Author Topic: Seriously Considering Converting  (Read 7082 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline freedominspring

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Faith: Catholic (Sedevacantist)
Seriously Considering Converting
« on: January 27, 2014, 08:45:06 PM »
For a long period of time I have considered myself a committed Roman Catholic.   Recently I have discovered I cannot hold that same worldview in good faith because what most people believe is the Roman Catholic Church has undeniably reversed defined dogmas after and during Vatican II.   Its gotten to the point where I don't believe I can defend my faith when having conversations with Protestants while remaining a Vatican II Catholic.

For example: 

The Catholic Church historically teaches:  Only Catholics may receive communion.
Vatican II teaches:  Non-Catholics may receive communion.
The Catholic Church historically teaches: People with opposing views on the trinnity or the Lord Jesus Christ are rejected. 
Vatican II teaches:  (Religious) Jews and heretics are not rejected by the Church.   
The Catholic Church historically teaches:  All must be converted.
Vatican II teaches:  Protestants and schismatics don't have to be converted. 
The Catholic Church historically teaches:  It is a mortal sin to take part in Non-Catholic worship
Vatican II teaches:  It is good to take part in non-Catholic worship. 
The Catholic Church historically teaches:  Islam is a diabolical sect
Vatican II teaches:  Muslims worship the same God.
The Catholic Church historically teaches:   Protestantism is heresy.
Vatican II teaches:  Protestantism is not heresy and salvation by "faith alone" is not heresy. 
The Catholic Church historically teaches:  That missionaries should be sent all over the world and they have risked their lives to convert people. 
Vatican II teaches:  Other religions do not need to be converted.
The Catholic Church historically teaches:  Marriage is indissoluble
Vatican II teaches:  Annulments can be given out all the time .


(That was just to give some background of how I don't think I can remain in the Vatican II Church and believe that Francis is the Pope and be consistent.  The Roman Catholic Church cannot change doctrine and at the same time remain the Catholic Church.) 

Right now I am torn between Eastern Orthodoxy and Traditional (Sedevacantist)  Catholicism. 

I am in the middle of a spiritual standstill in my life between moving away from one theological position to a new one. 

And its truly a horrendous experience.
 
It seems like if I don't find the right position I have a high probability of going to Hell.  (Since I am deciding to leave the Vatican II Church I will go to Hell according to them).   But if I don't embrace traditional Catholicism and Sedevacantism (which means there is no current Pope) I will also go to Hell according to that worldview. 

I am going to give the reasons why I might not convert to Eastern Orthodoxy and I would like someone to respond and inform me what Orthodox Christians believe and why they believe it and what supports the position.

------------------------------------------------

Top reasons why I might not convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. 

1)Petrine doctrine  (Matthew 16:18) 
(I don't want to beat a dead horse because I'm sure these forums have discussed this plenty of times,  but I've never discussed this (or even met an Eastern Orthodox person) and I would like someone to explain their reasons for rejecting this doctrine.) 

2) Miracles associated with the Catholic Church after the East-West Schism that are not found in post Schism Eastern Orthodoxy (at least I haven't heard about them, I'd be happy to learn if they exist).  (this is VERY IMPORTANT.  You should always expect the true church of Jesus Christ to have  miracles with no possible natural cause associated with it.  I have never heard any such thing from Eastern Orthodox Churches.)    (See John 14:12-14)

3) If I convert to Eastern Orthodoxy and then decide that the Petrine Doctrine must be believed for salvation and even though I don't know that Orthodoxy is actually true I will definitely go to Hell,  but if I don't convert to Orthodoxy in the first place I will not necessarily go to Hell.

5)  The Church must be "One" in all points of faith.  The Orthodox faith is One in many respects (but not all).   You have no way to convene another ecumenical council.  This essentially brings me back to number 1.   The Papacy is the Principle of unity in the Catholic Church.  I find it hard to believe how the Church can be "One"  without a principleof Unity such as the Papacy. 

6) I believe using any form of Birth Control (even within marriage) is a deadly sin.   Not all Orthodox agree on this and I personally think this is very important. 

7)  I have strong leanings toward Catholic dogma,  such as the Immaculate Conception.

8 I think I heard somewhere that Orthodox Christians do not believe valid Christian marriages are indissoluble (correct me if I'm wrong).  I firmly believe that such marriages if they are valid are indissoluble. 

I am not necessarily going to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy but am posting this because very few people hold the sedevacantist position (which is the only position I can hold to be a Catholic in good faith and consistently hold).  I don't want to hold a worldview that so very few people hold that it will probably cause me to be lonely in many respects (religion and Jesus are very important to me.)   The main reason I am posting this is because I would like input from multiple sides of the issue before making a commitment to embracing any worldview.
 

Sorry if this post seems a little long and\or convoluted.  But I don't know anyone at all who's Eastern Orthodox and I'd really like some help (not to mention prayers).   Under better circumstances I would go to an Orthodox Church and discuss all these points with a priest but I have no way to get to one any time soon.  I also don't know much about Eastern Orthodoxy (beyond basic differences from Catholicism) besides what happened during the East-West Schism. 

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2014, 09:09:38 PM »
Thank God. Someone else can see the folly of Vatican II's contradictions of Catholic teaching.

1. The Petrine doctrine is true. But Orthodox would take issue with the idea that this doctrine SOLELY rests with the Bishop of Rome, (aka. the Pope) rather than (1) all faithful Christians, (2) all Bishops and (3) the Patriarch of Antioch who also succeeds from St. Peter.

In other words, the Pope isn't the only successor to St. Peter, as is claimed. So he doesn't get magic powers.

2. St. John of Shanghai was a miracle-worker. There are miraculous Icons like the Sitka Icon. St. Gregory Palamas had visions of the Mother of God.

3. Same for all of us.  :laugh:

Sedevacantism seems like Protestantism with a Catholic face. Catholicism is the Pope. That's all. Pope Pius IX said: "I am the Church. I am tradition." Without the Pope, there is no Catholic Church.

5. There hasn't been a need to convene an Ecumenical Council. Rome thinks every ten years they need a new council, this isn't how Orthodoxy works. Furthermore, there are already councils which have been "ecumenical" but not officially considered as such. Like the Fourth Council of Constantinople.

7. Why do you need an Immaculate Conception? Original Sin doesn't exist.

8. All marriages are sacramental and are given that weight. They are not a legal contract.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2014, 09:10:45 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline freedominspring

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Faith: Catholic (Sedevacantist)
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2014, 09:24:49 PM »

3. Same for all of us.  :laugh:

If that's true and someone can technically be saved while not being a card carrying member of the OHCA (orthodox) church someone would basically be doing a disservice to me in converting me.

