This thread is among the most interesting to read, it's like a direct personal and entirely subjective proposition with no meaningful answer, "why do Protestants convert...?" I honestly could see myself converting to either Roman Catholicism (but knowingly to a traditionalist variety, like SSPX) or to Eastern Orthodoxy (by way of a more traditionalist jurisdiction) - a good number of years from now.
I am not intellectually sophisticated enough to 'ascertain' and 'judge' the truth-claims of either, on say the papacy or the Councils, especially when there is so much wiggle-room in when papal infallibility applies to a Catholic perspective, or exactly which decrees (properly canons?) of the Ecumenical Councils are a "must-believe" to an Orthodox one. The nuances claimed on each side for various things, in catchwords and phrases like "economy", "no salvation outside the Church" (anything less than this actually sounds like a deterrent to my 'trying' to convert at any point) muddle up my want for clear answers. Representing an almost perfect caricature of a Bible-touting evangelical fundamentalist - the last word applies to my way of thinking - I fear that nuance in any doctrinal matter defeats the very purpose of acquiring a doctrinal belief, so therefore I should look only to the Scriptures for doctrinal truths, or for supporting doctrinal (dogmatic?) convictions. I must have the emotional and possibly mental maturity (many times I think) of a 10- or 12-year old, even though I am 32.
So should I wing it by feeling - go to services of each, and perhaps of more churches, and just see what jives the most, resonates the most, with my subjective feelings? Thinking about it in this moment (and at many other moments...) after reading Ivanov's posts above, I think that the traditional Latin mass represents (in what it translates to in English, not so much what it sounds like in Latin, audibly or inaudibly) about the most perfect summation of what should be a best well-rounded doctrinal and worshipful participation in the Truth of Christ, in sacramental form. However, I do *not* think the same of the Novus Ordo mass, simplistically because I think this one lacks the sufficiently penitential character (and text) of the TLM.
Now bringing the Orthodox in for a superficial comparison, if I were to look only at the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom, it would not quite have that "sufficiently penitential character" of the TLM and I would favor the Traditional Roman Catholics. Since I have an Orthodox prayer book and have, at a few short periods in the last couple of years, read enough of the prayers in the days before Sunday to acquire a penitential and somber mindset that way, then all turns out to be perfect with the Divine Liturgy on Sunday, after all.
To me, the person of the Pope is ultimately not of fundamental importance, you could guess. Or, at times, I can see the strong points of Catholics in favor of it, more often than I identify with criticism of it by the Orthodox. Trying to believe what the Catholics claim about the papacy works, is my guess, very well when the Pope himself is most well-rounded traditionally, "economically", doctrinally and all that mix. But I shudder and recoil at the thought of what might happen if a social-morality wise liberal Pope got elected, and changed all or very many of the long-held beliefs (contraception, gay sex, abortion, economic philosophy less likely but whichever) seemingly on a whim, time-wise. Catholic apologists will say that can't happen, or that it wouldn't stick in the long-term, but I just can't know, and pessimistically doubt that it wouldn't. In turn, then, my mind switches over to the Orthodox convictions on why the papacy is the wrong way to administer the church (or claim that it is the way the church is to be administered - as a wannabe traditionalist morally, how easily so many nay the majority of Catholics seem to dismiss the Vatican in all things except to acknowledge his nominal person i.e. "the Most Holy Father" is scandalous.)
This is getting too long and has a narcissistic feel to it, sounds like. That is me and not the thread question though. It is meant to be an intelligent reflection on solid theological reasons why Protestants convert to Orthodoxy, is it? Or are subjective responses like mine (from one who hasn't converted to anything) fine?
What are the simpletons (or the simplifiers) to do with such questions when it is like a personal proposition that utterly confounds them?
