Questions For Those Who Converted To Catholicism

[Formosus]

I have/am considering the Orthodox Church, though I am not a convert, but a revert. Historically speaking, there are many holes in the claims made by the Roman Church for its supremacy. The Orthodox Church has far less holes, imo, and the holes it has have more reasonable explanations. Many citations of early Latin fathers on the supremacy of Rome are taken out of context. I hold onto communion with Rome mainly because of

1. Contraceptives. Admittedly the Orthodox Church will deal with this eventually at the next pan-Orthodox council whenever it happens, but it is something that is still troubling to me.


For me, it has really came down to the question of whether or not different theologies( that seemingly can be contradictory) can co exist within the same Church. The E. Orthodox say they can not, and the Catholic Church says they can.


I would like to say that the "Ecumenical Council" concern is somewhat irrelevant. Originally Ecumenical Councils were called by the Emperor and presided over by the Emperors, not the Pope. The Eastern Orthodox have not had an Ecumenical Council because the Ecumene(the Empire) is gone. Ecumene meant the civilized world, the Roman world. After the (real) Council of Constantinople II, the Ecumene was extremely reduced. The Orthodox have continued to hold councils, though now called Pan-Orthodox Councils. They are not "ecumenical" but their decrees are held as being universal. Further, I would ask why we today would need "Ecumenical Councils". All the great dogmatic issues have been settled by the first 7. The East does not believe in the "development of dogma" as Cardinal Newman articulated in defense of VI. Problems many westerners (including myself when I first was exposed to Byzantine theology) run into are really non-issues once one comes to understand the workings of the Byzantine world from a byzantine point of view.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Formosus' post='1759855' date='Jan 23 2009, 11:51 PM']I have/am considering the Orthodox Church, though I am not a convert, but a revert. Historically speaking, there are many holes in the claims made by the Roman Church for its supremacy. The Orthodox Church has far less holes, imo, and the holes it has have more reasonable explanations. Many citations of early Latin fathers on the supremacy of Rome are taken out of context. I hold onto communion with Rome mainly because of

1. Contraceptives. Admittedly the Orthodox Church will deal with this eventually at the next pan-Orthodox council whenever it happens, but it is something that is still troubling to me.


For me, it has really came down to the question of whether or not different theologies( that seemingly can be contradictory) can co exist within the same Church. The E. Orthodox say they can not, and the Catholic Church says they can.


I would like to say that the "Ecumenical Council" concern is somewhat irrelevant. Originally Ecumenical Councils were called by the Emperor and presided over by the Emperors, not the Pope. The Eastern Orthodox have not had an Ecumenical Council because the Ecumene(the Empire) is gone. Ecumene meant the civilized world, the Roman world. After the (real) Council of Constantinople II, the Ecumene was extremely reduced. The Orthodox have continued to hold councils, though now called Pan-Orthodox Councils. They are not "ecumenical" but their decrees are held as being universal. Further, I would ask why we today would need "Ecumenical Councils". All the great dogmatic issues have been settled by the first 7. The East does not believe in the "development of dogma" as Cardinal Newman articulated in defense of VI. Problems many westerners (including myself when I first was exposed to Byzantine theology) run into are really non-issues once one comes to understand the workings of the Byzantine world from a byzantine point of view.[/quote]

How do you feel about the role of nationalism in the Orthodox Churchs?

[Formosus]

I don't see it as an issue. I think that if one were to judge a communion by its worst members then one doesn't get an accurate picture. Eastern Catholic Churches , for instance, are divided by national lines as well. Or take for instance the problems between various latin elasticities in the United States.


I would like to clarify that I also hold onto Rome because the primacy of the Roman see is something that was held important in the early Church (primacy, not supremacy) The disagreements between the East and West perhaps are not so great to deny communion with one another, especially at this point where Rome has begun to realize that Eastern Churches are equals with the latins and not subordinate.

[Formosus]

Latin ethnicities*

Sorry firefox likes to correct my spelling sometimes.

[Ziggamafu]

I considered it - anything but Catholicism, after all - but a look at theology surrounding the keys of the kingdom and the respect given to the bishop of Rome by the early Fathers compelled toward the fullness of Truth.

[Ziggamafu]

I should add that looking at Orthodox apologetics - particularly their argument surrounding the changes made to the Nicaean Creed - really threw me for a loop. It took a good amount of time and study to get things straightened out (kind of like when I first ran into the claims of the rad-trads).

[mortify]

As Zig suggested, a proper understanding of Matthew 16:18 reveals that Peter is indeed supreme. If Peter and his successors are supreme, then a group of local churches separating themselves from Divinely instituted authority would be untenable.

I also encourage you to read about Constantinople: how it came to power, how it sought to expand its influence, and how Rome responded to it.

[mortify]

Yves Congar's book on the Schism is available online in pdf format (check out the internet archive.) It's a sober and realistic picture of the schism, it is not Roman biased.

[mortify]

[quote name='Formosus' post='1760013' date='Jan 24 2009, 02:12 AM']I would like to clarify that I also hold onto Rome because the primacy of the Roman see is something that was held important in the early Church (primacy, not supremacy)[/quote]

How do you understand "Papal Supremacy"?

[quote]The disagreements between the East and West perhaps are not so great to deny communion with one another, especially at this point where Rome has begun to realize that Eastern Churches are equals with the latins and not subordinate.[/quote]

Supremacy does not mean the Eastern rite is subordinate to the Western.

[dominicaninmyheart2]

Did I ever consider the Eastern Orthodox Church? No, because I knew in my heart at the time that I started my journey towards becoming a Catholic, I was in the place that was meant to be my spiritual home forever.