Quote
8. All marriages are sacramental and are given that weight. They are not a legal contract.

You mean non-Christian (and Christian) marriages are sacramental and indissoluble?  I assume polygamous and forced marriages would not count.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2014, 09:31:17 PM »

3. Same for all of us.  :laugh:

If that's true and someone can technically be saved while not being a card carrying member of the OHCA (orthodox) church someone would basically be doing a disservice to me in converting me.

Quote
8. All marriages are sacramental and are given that weight. They are not a legal contract.

You mean non-Christian (and Christian) marriages are sacramental and indissoluble?  I assume polygamous and forced marriages would not count.

Christian marriages in the Orthodox Church are sacramental and indissoluble except under certain circumstances. Polygamous and forced marriages would probably not be sanctified by the Church in the first place.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline FormerCalvinist

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2014, 10:32:31 PM »
If that's true and someone can technically be saved while not being a card carrying member of the OHCA (orthodox) church someone would basically be doing a disservice to me in converting me.

You may find this article helpful: http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/metphil_heterodox.aspx

Quote
With reference to the above question, it is particularly instructive to recall the answer once given to an inquirer by the Blessed Theophan the Recluse. The blessed one replied more or less thus: "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."

I'm not sure how bringing someone into the fullness of Truth is doing them a disservice.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2014, 11:01:11 PM by FormerCalvinist »

Offline Space Cadet

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2014, 10:33:49 PM »
Quick question is which sedevacantist group would you be seeing?? The three wise men(cekada,dolan,sanborn)?, idiot cmri?, isolated sspv?, or vanilla independent?

I have purchased albums from the itunes store feom the sspv sisters. Good stuff.

The cmri "priests" are dumb. Literally. They suck at homilies and latin. I know this because ive dealt with them.

The three wise men are big talkers. Plus that kiddy sex ring a few years back in cincinnati shadows that operation.

What i learned to understand is that the sedevacantist seminaries produce idiots in general. Their instructors are underpaid fanatics with no canonical standing and no pontifical doctorates. The same can be said about their bishops. No doctorates. Its all independent study for them. They learn things as they go about their day to day duties.

Thuc line bishops and priests are a joke. Their pedigrees are a disgusting joke.

The sspx?? That body is collapsping as i type this. Soon theyll be majority independent priests running around the world with a williamson pedigree. Plus they use a thrashed 1962 missal with raped canon. St Joseph.

I personally acvept vatican ii. I reject happy clappy nom as the conceptualized mass at the council. I reject a wimp slack jawed pope who doesnt stand up for jesus and impose him down jewish and muslim throats. Shake that baby and slam it at the wall.

All talk about evangelizing and no action in doing it. Pure dialogue.

Hang in there buddy. Iam in the same boat. Im in talks with the local orthodox parish.


Offline freedominspring

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Faith: Catholic (Sedevacantist)
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2014, 10:40:25 PM »
Quick question is which sedevacantist group would you be seeing??


I have no idea.  This whole situation is a mess.  I'm just trying to sort through it. 

Offline Maria

  • Boldly Proclaiming True Orthodox Christianity
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,023
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
    • Saint Euphrosynos Cafe Discussion Forum
  • Faith: TrueGenuine Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC under Archbishop Stephanos
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2014, 10:43:14 PM »
Quick question is which sedevacantist group would you be seeing??


I have no idea.  This whole situation is a mess.  I'm just trying to sort through it.  

Visit an Orthodox Church, but be sure it is a "canonical" Orthodox Church, not the local Charismatic Orthodox Catholic Church down the street run by a married bishop couple. Of yes, there are those who look like the Orthodox, but are not.

I am praying for you. I also converted from Roman Catholicism.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2014, 10:44:50 PM by Maria »
The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai
Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,
Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Offline FormerCalvinist

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2014, 11:03:20 PM »
When I was investigating between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, one of the things that helped me toward Eastern Orthodoxy was the realization that the only way I could become a Roman Catholic was to be a Sedevacantist. Vatican II an irreconcilable problem for me.

Offline Space Cadet

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2014, 11:05:04 PM »
Yeah me too. Im trying to sort this out. I lurk at cathinfo forum and abplefebvre forum.

These guys are in a mess. They support the break away sspx "resistance".

Its all a big mess in sspx world. 50 priests have defected and 1 bishop has too. That leaves the sspx with minus 500 priests. Pacendi dominici gregis Modernism has infiltrated the sspx. Speaking out two ways from the mouth. Orthodox teaching and modernism. Oh looky! Same with pope francis. To us catholics he says encouraging things. To the catholics obsessed with ssmells and bells he sits on them with a happy face. Franciscans of the immaculate case in point. Sardinias episcopal conference recently slapped down a bid for a defunct pontifical seminary to the institute of christ the king sovereign priest. Icksp. Thats a shame as i considered a vocation as an oblate with them.

Fssp?? Diocesan latin mass?? Icksp?? They are slack in the Rubrics dept. I know all about it.

I have eastern rites in my diocese. Ruthenian syriac greekukranian chaldean maronite.

Its cool and all and i have considered them. Like i said i have no problems with strict interpretation of the council. Its the aftermath that disgusts me.  These eastern rites are tied to a rotten head.

Offline Space Cadet

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #10 on: January 27, 2014, 11:13:36 PM »
When I was investigating between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, one of the things that helped me toward Eastern Orthodoxy was the realization that the only way I could become a Roman Catholic was to be a Sedevacantist. Vatican II an irreconcilable problem for me.

Yeah thats the problem. To be a faithful catholic the only option is sedevacantism or some form of it.

I was in rcia this month. Next month ill be in converts class. I have spent tons of money on latin learning books and liturgical books. Im looking for peace of mind in this conversion. I want a religion that teaches what jesus said about the only way to god is through the son. If you believed abraham you would believe me. The only way for salvation is water baptism and oils holy spirit. Obey the ten commandments. All of them. Use the seven sacraments in aid to salvation.

Offline Maria

  • Boldly Proclaiming True Orthodox Christianity
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,023
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
    • Saint Euphrosynos Cafe Discussion Forum
  • Faith: TrueGenuine Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC under Archbishop Stephanos
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2014, 11:45:52 PM »
When I was investigating between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, one of the things that helped me toward Eastern Orthodoxy was the realization that the only way I could become a Roman Catholic was to be a Sedevacantist. Vatican II an irreconcilable problem for me.

Yeah thats the problem. To be a faithful catholic the only option is sedevacantism or some form of it.

