Reasons for not chosing the Orthodox Church?

[Vadim]

What are your reasons for not chosing the Orthodox Church?

[JanetM]

Simply wasn't baptised into it.

If/when I leave the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church will be on the top of my list next to agnosticism.

So long as I'm still stuck in Catholicism, though, from what little I know of Orthodoxy (is that the right term?), I feel that their disavowal of any head of the Church, i.e. the Pope, is a break or discontinuity of what Christ intended when He made Saint Peter the Rock of His Church. For the first 1000 years, the Catholic and Orthodox are one Church with 1000 years of Popes in common; then, they split. One Church continues that Apostolic Succession, the other Church begins an autocephalous tradition not in keeping with the precedent which up to then had been understood to have been the Will of Christ. I'm sure there's a lot of history and context around the Great Schism that I'm missing---history was never my forte. It might be different if the tradition of autocephalous churches began even a hundred or so years after Saint Peter, but 1000 years is a very long time on to make a change as major as that.

What are your reasons for choosing the Orthodox Church?

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

There is no such thing as "The Orthodox Church." There are only Orthodox Churches, and that's why I'm not Orthodox.

[Doom]

Honestly, the Orthodox are almost as confused as the Protestants. I can't even get a clear answer on what Orthodoxy is. Some tell me that Timothy Ware's books are a good source, others tell me that he is a modernist heretic. When I quoted Timothy Ware on here in a discussion with Ed, he told me I was ignorant and I needed to learn what Orthooxy is. I didn't have the heart to tell him I was quoting one of the most popular English language Orthodox authors.

Some Orthodox seem to stand for nothing but opposition to Catholicism, I have heard Orthodox tell me that they don't believe in the sinlessness of Mary. I have had them tell me that divorce, cohabitation and birth control are all acceptable, and I've been told the opposite. And as far as independence from the secular state, forget it, it is Caesaropapism all the way, which is why the Russian Orthodox Church obeys Vladimir Putin.

No, I would never consider either Orthodoxy or Protestantism, if I lost faith in the Catholic Church I used to say I would be an atheist, but I don't think I could be that either, I would probaly endorse a kind of generic theism, whether or the Classical kind or something more like moral therapeutic deism.

[Vadim]

Simply wasn't baptised into it.

I was baptised in the Orthodox Church, but the history of the Great Schism has always been interesting to me, because it has alway amazed me that there are more believers in Roman Catholic Churches than in the Orthodox Church.

from what little I know of Orthodoxy (is that the right term?),

Yes.

I feel that their disavowal of any head of the Church, i.e. the Pope, is a break or discontinuity of what Christ intended when He made Saint Peter the Rock of His Church.

This teaching is based chiefly on certain interpretation of Matthew 16:18. But let us see how the saints interpreted it. For instance, here is how St. Augustin comments on Matthew 16:18 in his Sermon 229P:1 (The Works of Saint Augustine, vol. III/6, p. 327):

“Christ […] built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.”

Doesn't this contradict the traditional Roman Catholic interpretation of this verse?

I'll return to the rest of your reply somewhat later…

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

St. Augustine said various things about the papacy, including these quotations:

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement . . . In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Epistle to Generosus 53:1:2 [A.D. 400]).

“[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the Bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (Sermons 131:10 [inter A.D. 391-430]).

St. Augustine himself admitted elsewhere that he wasn't sure which way to interpret the rock passage; he certainly believed in the primacy of Rome. Cherry-picking quotations won't work.

[JanetM]

For instance, here is how St. Augustin comments on Matthew 16:18 in his Sermon 229P:1 (The Works of Saint Augustine, vol. III/6, p. 327):

“Christ […] built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.”

Doesn't this contradict the traditional Roman Catholic interpretation of this verse?

Not actually.

The comment you quote goes:

"And I tell you…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer."

Furthermore, who is Peter anyway? He's just a fisherman by the name of Simon really, but it is Jesus who gives him a new name, Peter, meaning the rock. And this new name has every significance because Christ being the cornerstone referenced throughout ancient prophecy, Jesus by naming him Peter the rock, confers upon Peter His own place and authority as the cornerstone. And like Abraham and Sarah and Jacob, Jesus' changing of Simon's name to Peter signifies a kind of new convenant or re-birth.

So yes, there is no contradiction between what Saint Augustine says and the Catholic Church's interpretation of Mt 16. Christ is the Rock and the Church is built on Peter's confession (that is, after all, the profession that defines all Christians), and that fact that from there, He immediately points Peter out as the rock, like Himself, cannot be ignored.

Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. (Mt 16:17-18)

[BobCatholic]

I went through a time in my life where I was looking at other faiths - while still attending Mass and partaking of the Sacraments.
I was not disbelieving in the Catholic faith at the time - but I wasn't exactly hot for it either.

I'd go to Orthodox liturgies and enjoyed them - though I could not understand the languages spoken.

There were a few Orthodox parishes that claimed an icon of Mary was crying tears of oil or other "miracles" - I'd check them out - and see a lot of people attending with great crowds.

I'd come by a few years later and those same parishes were closed. I suspected a church was dying and had a "miracle" happen to try to revitalize it - and the short term bump in attendance didn't do anything to revitalize the parish.

[Vadim]

There is no such thing as "The Orthodox Church." There are only Orthodox Churches, and that's why I'm not Orthodox.

The term "Orthodox Church" does exist. This can be seen, for instance, in the following document, approved by the Council held in Crete in 2016, "Message of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church":

"The Orthodox Church [...] is the authentic continuation of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as confessed in the Creed and confirmed by the teaching of the Church Fathers. [...] The Orthodox Autocephalous Churches do not constitute a federation of Churches, but the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."

This document, as you can see at the bottom, is signed by the representatives of the many different Autocephalous Churches, yet they do speak of "the Orthodox Church".

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Which synod was, of course, not attended by various Orthodox groups. Kind of makes my point.

[BobCatholic]

They don't have a Peter.

Sure, there's an Antiochian Orthodox Church, which is Peter's old see - but there's no Orthodox Church of Rome.

They have patriarchs for all the other apostles, but no Peter.

[Highlander]

...
...I have heard Orthodox tell me that they don't believe in the sinlessness of Mary. I have had them tell me that divorce, cohabitation and birth control are all acceptable, and I've been told the opposite. And as far as independence from the secular state, forget it ...
...

Have you ever talked to a "modern and aware" Catholic woman? Or a member of one of the "modern and aware" woman's orders? Or those who demands that a Pope have certain "modern and relevant" social, theological, political, and activist bona fides?

[Riverboat]

So long as I'm still stuck in Catholicism. . .

Not exactly a thundering proclamation of belief.

[Doom]

...
...I have heard Orthodox tell me that they don't believe in the sinlessness of Mary. I have had them tell me that divorce, cohabitation and birth control are all acceptable, and I've been told the opposite. And as far as independence from the secular state, forget it ...
...

Have you ever talked to a "modern and aware" Catholic woman? Or a member of one of the "modern and aware" woman's orders? Or those who demands that a Pope have certain "modern and relevant" social, theological, political, and activist bona fides?

But in Orthodoxy, there is no central authority to say anything is wrong. Some Orthodox say the Patriarch of Constantinople is a model of orthodoxy, others tell me he is a heretic. And I am not even talking about the differences between the Russian Orthodox, who claim to be the head of all Orthodoxy, and the other Orthodox, who radically disagree. Or the schism that still exists, between the mainstream Russian Orthodox Church and the Old Believers.

I genuinely have no idea who is right, nor do I know how an Orthodox believer is supposed to settle the issue.

[Highlander]

I know zip all about Orthodoxy ... they seem to me to be the first Protestants ... rushing off and splintering endlessly.

I have been more repelled by several experiences with earnest, wide eyed, self-righteous Catholic women who demand that the Church be changed to whatever they individually want it changed to ... and right now. They appear to be duplicates of the women who appear in various protests and demonstrations of a political stripe, wearing hair of many colors. Their agenda seems to be something about the patriarchy and about gay stuff and about some perceived wrong they were done by some facet of the Church in their past.

[Doom]

Case in point, I was in a conversation on this board with Ed, Byzantine Bomber, and I quoted author Bishop Timothy (Kallistos) Ware, author of "Orthodoxy" and "The Orthodox Way", two of the best-selling books on Orthodox theology and a prolific author of many other books on Orthodox theology, and Ed responded that I was ignorant of Orthodoxy and needed to read some books on the subject. I didn't have the heart to tell him I was quoting one of the leading Orthodox theologians in the West.

If Kallistos Ware is not a reliable source on Orthodoxy, at least according to some, who is? I don't know.

[HalJordan]

The current mess of their ecclesial relationships also makes it hard to discern how they meet the “one” aspect of the Marks of the Church.

[Doom]

The current mess of their ecclesial relationships also makes it hard to discern how they meet the “one” aspect of the Marks of the Church.

I suppose that's what I'm trying to say, when you get down to it. There is doctrinal confusion, and there is ecclesial confusion. If one person says the Patriach of Constantinople is orthodox, and another says he is a heretic,the implication of that is that it is a free for all.