www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Conversion to Orthodoxy

What lead me to Eastern Catholicism is an inner draw to it. In fact, I knew about Orthodoxy before I knew about Eastern Catholic Churches. But I did a brief research on Orthodox beliefs and even without getting into in-depth research on them I found that I have no objections or problems in giving up concepts such as Original Sin or the Filioque or the Latin definition of Purgatory. I don't even fully agree with Indulgences nor can I claim I full understand it.

What prevented me from making that first step into an Orthodox parish about two years ago (and I know where the Greek Orthodox parish in my area is) is when I was reflecting on the role of the Pope in the Church. I just can't break communion with the Pope. So it was a great joy for me to learn that there are Eastern Catholics. That I can live the Eastern faith and be in communion with the Pope.

Actually today the more I learn about the politics of the Eastern Churches, the more I am convinced that the role of the Pope is needed.

What lead me to Eastern Catholicism is an inner draw to it. In fact, I knew about Orthodoxy before I knew about Eastern Catholic Churches. But I did a brief research on Orthodox beliefs and even without getting into in-depth research on them I found that I have no objections or problems in giving up concepts such as Original Sin or the Filioque or the Latin definition of Purgatory. I don't even fully agree with Indulgences nor can I claim I full understand it.

Deja vu all over again...

Personally, I can't help feeling that it's a bit of a tragedy whenever a Catholic converts to Orthodoxy.

Lest you get the wrong idea about me, let me tag on here that I also view it as a bit of a tragedy whenever an Orthodox converts to Catholicism.

No, we don't have, nor ever did have, the Scholastics' concept of Original Sin, but we do have, and always had, the dogma of Ancestral Sin.


Perhaps you might be more specific about what "politics" you are speaking of.

Maybe it's not a tragedy at all. Maybe it's like changing bedrooms in the same house. You get a different view out the window and access to your dwelling is somewhat altered.

I think it was Prime Minister Mackenzie King who told President Roosevelt that Canada and the United States might not be in the same boat but were certainly in the same waters.

Is that also a possibly valid way to describe how Orthodox/Catholic relations should be? Or is it overly simplistic? I'm thinking here of the acronym KISS.

Thanks, I like that analogy!

I will admit that I am a member of the EOC and extremely biased in its favor. Any time some one converts to the EOC from any quarter , I consider it a victory for our side.

Instead of saying it's a "victory" perhaps we should simply say that it is a way in which someone finds a path to God. The term "victory" connotes a battle between the Churches -- and there is no battle. We are sister Churches actively seeking ways to reconcile.

Fr. Deacon Ed

Like the situation of the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

I agree, wholeheartedly, with my friend and brother, Deacon Ed, and repeat - once again - what I posted earlier:


I can name several friends who, in my years here, have debated within themselves and publicly discussed here the question of moving from Catholicism to Orthodoxy or from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. In every instance, fellow forum members have answered questions, prayed for the individual's decision to be the right spiritual one for him or her, and - ultimately - offered prayers that they be blessed in the decision made, supporting that decision whatever it was.

Neither triumphalism nor proselytism has ever been an acceptable response on this forum to any member contemplating these questions and neither is now. We acknowledge and respect the fervor that each and every member here has with regard to his or her Faith and Church and no one asks that any member approach participation in this forum with any lessening or watering down of their beliefs and faith. However, with no intent to be synchretistic, we insist on the exercise of a high level of respect toward the beliefs and faith of others and an understanding that not everyone will come to the same path and conclusion in determining how best to practice and live out their relation to God.

Many years,

Neil

You mean the UGCC? It has your supreme pontiff, evidently he can't solve it.

Or are you refering to the Orthodox Catholic Church of Urkaine? There is a canonical Church recognized by all the autocephalous Orthodox Synods of the Catholic Church. There are a number of schismatic groups, but if they don't respect the decision of the whole Orthodox episcopate, what makes you think they would respect the decision of one supreme pontiff?

I'm just guessing: can you thresh out more what you are refering to by "Like the situation of the Ukrainian Catholic Church."

Perhaps that's what converting from Catholicism to Orthodoxy, or vice versa, ought to be like. However, the fact is that, in the present situation, to convert from Catholicism to Orthodoxy or vice versa one must break-off communion with all those with whom one is presently in communion. Hence, a little bit tragic.


Actually, I don't object to that analogy.

Everything depends on whether one converts to something or from something else.

We Orthodox Christians cannot possibly lose our status as contrarians extraordinaire!

In that light, I’m going to have to say I disagree with the statements in the thread that changing confessional allegiance is just a matter of maintaining the same viewpoint but through a different window; or that there is currently no essential difference between the two groups.

The most tangible difference is the 8th Ecumenical Council / IV Constantinople

In short, the Roman Catholic Church (post 10th century) accepts the council of 869-870 as the valid council. This council condemned St. Photios. The Orthodox Church accepts the council 879-880 as the valid council. It restored St. Photios and condemned alterations to the creed.

There are certainly discussions ongoing clarifying the understanding of the wording of the double procession, but it remains a fact as a result of the above that one cannot call oneself an Orthodox Christian (as understood in the Orthodox Church) and be in a church or be in communion with a church that has altered the creed.

Other than that it would fall to ones own personal viewpoint, because we would no longer be talking about a shared tradition; but the following are some things that would matter to me.

I believe the church is complete in its total essence where the bishop and eucharist are present. I attach no theological significance to primacy or synodality, they are for governance and good order. I believe doctrine is defined only through reception in to the consciousness of the church. I personally believe the western patriarchate does not trace in an unbroken line to the Apostle Peter, nor do I believe in the transmission of keys because of this or even in a literal sense regardless.

I would not view Vatican I as a valid council.

From an outsiders vantage point, I would say there are numerous things in the CCEO that I would reject, but actually I would reject the CCEO itself and the idea of a “super synodal” ecclesiology and the participation of Eastern Churches in the synod of the western through a curia or other mechanisms. The direct oversight of Eastern churches by the Western church outside their patriarchal territories is in my opinion a tragedy and a travesty and utterly distorts the relation of the churches with each other.

I disagree with how both the dissolution of marriage and the issue of family planning is handled in the Catholic church.

I support lay presidency and believe this balances lay and clerical responsibility for parish management.

I would not support female altar servers or lay distribution of communion.

Those are things that come to my mind.