I was in rcia this month. Next month ill be in converts class. I have spent tons of money on latin learning books and liturgical books. Im looking for peace of mind in this conversion. I want a religion that teaches what jesus said about the only way to god is through the son. If you believed abraham you would believe me. The only way for salvation is water baptism and oils holy spirit. Obey the ten commandments. All of them. Use the seven sacraments in aid to salvation.

Prayer is most essential today. Without it, we become lifeless.
The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai
Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,
Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2014, 12:52:48 AM »
You have no way to convene another ecumenical council. 

Really?
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2014, 12:52:48 AM »
If that's true and someone can technically be saved while not being a card carrying member of the OHCA (orthodox) church someone would basically be doing a disservice to me in converting me.

Tell that to Paul.
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline Incognito777

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 409
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2014, 12:52:48 AM »
Read these books:

Papalism, by Denny (first choice)

The Papacy, by Guettee (second choice)

Against False Union, by Dr. Alexander Kalomiros

The History of the Council of Florence, by Ivan N. Ostroumov

Papal Infallibility and Supremacy Tried by Ecclesiastical History, Scripture and Reason, by Gayer

Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages (Studies in the History of Christian Thought), By Tierney;

Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims, By Whelton;

Two Paths, By Whelton;

A Man Is His Faith. by Ivan Kireyevsky;

The Great Divide, by Father Ambrose Young;

Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, by Saint Justin Popovich;

CONCERNING THE FILIOQUE

The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, by Saint Photios

The Filioque: A History of a Doctrinal Controversy, by Siencienski

And all of the Church Fathers.

Offline freedominspring

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Faith: Catholic (Sedevacantist)
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2014, 01:14:54 AM »
You have no way to convene another ecumenical council. 

Really?

I always thought the Orthodox Church had lost the capability to convene another one that would be binding on all Christians.  If the opposite is true I'd love to hear about it. 

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,594
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2014, 01:17:51 AM »
You have no way to convene another ecumenical council. 

Really?

I always thought the Orthodox Church had lost the capability to convene another one that would be binding on all Christians.  If the opposite is true I'd love to hear about it. 

Ecumenical Councils were convened to combat heresies which were endangering the Church. I know of no current heresies which would give cause to the convening of such a council.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Online Gorazd

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,298
  • Faith: 7 Councils
  • Jurisdiction: First without Equals
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2014, 02:17:00 AM »

Ecumenical Councils were convened to combat heresies which were endangering the Church. I know of no current heresies which would give cause to the convening of such a council.

Phyletism and western captivity are alive and kicking. Any mixture of nationalism and church must end, as well as any kind of scholastic theologising.

Ecumenism is overrated, but still I would be glad for a new council defining clear limits in dealing with the non-orthodox. Also, I would like the Ravenna document to receive Council status. (If that means Moscow goes in schism, fine, then nothing would prevent the EP anymore from granting autocephaly to Ukraine.)

Offline Auryn

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 92
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2014, 02:17:20 AM »
I'm in the same boat.  I tried to ignore the contradictions of Vatican II for years but that had to come to an end.  I'm not going to be sedevacantist because it just doesn't make any practical sense.  Some of them get so convoluted in their reasoning it will make your head spin.  A lot of them have problems with even sedevacantist priests and say they aren't really priests.  It's just ridiculous.  If the Catholic Church promulgated Vatican II and took away most of the Catholic Traditions including even the Mass, then it is not the true Church and to hell with it.  
I am struggling with giving up the traditions I loved personally, and the Saints that I loved.  But, those traditions are dead in the Church anyway and the Saints wouldn't even recognize the Church anymore.  
I try to learn the arguments for the Orthodox Church but it keeps becoming pretty simplified in my head.  The Orthodox have kept the traditions.  The traditions are most important as anyone can see now who is a Catholic and has had their traditions taken from them.  So, Orthodox is where I'm going and I'll tie up loose ends as I go.   It isn't easy, I've lost friends over it.  But, it's more important to me to be able to go to a REAL MASS every Sunday than having to go to the Novus Ordo where I was going, grit my teeth and try to live in a Catholic fantasy land that no longer even exists.  
If there is prayer, the soul lives; without prayer, there is no spiritual life. + St. Theophan the Recluse +

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #19 on: January 28, 2014, 04:01:03 AM »
I always thought the Orthodox Church had lost the capability to convene another one that would be binding on all Christians.  If the opposite is true I'd love to hear about it. 

Ecumenical Council is binding for the Church, not "all Christians". If those Christians are outside of the Church why would they care about Ecumenical Councils anyway?
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline freedominspring

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Faith: Catholic (Sedevacantist)
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2014, 01:57:17 PM »
I always thought the Orthodox Church had lost the capability to convene another one that would be binding on all Christians.  If the opposite is true I'd love to hear about it. 

Ecumenical Council is binding for the Church, not "all Christians". If those Christians are outside of the Church why would they care about Ecumenical Councils anyway?

Because under ideal circumstances "all Christians" would be in the Church and all Christians definitely should be in the Church,  if that Church was truly founded by Jesus Christ.  For example if an Ecumenical Council clarifies that a certain action is sinful,  it's going to be a sin for someone to do it regardless if they are "in the Church."  Doesn't matter what someone believes about it, because it would still be true. 

Offline danieldjewell

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #21 on: January 28, 2014, 02:04:06 PM »
My first post.

To the OP, I understand your struggle. There is much of beauty in the Roman Catholic tradition. However, if it is your intent to remain faithful to the apostolic deposit as understood by the Romans, how can one consider sedevacatism?

I would suggest prayer. I believe that if one is considering either Orthodoxy or Crypto-protestantism, one is not prepared for a conversion.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 02:04:26 PM by danieldjewell »

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #22 on: January 28, 2014, 02:12:51 PM »
Because under ideal circumstances "all Christians" would be in the Church and all Christians definitely should be in the Church,  if that Church was truly founded by Jesus Christ.  For example if an Ecumenical Council clarifies that a certain action is sinful,  it's going to be a sin for someone to do it regardless if they are "in the Church."  Doesn't matter what someone believes about it, because it would still be true. 

Ecumenical Council can't declare something OK sinful or something not-OK as non-sinful out of sudden. It doesn't work that way.
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #23 on: January 28, 2014, 02:19:19 PM »
I always thought the Orthodox Church had lost the capability to convene another one that would be binding on all Christians.  If the opposite is true I'd love to hear about it. 

Ecumenical Council is binding for the Church, not "all Christians". If those Christians are outside of the Church why would they care about Ecumenical Councils anyway?

Because under ideal circumstances "all Christians" would be in the Church and all Christians definitely should be in the Church,  if that Church was truly founded by Jesus Christ.  For example if an Ecumenical Council clarifies that a certain action is sinful,  it's going to be a sin for someone to do it regardless if they are "in the Church."  Doesn't matter what someone believes about it, because it would still be true. 

