for me at this time to make that comparison. Surely someone wiser and more qualified would be welcomed to do that another time, if if they haven't already. The OCA particularly comes to mind as having some vague resemblence.

This is however all speculation for the future.
There is equally an importance in the present life of parishes, the "here and now".
The Church as it is now, not a future corrected "pseudi-utopia" that never has been.

That is why I am Orthodox, I live for the present time, as much as I hope for my salvation in the future.
I am content with the average life of Orthodox parishes, where I was not content with average life of the latin rite catholic ones.
And as for byzantine catholic, i wanted consistency. Orthodoxy has the consistency and is not afraid to defend the truth.
The byzantine catholics tend to cower down to the latins and refused to criticize them too strongly, which only leads to their own decline, as St. Alexis Toth would testify to.

[elijahmaria]

This is much better than what we just passed through...thank you!! 

I hope and pray that one day you release the need to be critical at all.  You cannot judge the Body of Christ by her faithless members.

If you have entered or will enter into Orthodoxy for the salvation of your soul, then God bless!

Let that be enough to say, and let the rest go.  There's plenty for you to do and to become, without looking back or being critical.

M.

[Hermogenes]

That is nonsense.  It leaves out millions of people who are orthodox in their faith at all levels.  That is why you have to speak in broad sweeping statements.  The life on the ground of real live Catholics gives the lie to your witness.  You cannot even begin to acknowledge that they exist.  Because of the way that you do things, you will never find real peace, however far you run.

Elijah, I never said this either.

In fact that is probably the most important point you make, which I agree with whole heartedly.
When I some time ago attempted to correct liturgical abuses at a local "novus ordo" mass, it was many other lay people who were in agreement and working harmoniously with me. It was the priest and bishop who refused to correct them who were primarily the problem.

The majority of the laity in this cases tended to accept whatever was given to them, even if they privately were uncomfortable with it (connected sometimes also to an overly authoritarian problem, refusing to question authority), or attend a different diocese/church if possible.  But for myself this proved over time, many years time, to be an inconsistent solution. Thus I concluded when there are numerous nearby Orthodox Churches that do not deviate from the faith or contain liturgical abuses, there would be no reason not to place myself in communion with them. This came after many years of study and experience however, I did not conclude in my mind they were the true church immediately over night, even though my heart was moved toward that belief very quickly.

If anything can save the Roman communion it is the lay people. Even though some are confused, or given in too much to evil, many of the "church militant" do not. Their wouldn't be that many home schooling families around the country and "independent non-diocesan" latin catholic schools if this were not true. http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/catholic/article/view/1034
www.napcis.org "The National Association of Private Catholic and Independent Schools".

 The lay people who remain comparatively orthodox in their practices and are not able to put their ideas into practice, much as during communist periods in eastern europe, they are in a sense underground in the catacombs.

It is without question that the bishops primarily, and lower ranking clergy under there thumb secondarily, are where the most profound problems lie at present within the latin church .

Those who are the most heretical will hopefully, as time takes its toll, no longer be with us, and have more traditional clerics replace them.

All of this being said may have a less severe, analogous situation within the Orthodox Church as well, but it would not be prudent for me at this time to make that comparison. Surely someone wiser and more qualified would be welcomed to do that another time, if if they haven't already. The OCA particularly comes to mind as having some vague resemblence.

This is however all speculation for the future.
There is equally an importance in the present life of parishes, the "here and now".
The Church as it is now, not a future corrected "pseudi-utopia" that never has been.

That is why I am Orthodox, I live for the present time, as much as I hope for my salvation in the future.
I am content with the average life of Orthodox parishes, where I was not content with average life of the latin rite catholic ones.
And as for byzantine catholic, i wanted consistency. Orthodoxy has the consistency and is not afraid to defend the truth.
The byzantine catholics tend to cower down to the latins and refused to criticize them too strongly, which only leads to their own decline, as St. Alexis Toth would testify to.

What does it mean to be "comparatively orthodox"? Compared to being an outright heretic? But how can any form of the Roman liturgy be orthodox? Whether Latin or vernacular, Tridentine or Novus Ordo, the liturgy itself contains hertical beliefs. If this were not the case, then choosing to be Roman or Greek Catholic would simply be a matter of preference and not a reflection of our understanding of God's truth.

This whole SSPX diversion has brought us right into the middle of relativism: Romans are closer than Anglicans are closer than Presbyterians are closer than Mormons. Isn't the point that NONE of them are truly orthodox? By how much they diverge is surly irrelevant if they diverge at all?