You do realize that these "ideal circumstances" never existed in any point in history, right? Ecumenical councils don't make laws, they define boundaries between Orthodoxy and heresy.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline jah777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,132
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #24 on: January 28, 2014, 04:13:04 PM »
Top reasons why I might not convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. 
1)Petrine doctrine  (Matthew 16:18) 
(I don't want to beat a dead horse because I'm sure these forums have discussed this plenty of times,  but I've never discussed this (or even met an Eastern Orthodox person) and I would like someone to explain their reasons for rejecting this doctrine.) 

We fully accept and affirm the words that the Lord spoke in Matthew 16:18, as well as the patristic consensus regarding the interpretation of these words.  For this reason, we also reject the Roman Catholic misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18 and the “Petrine doctrine” which flows from this error.  “This rock”, upon which the Lord built His Church is Peter’s confession of faith and not Peter himself, whom the Lord then rebuked by saying “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men (Matt 16:23).”

2) Miracles associated with the Catholic Church after the East-West Schism that are not found in post Schism Eastern Orthodoxy (at least I haven't heard about them, I'd be happy to learn if they exist).  (this is VERY IMPORTANT.  You should always expect the true church of Jesus Christ to have  miracles with no possible natural cause associated with it.  I have never heard any such thing from Eastern Orthodox Churches.)    (See John 14:12-14)

The Orthodox Church has seen countless miracles since the Schism.  However, we have noticed that after the Schism many strange phenomena began to appear in Roman Catholicism that did not occur in the undivided Church of the first millennium and do not occur today in Orthodoxy; such as the so-called “stigmata”, the many strange and questionable “apparitions”, bleeding statues, etc.  We do not consider such phenomena to be necessarily from God and tend to be very sober about such phenomena in general.  Some miracles you may be interested in investigating are the miracle of the Holy Fire that occurs every Orthodox Pascha (but not Roman Catholic Easter) at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the reversal of flow of water in the Jordon on the feast of Theophany (Baptism of the Lord), the mysterious cloud that envelops Mt. Tabor on the Orthodox feast of the Transfiguration, the countless miracle-working and myrrh-streaming icons that we have in our Church even today, the many incorrupt saints including St. John of San Francisco who reposed over half a century ago, the countless miracles performed by our post-Schism saints both during their lives and after their repose, etc., etc., etc.  The miracles that have been witnessed and experienced by the Orthodox Church after the Schism are innumerable.

3) If I convert to Eastern Orthodoxy and then decide that the Petrine Doctrine must be believed for salvation and even though I don't know that Orthodoxy is actually true I will definitely go to Hell,  but if I don't convert to Orthodoxy in the first place I will not necessarily go to Hell.

The Petrine Doctrine is erroneous so problem solved. 

5)  The Church must be "One" in all points of faith.  The Orthodox faith is One in many respects (but not all).   You have no way to convene another ecumenical council.  This essentially brings me back to number 1.   The Papacy is the Principle of unity in the Catholic Church.  I find it hard to believe how the Church can be "One"  without a principleof Unity such as the Papacy.

All Orthodox churches are one in faith, though we differ in matters of church piety (frequency of confession, how our hymns are sung or chanted, etc.).  The Pope of Rome was not necessary for the convening of Ecumenical Councils in the first millennium, and he is not necessary for an Ecumenical Council today.  In the Orthodox Church we have profound unity of faith without a Pope, whereas in Roman Catholicism there is organizational unity with a profound lack of unity in faith.

6) I believe using any form of Birth Control (even within marriage) is a deadly sin.   Not all Orthodox agree on this and I personally think this is very important. 

Most Orthodox agree that this is not a simple matter but one that should be worked out with one’s spiritual father.  It is true that not all Orthodox agree that marriage and marital union is intended only for procreation, as many believe that marital union is also a help in taming the passions and preventing the sins of fornication and adultery.  To cut off marital relations from the possibility of conception is a very serious thing and should be discussed with one’s spiritual father and handled pastorally.  It is considered pastoral probably because people have great difficulty in this area, and the widespread use of contraception within Roman Catholicism despite official teaching is indicative of the challenge posed by this teaching.

7)  I have strong leanings toward Catholic dogma,  such as the Immaculate Conception.

This is based on the Augustinian teaching regarding “original sin” which the other Fathers of the Church rejected.  St. John Maximovitch’s book entitled “The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God” is an excellent text which demonstrates how Mary has been denigrated rather than exalted by such false teachings of the Roman Catholics concerning her.  If Mary was conceived in a manner unlike the rest of the human race, then her great purity and holiness is made less remarkable and venerable.  We venerate her as we do, as “More honorable than the cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim” precisely because she was fully human, conceived in a manner just like the rest of us, and yet was immaculate and made worthy to give birth to God in the flesh. 

8 I think I heard somewhere that Orthodox Christians do not believe valid Christian marriages are indissoluble (correct me if I'm wrong).  I firmly believe that such marriages if they are valid are indissoluble. 

Here is a fairly good explanation:

Quote
While in principle the church regards the marriage bond as lifelong and indissoluble, and condemns the breakdown of marriage as a sin and an evil, she still desires to help the sinners and to allow them a second chance. Thus, when a marriage has ceased to be a reality, the Church does not insist on the preservation of a legal fiction. Divorce, therefore, is seen as an exceptional, but necessary concession to human weakness. Yet, while helping men and women to rise again after a fall, the Church does not view a second or third union as being the same as the first and thus, in the ceremony for a second or third marriage, several joyful ceremonies are omitted and replaced by penitential prayers. Orthodox Canon Law permits a second or third marriage, but more than that is strictly forbidden. http://sttikhonsmonastery.org/article.php?id=41

I also don't know much about Eastern Orthodoxy (beyond basic differences from Catholicism) besides what happened during the East-West Schism. 

This is apparent from your post.  I encourage you to read more about Orthodoxy and the reasons why so many Roman Catholics, including many renowned patristic scholars, have converted to Orthodoxy.

Offline jah777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,132
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #25 on: January 28, 2014, 04:14:34 PM »
Here is a book that is available online and may be of interest:

My Exodus from Roman Catholicism by Bishop of Nazianzus Paul de Ballester

http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/Ballester/perieh.htm

Offline spyridon

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 81
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #26 on: January 28, 2014, 04:34:27 PM »
Here is a book that is available online and may be of interest:

My Exodus from Roman Catholicism by Bishop of Nazianzus Paul de Ballester

http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/Ballester/perieh.htm

I strongly support this suggestion.
This book won't take long to read and proved pivotal in my movement towards Orthodoxy. It will show you a Franciscans journey from Rome to ultimately becoming an Orthodox Bishop.
Cuts to the point.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 04:35:49 PM by spyridon »

Offline KostaC

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 295
  • Ὁ Τελευταῖος Ἔπαρχος τῶν Πραιτωρίων της Αφρικής
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Thessaloniki
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #27 on: January 28, 2014, 05:14:48 PM »
I'm in the same boat.  I tried to ignore the contradictions of Vatican II for years but that had to come to an end.  I'm not going to be sedevacantist because it just doesn't make any practical sense.  Some of them get so convoluted in their reasoning it will make your head spin.  A lot of them have problems with even sedevacantist priests and say they aren't really priests.  It's just ridiculous.  If the Catholic Church promulgated Vatican II and took away most of the Catholic Traditions including even the Mass, then it is not the true Church and to hell with it.  
I am struggling with giving up the traditions I loved personally, and the Saints that I loved.  But, those traditions are dead in the Church anyway and the Saints wouldn't even recognize the Church anymore.  
I try to learn the arguments for the Orthodox Church but it keeps becoming pretty simplified in my head.  The Orthodox have kept the traditions.  The traditions are most important as anyone can see now who is a Catholic and has had their traditions taken from them.  So, Orthodox is where I'm going and I'll tie up loose ends as I go.   It isn't easy, I've lost friends over it.  But, it's more important to me to be able to go to a REAL MASS every Sunday than having to go to the Novus Ordo where I was going, grit my teeth and try to live in a Catholic fantasy land that no longer even exists.  

I don't want to pretend that I know your story, but if what you might miss is a western style of worship and a focus on western saints, then perhaps you might be more interested in the Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian church. Most Western Orthodox churches also tend to be small, so it'll be easier to become a beloved and esteemed member of the community on top of that.
«Μὴ μεριμνᾶτε λοιπὸν διὰ τὴν αὔριον, διὀτι ἡ αὐριανὴ ἡμέρα θὰ φροντίσῃ διὰ τὰ δικά της πράγματα. Φθάνει ἡ στεναχώρια τῆς ἡμέρας». Κατά Ματθαίον 6:34

"Bendito seja o que vem em nome do Senhor, o Senhor é Deus e se manifestou a nós."

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #28 on: January 28, 2014, 05:42:11 PM »
Here's a Catholic blogger who recently came to Orthodoxy.

http://ascentofcarmel.blogspot.com/

He's one of the few Catholics who have knowledge of both Eastern and Western traditions. In his "My Journey as a Catholic So Far" he tells of his journey into Catholicism, and from Catholicism, into Orthodoxy.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 05:47:15 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Auryn

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 92
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #29 on: January 28, 2014, 06:03:11 PM »
I'm in the same boat.  I tried to ignore the contradictions of Vatican II for years but that had to come to an end.  I'm not going to be sedevacantist because it just doesn't make any practical sense.  Some of them get so convoluted in their reasoning it will make your head spin.  A lot of them have problems with even sedevacantist priests and say they aren't really priests.  It's just ridiculous.  If the Catholic Church promulgated Vatican II and took away most of the Catholic Traditions including even the Mass, then it is not the true Church and to hell with it.  
I am struggling with giving up the traditions I loved personally, and the Saints that I loved.  But, those traditions are dead in the Church anyway and the Saints wouldn't even recognize the Church anymore.  
I try to learn the arguments for the Orthodox Church but it keeps becoming pretty simplified in my head.  The Orthodox have kept the traditions.  The traditions are most important as anyone can see now who is a Catholic and has had their traditions taken from them.  So, Orthodox is where I'm going and I'll tie up loose ends as I go.   It isn't easy, I've lost friends over it.  But, it's more important to me to be able to go to a REAL MASS every Sunday than having to go to the Novus Ordo where I was going, grit my teeth and try to live in a Catholic fantasy land that no longer even exists.  

I don't want to pretend that I know your story, but if what you might miss is a western style of worship and a focus on western saints, then perhaps you might be more interested in the Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian church. Most Western Orthodox churches also tend to be small, so it'll be easier to become a beloved and esteemed member of the community on top of that.

I'm going to my local Orthodox Church (Carpatho Rus) and I like it just fine.  I went to an Antiochian Church that is further away from me and though it was ok, I didn't like it as much. 
If there is prayer, the soul lives; without prayer, there is no spiritual life. + St. Theophan the Recluse +

Offline Laurentius

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
  • Look at the birds of the air... (Mt 6:26)
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #30 on: January 28, 2014, 07:14:07 PM »
To be fair, not everything in V2 is binding teaching.

Holy Mother of God, save us!

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #31 on: January 28, 2014, 08:33:48 PM »
To be fair, not everything in V2 is binding teaching.

So, Vatican II isn't infallible? Is Vatican I infallible? What about Trent?
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #32 on: January 28, 2014, 08:39:41 PM »
It is true that not all Orthodox agree that marriage and marital union is intended only for procreation, as many believe that marital union is also a help in taming the passions and preventing the sins of fornication and adultery.

Not quite. Marriage is intended to unite a couple.
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #33 on: January 28, 2014, 08:39:42 PM »
I'm going to my local Orthodox Church (Carpatho Rus) and I like it just fine.  I went to an Antiochian Church that is further away from me and though it was ok, I didn't like it as much. 

He was talking about Western Rite Antiochian parishes.
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline Laurentius

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
  • Look at the birds of the air... (Mt 6:26)
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #34 on: January 28, 2014, 09:12:41 PM »
To be fair, not everything in V2 is binding teaching.

So, Vatican II isn't infallible? Is Vatican I infallible? What about Trent?

The infallible statements were obviously considered infallible, but most of the documents were of a pastoral nature. Trent and Vatican I did not give us any pastoral documents, but rather dogmatic ones. There were some dogmatic documents in Vatican II also, but not many. Most of them are more similar to Encyclicals, if even that.

I think if you read the actual documents and the statements surrounding them, this should be quite obvious.

I would say converting because of VII is a bad idea. There are better reasons.

Pax!
Holy Mother of God, save us!

Offline Maria

  • Boldly Proclaiming True Orthodox Christianity
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,023
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
    • Saint Euphrosynos Cafe Discussion Forum
  • Faith: TrueGenuine Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC under Archbishop Stephanos
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #35 on: January 28, 2014, 09:34:36 PM »
To be fair, not everything in V2 is binding teaching.

So, Vatican II isn't infallible? Is Vatican I infallible? What about Trent?

The infallible statements were obviously considered infallible, but most of the documents were of a pastoral nature. Trent and Vatican I did not give us any pastoral documents, but rather dogmatic ones. There were some dogmatic documents in Vatican II also, but not many. Most of them are more similar to Encyclicals, if even that.