[Peter J]

What does it mean to be "comparatively orthodox"? Compared to being an outright heretic? But how can any form of the Roman liturgy be orthodox? Whether Latin or vernacular, Tridentine or Novus Ordo, the liturgy itself contains hertical beliefs. If this were not the case, then choosing to be Roman or Greek Catholic would simply be a matter of preference and not a reflection of our understanding of God's truth.

My experience has been that Orthodox don't consider either Greek Catholics or "Roman" Catholics to be orthodox.

[Hermogenes]

What does it mean to be "comparatively orthodox"? Compared to being an outright heretic? But how can any form of the Roman liturgy be orthodox? Whether Latin or vernacular, Tridentine or Novus Ordo, the liturgy itself contains hertical beliefs. If this were not the case, then choosing to be Roman or Greek Catholic would simply be a matter of preference and not a reflection of our understanding of God's truth.

My experience has been that Orthodox don't consider either Greek Catholics or "Roman" Catholics to be orthodox.

I'm using the term "Greek Catholic" in the sense my church does. Before it became autocephalous in 1970, it was the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Christian Church. The Eastern Rite is a whole other thread I really hope we can avoid discussing here.

[choy]

The SSPX is one of the reasons that lead me to Orthodoxy.  Their existence in close proximity of the Catholic Church has made me question the resolve of the Catholic bishops to uphold the faith and the standards of what makes a Catholic a Catholic.  First of all the SSPX, being Catholics, are subject to the authority and will of the Pope.  The very fact that they have acted disobediently time and time again shows the true spirit of their movement.  They normally resort to poor arguments with questionable reasoning on why they do what they do.  The attitude they exhude is contrary to good Christian attitude, they normally see themselves as above everyone else who does not believe as they do and do as they do.

To me they are nothing more than wolves in sheep's clothing.  They put on the cloak of traditionalism to coax devout Catholics to taking their side.  The fact that the Catholic Church is trying to get them into the fold without having them atone for their pride astounds me.  What is the need for the SSPX?  There are loyal traditional groups in the Catholic Church today like the FSSP who is doing a great job of promoting the traditional Mass and preserving the traditional spirituality of the Latin Rite.

[Christopher McAvoy]

When people participate in the discussion who claim they are canonically Orthodox (Eastern rite Catholics) but are not recognized as such by those who are, it adds to the confusion. It is understandable that these confused ecumenically minded people are the ones who were most repelled by an SSPX chapel which is very against the false ecumenism that is held between Cardinal Christoph Schornborn and the Dalai Llama, as noted above.

I am unaware of any Eastern catholic church in union with Rome that officially refers or calls itself Orthodox. That seems to be a recent wacky vatican II ecumenical movement amongst lay people. These are the same lay people that show up once in a while at a bonafide Orthodox church that really does call have on it's sign the word "Orthodox" and become upset because they are denied the communion they have feel they have a right to receive. A right they forfeit because it is counter to being in communion with the Pope. They're nice people but also totally confused !! I've known a few from time to time. At one point I went with a Melkite acquantaince to a Greek Orthodox Church, who was interested in receiving the eucharist, to which the Greek Orthodox priest who said "I could give you communion but than you'd be recognized by both Constantinople and Rome as excommunicating yourself from Rome, are you prepared to do that?" for me I immediately understood that would be a bad idea to do something that symbolized what I did not at the time believe in, others are not so easily convinced ! Some want to have their cake and eat it too.

This whole SSPX diversion has brought us right into the middle of relativism: Romans are closer than Anglicans are closer than Presbyterians are closer than Mormons. Isn't the point that NONE of them are truly orthodox? By how much they diverge is surly irrelevant if they diverge at all? - Hermogenes

I agree that moral relativism is wrong. My understanding is that the (Eastern) Orthodox Catholic Church teaches that the papal catholic church communion is a schismatic body, in which there may be a few heretical beliefs being held, which are not fundamental to the faith, but that it is not on the level of heresy that protestantism abides by, in which the heresies are fundamental to the faith. Therefore I feel that though none of these others truly orthodox, one  particular group is without question, by it's nature profoundly more close to being Orthodox than the other body. That group is the papal group. For some this is meaningless, for others there is an intrigueing potential in which they are more easily for that reason able to recognize the fullness of truth within Orthodoxy. I think the line is certainly drawn being relativism, but in a charitable manner.