I think if you read the actual documents and the statements surrounding them, this should be quite obvious.

I would say converting because of VII is a bad idea. There are better reasons.

Pax!

Hey! When I was attending a Catholic university, the Roman Catholic priests told us that the documents of Vatican II WERE NOT infallible, and that Vatican II was only a pastoral council. Even so, Catholics were to believe those documents with religious assent. I remember reading those documents and shaking my head. Lord have mercy.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 09:36:23 PM by Maria »
The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai
Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,
Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Offline Maximum Bob

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,474
  • Personal Text? We can have personal text?
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #36 on: January 29, 2014, 01:59:08 AM »
I don't know much about your reasons for wanting to leave Rome, never having been Roman Catholic myself, but, I did make a decision to leave Protestantism having been a Protestant minister. What I can say though is your reason for coming to Orthodoxy should be much more about coming to Orthodoxy than about leaving somewhere else. There are significant differences in thought and understanding between East and West. The Orthodox view is that Rome's departure from the apostolic faith is what lead to the Great Schism. It may be that Rome's actions in Vatican 2 are saying to you that they are unfaithful to the apostles teaching but if we're right it started much earlier than that, which means there is much to learn but also much to unlearn.

I wish you well in your journey, but again if you do decide to convert to Orthodoxy let it be about coming to Orthodoxy not about leaving Rome.
Psalm 37:23 The Lord guides a man safely in the way he should go.

Prov. 3: 5-6 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct your paths.

Offline Laurentius

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
  • Look at the birds of the air... (Mt 6:26)
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #37 on: January 29, 2014, 06:48:23 AM »
To be fair, not everything in V2 is binding teaching.

So, Vatican II isn't infallible? Is Vatican I infallible? What about Trent?

The infallible statements were obviously considered infallible, but most of the documents were of a pastoral nature. Trent and Vatican I did not give us any pastoral documents, but rather dogmatic ones. There were some dogmatic documents in Vatican II also, but not many. Most of them are more similar to Encyclicals, if even that.

I think if you read the actual documents and the statements surrounding them, this should be quite obvious.

I would say converting because of VII is a bad idea. There are better reasons.

Pax!

Hey! When I was attending a Catholic university, the Roman Catholic priests told us that the documents of Vatican II WERE NOT infallible, and that Vatican II was only a pastoral council. Even so, Catholics were to believe those documents with religious assent. I remember reading those documents and shaking my head. Lord have mercy.

Some of it is bad of course, especially when it comes to Liturgy, but other parts are beautiful. Florovsky was one of the more influential theologians when it came to collegiality etc. Most Orthodox would like that....

"Religious assent" should not contradict your conscience, nor the Faith. This goes both for pastoral documents, encyclicals, the spiritual guidance of your Confessor etc. At least that is how I was taught, and I believe it is traditional Catholicism.

Anyhow, I am not trying to dissuade the guy. I just feel like you should not leave your faith because of bad reasons. He believes in Catholic dogma, but he simply cannot make it go together with V2 documents. Well, these documents are not binding, so his problem should be solved. If you want to persuade him to join your Church, show him why these dogmas are wrong instead.

Trend should be a bigger obstacle to unity with the Orthodox than V2.
Holy Mother of God, save us!

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #38 on: January 29, 2014, 08:21:52 AM »
To be fair, not everything in V2 is binding teaching.

So, Vatican II isn't infallible? Is Vatican I infallible? What about Trent?

The infallible statements were obviously considered infallible, but most of the documents were of a pastoral nature. Trent and Vatican I did not give us any pastoral documents, but rather dogmatic ones. There were some dogmatic documents in Vatican II also, but not many. Most of them are more similar to Encyclicals, if even that.

I think if you read the actual documents and the statements surrounding them, this should be quite obvious.

I would say converting because of VII is a bad idea. There are better reasons.

Pax!

Hey! When I was attending a Catholic university, the Roman Catholic priests told us that the documents of Vatican II WERE NOT infallible, and that Vatican II was only a pastoral council. Even so, Catholics were to believe those documents with religious assent. I remember reading those documents and shaking my head. Lord have mercy.

Some of it is bad of course, especially when it comes to Liturgy, but other parts are beautiful. Florovsky was one of the more influential theologians when it came to collegiality etc. Most Orthodox would like that....

"Religious assent" should not contradict your conscience, nor the Faith. This goes both for pastoral documents, encyclicals, the spiritual guidance of your Confessor etc. At least that is how I was taught, and I believe it is traditional Catholicism.

Anyhow, I am not trying to dissuade the guy. I just feel like you should not leave your faith because of bad reasons. He believes in Catholic dogma, but he simply cannot make it go together with V2 documents. Well, these documents are not binding, so his problem should be solved. If you want to persuade him to join your Church, show him why these dogmas are wrong instead.

Trend should be a bigger obstacle to unity with the Orthodox than V2.

Hmm... well, is the Pope praying with Jews and Evangelicals 'binding'? The only thing I think Orthodox would have a problem with Trent is the Original Sin section.

It states:
Quote
If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

I think Vatican I is much bigger an obstacle.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2014, 08:26:31 AM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Laurentius

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
  • Look at the birds of the air... (Mt 6:26)
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #39 on: January 29, 2014, 04:15:44 PM »
To be fair, not everything in V2 is binding teaching.

So, Vatican II isn't infallible? Is Vatican I infallible? What about Trent?

The infallible statements were obviously considered infallible, but most of the documents were of a pastoral nature. Trent and Vatican I did not give us any pastoral documents, but rather dogmatic ones. There were some dogmatic documents in Vatican II also, but not many. Most of them are more similar to Encyclicals, if even that.

I think if you read the actual documents and the statements surrounding them, this should be quite obvious.

I would say converting because of VII is a bad idea. There are better reasons.

Pax!

Hey! When I was attending a Catholic university, the Roman Catholic priests told us that the documents of Vatican II WERE NOT infallible, and that Vatican II was only a pastoral council. Even so, Catholics were to believe those documents with religious assent. I remember reading those documents and shaking my head. Lord have mercy.

Some of it is bad of course, especially when it comes to Liturgy, but other parts are beautiful. Florovsky was one of the more influential theologians when it came to collegiality etc. Most Orthodox would like that....

"Religious assent" should not contradict your conscience, nor the Faith. This goes both for pastoral documents, encyclicals, the spiritual guidance of your Confessor etc. At least that is how I was taught, and I believe it is traditional Catholicism.

Anyhow, I am not trying to dissuade the guy. I just feel like you should not leave your faith because of bad reasons. He believes in Catholic dogma, but he simply cannot make it go together with V2 documents. Well, these documents are not binding, so his problem should be solved. If you want to persuade him to join your Church, show him why these dogmas are wrong instead.

Trend should be a bigger obstacle to unity with the Orthodox than V2.

Hmm... well, is the Pope praying with Jews and Evangelicals 'binding'? The only thing I think Orthodox would have a problem with Trent is the Original Sin section.

It states:
Quote
If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

I think Vatican I is much bigger an obstacle.

No him praying with Jews is not binding. Are you asking or are you just acting silly?

And yes, I also find original sin and papal infallibility hard to accept. I do however appreciate intellectual  honesty. We should not play with truth just to serve a higher aim, as if we were Jesuits.

I just read "Two paths" that someone else recommended here for example. It was very interesting in many aspects, but I believe it carried some of the same problems that are shown in this thread. He very much used V2 to proof that the Roman Church contradicted itself, but since he was a Traditional Catholic for many years, he should know that most of these documents are not binding.

Holy Mother of God, save us!

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,750
  • Why am I still here?
  • Faith: New Calendarist
  • Jurisdiction: Priestly Society of St. John Ireland
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #40 on: January 29, 2014, 04:54:41 PM »
We fully accept and affirm the words that the Lord spoke in Matthew 16:18, as well as the patristic consensus regarding the interpretation of these words.  For this reason, we also reject the Roman Catholic misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18 and the “Petrine doctrine” which flows from this error.  “This rock”, upon which the Lord built His Church is Peter’s confession of faith and not Peter himself

False dichotomy. It's both/and, not either/or. Both St. Peter himself and his confession is referred to as the rock by the Fathers and AFAIK no Father specifically objected either interpretation.

Also, channeling my inner LBK:

http://oca.org/saints/troparia/2013/06/29/101840-the-holy-glorious-and-all-praised-leaders-of-the-apostles-peter
« Last Edit: January 29, 2014, 04:55:03 PM by Alpo »
I just need to find out how to say it in Slavonic!

Offline Nektarios_In_E.S.

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #41 on: January 29, 2014, 06:11:26 PM »
Dear Freedominspring, from a fellow (ex)Roman Catholic,

Because we have encountered many other Roman Catholics on this forum, either inquiring because they were seriously a few steps away from converting -yet had just a few "usual" Roman Catholic questions- or their search into the Orthodox Church merely began, I seemed to have given -generally- the same advise.

I have gathered some excerpts from my previous post, which I believe can help you. 

FIRST, HOW ORTHODOX EVANGELIZED NATIVE AMERICANS:
Saints Innocent, Herman and Peter the Aleut are wonderful examples of -not only some of the first Orthodox saints from this side of the world- but also fine examples of how our equal-to-the-Apostles Saints evangelized in peace and without the need to enslave people, namely the Alaskan natives.

Saint Herman
http://oca.org/FS.NA-Saint.asp?Saint=Herman
Saint Innocent
http://oca.org/saints/lives/2014/10/06/102884-glorification-of-st-innocent-the-metropolitan-of-moscow-and-enli
Saint Peter the Aleut
http://oca.org/saints/lives/2014/09/24/102713-martyr-peter-the-aleut

                                         +++++++++++++++++++++
IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
We do not believe in an immaculate conception because it is inherently tied in with a belief regarding humans being born with a "stain" and "guilt" of "original sin" and of Adam's particular sin.  These are clear exclusive roman catholic dogmas influenced by the scholastic theology of thomas aquinas through a wrongful understanding of St.Augustine.  We do not believe we inherit "guilt" or a "stain" from Adam's sin.  Instead, we believe we inherit the fallen nature of Adam.  It is more like a "propensity" or an "inclination" to sin.  Because we are not "co-transgressors" with Adam (we didn't exist back then), we cannot inherit the "guilt" of his sin.  Some Orthodox prefer to refer to "original sin" as "Ancestral sin" and if you own a copy of the Orthodox Study Bible, you will see a section titled like that where that is discussed.  To us, the Theotokos does not have to be immaculate conception in order for us to consider her most holy -as she was and is!  She lived a sinless life and did not need that sort of conception in order to live such. 

                                                       ++++++++++++++++
Freedominspring, have you heard of the sack of Constantinople in 1204?
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Fall_of_Constantinople

                                                      ++++++++++++++++++++

Have you also heard of the Synod of Constantinople from 879 A.D. to 880 A.D.?
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/The-Synod-of-Constantinople-879-880-The-Oecumenical-Synods-of-the-Orthodox-Church-Fr-James-Thornton.pdf

                                                         ++++++++++++++++
FASTING
 I remember reading a bull from Pope Julian or one of the Popes during the 1500s where he talks about fasting before communion starting at midnight the night prior to Mass the next day.  This is no longer a tradition of the RC  since now they're only required to "fast" one hour before communion.   I read a wonderful version of the Didache ( http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/590692.Early_Christian_Writings ) also and see a RC Church that does not really reflect that Early Church.  One of the many reasons why I left.

                                                 +++++++++++++++++++
MISC. PLUS RECOMMENDATIONS
Actually, there are many other issues that set our Churches apart that are extremely important: these also include scholasticism vs. hesychasm, which includes the Orthodox understanding of the Energies of God, "created" grace, baptism practices, fasting, liturgical issues, change of the Paschalion in the Calendar, using monastics as social workers, the treatment of popes against Patriarchs historically and much more.

In case you you're able to, I would like to highly highly recommend that you read some books which I believe will answer many of your questions and even answer some you may not have at the moment:

1. Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims by Michael Whelton
http://store.ancientfaith.com/popes-and-patriarchs-an-orthodox-perspective-on-roman-catholic-claims/

2. The Truth: What every Roman Catholic should know about the Orthodox Church
http://reginaorthodoxpress.com/trutiwevromc.html

3. Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition
http://reginaorthodoxpress.com/twopaths.html

4. Orthodoxy and Catholicism: What are the Differences?
http://store.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxy-and-catholicism-what-are-the-differences/

All of these are on sale right now and you can also find them in your local Orthodox Church bookstore.

I wish and pray that you may be enlightened and afterwards come to join us in the Holy Orthodox Church,
Nektarios in E.S.