I hope and pray that one day you release the need to be critical at all. - elijahmaria

 
With that perspective one would likely view Mr. Michael Voris as being a bad catholic. Yet he is not viewed that way by most lay people in communion with Rome, but as a lay person helping guard the faith. Part of being critical comes from love to protect ourselves and our societies, as a child wants it's parent to learn from their mistake. Christ was critical!, being critical is not wrong, if done out of love and with areas of the faith that are "non-negotiable". This is an important part of the faith and teaching of the Orthodox Church (by default also older historic latin rite Orthodoxy of pre-1054, continuing to be part of it in some way even now).

[Christopher McAvoy]

There are loyal traditional groups in the Catholic Church today like the FSSP who is doing a great job of promoting the traditional Mass and preserving the traditional spirituality of the Latin Rite.

For those who don't know the FSSP has since 1988 experienced intense persecution from the majority of Latin rite bishops.
In most cases, the only reason the FSSP was allowed to celebrate mass regularly in a diocese was in order to compete with an SSPX or other independent traditional latin mass church that the bishop did not want there.

This happened in the diocese of Harrisburg, PA in 2005 with the Mater Dei community in St. Lawrence chapel forming with the permission of bishop Kevin Rhodes to compete against the chapel of St. Peter and Paul in York, PA which had been requesting a latin mass for its people for a decade or more, and finally found an independent priest to do it without the diocese permission. (That priest turned out later to have been a pedophile sadly ! which caused more scandal.)

It's no different than the situation in Baltimore, MD where the officially diocesan St. Alphonsus church trad. latin mass was set up in 1991 to compete with the non-diocesan independent SSPV chapel on the other side of town.

Nor is it different than situations in Richmond and Virginia Beach, VA where the very same situation existed. A successful SSPX chapel needed to be stopped - they sent in the FSSP to compete - but 20 years too late, after they were totally entrenched and the people attending were mostly alienated and mistrustful of their local bishops, therefore more of the success at the FSSP churches came from new converts and younger people who didnt know their history, not the original flocks they intended it for.

Very few of the dioceses willingly helped or endorsed the FSSP.
They only sought out their assistance when they felt they had no other option.
That tells you everything. They had deep prejudiced against them. Many bishops still do.

[choy]

There are loyal traditional groups in the Catholic Church today like the FSSP who is doing a great job of promoting the traditional Mass and preserving the traditional spirituality of the Latin Rite.

For those who don't know the FSSP has since 1988 experienced intense persecution from the majority of Latin rite bishops.
In most cases, the only reason the FSSP was allowed to celebrate mass regularly in a diocese was in order to compete with an SSPX or other independent traditional latin mass church that the bishop did not want there.

This happened in the diocese of Harrisburg, PA in 2005 with the Mater Dei community in St. Lawrence chapel forming with the permission of bishop Kevin Rhodes to compete against the chapel of St. Peter and Paul in York, PA which had been requesting a latin mass for its people for a decade or more, and finally found an independent priest to do it without the diocese permission. (That priest turned out later to have been a pedophile sadly ! which caused more scandal.)

It's no different than the situation in Baltimore, MD where the officially diocesan St. Alphonsus church trad. latin mass was set up in 1991 to compete with the non-diocesan independent SSPV chapel on the other side of town.

Nor is it different than situations in Richmond and Virginia Beach, VA where the very same situation existed. A successful SSPX chapel needed to be stopped - they sent in the FSSP to compete - but 20 years too late, after they were totally entrenched and the people attending were mostly alienated and mistrustful of their local bishops, therefore more of the success at the FSSP churches came from new converts and younger people who didnt know their history, not the original flocks they intended it for.

Very few of the dioceses willingly helped or endorsed the FSSP.
They only sought out their assistance when they felt they had no other option.
That tells you everything. They had deep prejudiced against them. Many bishops still do.

True enough.  But fact is, we have the FSSP now, why bother with the SSPX?

[Hermogenes]

There are loyal traditional groups in the Catholic Church today like the FSSP who is doing a great job of promoting the traditional Mass and preserving the traditional spirituality of the Latin Rite.

For those who don't know the FSSP has since 1988 experienced intense persecution from the majority of Latin rite bishops.
In most cases, the only reason the FSSP was allowed to celebrate mass regularly in a diocese was in order to compete with an SSPX or other independent traditional latin mass church that the bishop did not want there.

This happened in the diocese of Harrisburg, PA in 2005 with the Mater Dei community in St. Lawrence chapel forming with the permission of bishop Kevin Rhodes to compete against the chapel of St. Peter and Paul in York, PA which had been requesting a latin mass for its people for a decade or more, and finally found an independent priest to do it without the diocese permission. (That priest turned out later to have been a pedophile sadly ! which caused more scandal.)

It's no different than the situation in Baltimore, MD where the officially diocesan St. Alphonsus church trad. latin mass was set up in 1991 to compete with the non-diocesan independent SSPV chapel on the other side of town.

Nor is it different than situations in Richmond and Virginia Beach, VA where the very same situation existed. A successful SSPX chapel needed to be stopped - they sent in the FSSP to compete - but 20 years too late, after they were totally entrenched and the people attending were mostly alienated and mistrustful of their local bishops, therefore more of the success at the FSSP churches came from new converts and younger people who didnt know their history, not the original flocks they intended it for.

Very few of the dioceses willingly helped or endorsed the FSSP.
They only sought out their assistance when they felt they had no other option.
That tells you everything. They had deep prejudiced against them. Many bishops still do.

True enough.  But fact is, we have the FSSP now, why bother with the SSPX?

Why bother with either. Is that you are Orthodox?

[Peter J]

What does it mean to be "comparatively orthodox"? Compared to being an outright heretic? But how can any form of the Roman liturgy be orthodox? Whether Latin or vernacular, Tridentine or Novus Ordo, the liturgy itself contains hertical beliefs. If this were not the case, then choosing to be Roman or Greek Catholic would simply be a matter of preference and not a reflection of our understanding of God's truth.

My experience has been that Orthodox don't consider either Greek Catholics or "Roman" Catholics to be orthodox.

I'm using the term "Greek Catholic" in the sense my church does. Before it became autocephalous in 1970, it was the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Christian Church. The Eastern Rite is a whole other thread I really hope we can avoid discussing here.

OIC. In that case, I think I also misunderstood you when you said "Roman Catholic", a phrase that many on OCnet substitute in place of "Latin Catholic".

[Hermogenes]

What does it mean to be "comparatively orthodox"? Compared to being an outright heretic? But how can any form of the Roman liturgy be orthodox? Whether Latin or vernacular, Tridentine or Novus Ordo, the liturgy itself contains hertical beliefs. If this were not the case, then choosing to be Roman or Greek Catholic would simply be a matter of preference and not a reflection of our understanding of God's truth.

My experience has been that Orthodox don't consider either Greek Catholics or "Roman" Catholics to be orthodox.

I'm using the term "Greek Catholic" in the sense my church does. Before it became autocephalous in 1970, it was the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Christian Church. The Eastern Rite is a whole other thread I really hope we can avoid discussing here.

OIC. In that case, I think I also misunderstood you when you said "Roman Catholic", a phrase that many on OCnet substitute in place of "Latin Catholic".

It's hard to be clear. If I say Eastern Orthodox, am I also including the Oriental churches? Oriental means eastern, after all. The unified church that split in 1054 had fewer moving parts. Latin and Greek mostly covered it.

[choy]

Why bother with either. Is that you are Orthodox?

I am still Catholic, which is why it bothers me.

[Hermogenes]

What does it mean to be "comparatively orthodox"? Compared to being an outright heretic? But how can any form of the Roman liturgy be orthodox? Whether Latin or vernacular, Tridentine or Novus Ordo, the liturgy itself contains hertical beliefs. If this were not the case, then choosing to be Roman or Greek Catholic would simply be a matter of preference and not a reflection of our understanding of God's truth.

My experience has been that Orthodox don't consider either Greek Catholics or "Roman" Catholics to be orthodox.

I'm using the term "Greek Catholic" in the sense my church does. Before it became autocephalous in 1970, it was the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Christian Church. The Eastern Rite is a whole other thread I really hope we can avoid discussing here.

OIC. In that case, I think I also misunderstood you when you said "Roman Catholic", a phrase that many on OCnet substitute in place of "Latin Catholic".

It's hard to be clear. If I say Eastern Orthodox, am I also including the Oriental churches? Oriental means eastern, after all. The unified church that split in 1054 had fewer moving parts. Latin and Greek mostly covered it.

May I ask what you are hoping to learn? I know there's a snobbery to Orthodoxy sometimes ("The One True Church"), but if I might make a suggestion? Just go to a couple of churches, maybe at least one Russian and one Greek, just for an overview, and pay attention to your own interior responses during and after. I love my co-religionists, but I'm a leftie 60s liberal, so you can guess how often I hear stuff that irritates me. But in the midst of prayer, or, especially, Divine Liturgy, inevitably it melts away and leaves me with a feeling of presence. The only other place I've ever found anything close to it (and I'm frankly afraid to mention it) has been on long zen meditation retreats.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: How has becoming Orthodox from Roman Catholic changed you?