Raylight

  • Guest
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #42 on: January 30, 2014, 02:51:01 PM »

For example:  

The Catholic Church historically teaches:  Only Catholics may receive communion.
Vatican II teaches:  Non-Catholics may receive communion.
The Catholic Church historically teaches: People with opposing views on the trinnity or the Lord Jesus Christ are rejected.  
Vatican II teaches:  (Religious) Jews and heretics are not rejected by the Church.  
The Catholic Church historically teaches:  All must be converted.
Vatican II teaches:  Protestants and schismatics don't have to be converted.  
The Catholic Church historically teaches:  It is a mortal sin to take part in Non-Catholic worship
Vatican II teaches:  It is good to take part in non-Catholic worship.  
The Catholic Church historically teaches:  Islam is a diabolical sect
Vatican II teaches:  Muslims worship the same God.
The Catholic Church historically teaches:   Protestantism is heresy.
Vatican II teaches:  Protestantism is not heresy and salvation by "faith alone" is not heresy.  
The Catholic Church historically teaches:  That missionaries should be sent all over the world and they have risked their lives to convert people.  
Vatican II teaches:  Other religions do not need to be converted.
The Catholic Church historically teaches:  Marriage is indissoluble
Vatican II teaches:  Annulments can be given out all the time .



Look, to me, these changes doesn't really matter, what if we said that Protestantism is not a heresy ?! Aren't they Christians ? Do they believe in the same God we believe in ? Don't they believe in the same Christ we believe in ? Do you want us to back to the dark ages when anyone disagrees with the Church is heretic and should lose his/her life ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

« Last Edit: January 30, 2014, 02:52:53 PM by Raylight »

Offline KostaC

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 295
  • Ὁ Τελευταῖος Ἔπαρχος τῶν Πραιτωρίων της Αφρικής
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Thessaloniki
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #43 on: January 30, 2014, 03:12:09 PM »

For example:  

The Catholic Church historically teaches:  Only Catholics may receive communion.
Vatican II teaches:  Non-Catholics may receive communion.
The Catholic Church historically teaches: People with opposing views on the trinnity or the Lord Jesus Christ are rejected.  
Vatican II teaches:  (Religious) Jews and heretics are not rejected by the Church.  
The Catholic Church historically teaches:  All must be converted.
Vatican II teaches:  Protestants and schismatics don't have to be converted.  
The Catholic Church historically teaches:  It is a mortal sin to take part in Non-Catholic worship
Vatican II teaches:  It is good to take part in non-Catholic worship.  
The Catholic Church historically teaches:  Islam is a diabolical sect
Vatican II teaches:  Muslims worship the same God.
The Catholic Church historically teaches:   Protestantism is heresy.
Vatican II teaches:  Protestantism is not heresy and salvation by "faith alone" is not heresy.  
The Catholic Church historically teaches:  That missionaries should be sent all over the world and they have risked their lives to convert people.  
Vatican II teaches:  Other religions do not need to be converted.
The Catholic Church historically teaches:  Marriage is indissoluble
Vatican II teaches:  Annulments can be given out all the time .



Look, to me, these changes doesn't really matter, what if we said that Protestantism is not a heresy ?! Aren't they Christians ? Do they believe in the same God we believe in ? Don't they believe in the same Christ we believe in ? Do you want us to back to the dark ages when anyone disagrees with the Church is heretic and should lose his/her life ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!



I get what you're saying, but I don't get why you're saying it in this concept. How does this help the original poster make a decision on which Church he should be a member of?

Why shouldn't a Church be able to say if another religious group is wrong? Someone just explained it beautifully in another thread here: we don't call people with incorrect beliefs heretics because we're pompous and triumphalist, we do it because incorrect beliefs can greatly block our path towards Theosis and make it difficult to follow Christ. You can still love somebody and tell them that they're wrong. It's hard, but it's not impossible.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2014, 03:13:55 PM by KostaC »
«Μὴ μεριμνᾶτε λοιπὸν διὰ τὴν αὔριον, διὀτι ἡ αὐριανὴ ἡμέρα θὰ φροντίσῃ διὰ τὰ δικά της πράγματα. Φθάνει ἡ στεναχώρια τῆς ἡμέρας». Κατά Ματθαίον 6:34

"Bendito seja o que vem em nome do Senhor, o Senhor é Deus e se manifestou a nós."

Raylight

  • Guest
Re: Seriously Considering Converting
« Reply #44 on: January 30, 2014, 03:20:44 PM »

For example:  

The Catholic Church historically teaches:  Only Catholics may receive communion.
Vatican II teaches:  Non-Catholics may receive communion.
The Catholic Church historically teaches: People with opposing views on the trinnity or the Lord Jesus Christ are rejected.  
Vatican II teaches:  (Religious) Jews and heretics are not rejected by the Church.  
The Catholic Church historically teaches:  All must be converted.
Vatican II teaches:  Protestants and schismatics don't have to be converted.  
The Catholic Church historically teaches:  It is a mortal sin to take part in Non-Catholic worship
Vatican II teaches:  It is good to take part in non-Catholic worship.  
The Catholic Church historically teaches:  Islam is a diabolical sect
Vatican II teaches:  Muslims worship the same God.
The Catholic Church historically teaches:   Protestantism is heresy.
Vatican II teaches:  Protestantism is not heresy and salvation by "faith alone" is not heresy.  
The Catholic Church historically teaches:  That missionaries should be sent all over the world and they have risked their lives to convert people.  
Vatican II teaches:  Other religions do not need to be converted.
The Catholic Church historically teaches:  Marriage is indissoluble
Vatican II teaches:  Annulments can be given out all the time .



Look, to me, these changes doesn't really matter, what if we said that Protestantism is not a heresy ?! Aren't they Christians ? Do they believe in the same God we believe in ? Don't they believe in the same Christ we believe in ? Do you want us to back to the dark ages when anyone disagrees with the Church is heretic and should lose his/her life ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!



I get what you're saying, but I don't get why you're saying it in this concept. How does this help the original poster make a decision on which Church he should be a member of?

Why shouldn't a Church be able to say if another religious group is wrong? Someone just explained it beautifully in another thread here: we don't call people with incorrect beliefs heretics because we're pompous and triumphalist, we do it because incorrect beliefs can greatly block our path towards Theosis and make it difficult to follow Christ. You can still love somebody and tell them that they're wrong. It's hard, but it's not possible.

I never liked the title " heresy, heretic " as sadly because in the past, these titles has so much negativity. I hope we could find another more gentle words to use. Also when we call other Christians who believe in the basics of Christianity, we should try to be more gentle and understandable people as we are Christians in the end.

I myself confused, don't know which one to go to. But my advice to the poster is to follow the Church that holds the original faith, the faith that never changed with time, the Church that never said something and change it later on, the Church that will never give up or change some of the basics of Christianity just to please people or to look "more modern". Yes, it is good for the Church to go with time, but the basic beliefs should NEVER change. Like us humans, we may change the way we look and the way we dress with time, but we never change who we are and where we come from.