Conversion Confusion!


#1

Hey all. I’d like to ask an opinion from other Catholics, Both latin and Byzantine.

Im a Ukranian Greek Catholic, who has never really been bought up in the Greek-Catholic Church, I attened the Modern Roman Rite of the Mass all my life until I was 18…however all through my early life I always felt somthing was missing from the Mass.
I then started to explore the more Historical Mass’s and Liturgies of the Church both the Classical Roman Mass ‘SSPX’ (which i have only recently attened) as well as the Ukraninian Greek-Catholic Liturgy, the Melkite Liturgy, the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox (ROCOR), and even Coptic Liturgy.

After exploring all these Liturgies; getting involved in the all the diffent church’s and making friends in all of them; I feel more pulled to the Orthodox Church…I feel more Orthodox that I do Catholic. and the Greek-Catholic Churchs are im afraid so latinized, in fact most of them Ive attend have no Icon Screan, use statues and pray the Rosary, and the Liturgy was spoken like a Nouvos Ordo.

So ive been toying with the Idea of Conversion for a good year and a half now. I would also like state that even though Im more Orthodox that Catholic in my thinking, I dont at all (like alot of Orthodox) belive that Catholic orders and Mysteries are invalid

My question is this: Is it wrong for me to Convert to Orthodoxy from the Catholic prespective? even though Rome belives that the Orthodox Churches are true Paticular Churches?

Ive been trying to work out what to do for ages now, and Ive decided I cant figure it out by myself, and the Catholic priests ive spoken to on this matter have very little knowledge of whats Romes current attitude to the Orthodox Church. so Im hoping there may be some Knowledgable Catholics on this Board that can help me out.
Thank you.


#2

From the Catholic perspective yes. However, if you believe Orthodoxy is true, the Catholic perspective should not matter.


#3

My problem is I believe both the Catholic and Orthodox are true…I know alot of Orthodox would disagree (and Im not going to debate it with anyone here) but basicly even as an Orthodox I would still Pray for Pope, and for the day when Catholics and Orthodox are united and I’d still recognise the Catholic Church as a valid and true church. (though of course I would refrain from recieveing Holy Communion in a Catholic Church)


#4

I share your experience. I was raised a Latin Catholic, and when I began to study the Church History and attend Orthodox Liturgy I was converted. THat is really the wrong word to use, though, because it is not really a conversion, but a change of rites. For myself, I was fortunate to find a Byzantine parish that is very Orthodox.

I would caution you against determining on the basis of “feeling”, although I can appreciate this avenue of discernment. What is most important is that you follow the leading of God, so it is right to pray, seek spiritual direction, and be obedient to what you receive, even if it does not assuage your feelings. Many blessings on your journey.


#5

If you really believe Orthodoxy is true (in heart and mind) you should follow that path, yet I am wondering: what about the full communion with the succesor of Peter?catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp
Feelings alone are not a good guide. Reason is also (much) needed. So I agree with guanophore: “What is most important is that you follow the leading of God, so it is right to pray, seek spiritual direction, and be obedient to what you receive, even if it does not assuage your feelings.”

P.S. I pray daily for full unity between the Orthodox and Catholic Church.


#6

My question is this: Is it wrong for me to Convert to Orthodoxy from the Catholic prespective? even though Rome belives that the Orthodox Churches are true Paticular Churches?

Yes, for the simple fact that the Orthodox Church is not united to the Successor of Peter. They are separated from the Church established by Christ.


#7

I remember when a Romanian bishop visiting from the home country was asked: Should we pray for the Pope?

Yes, he said immediately, God bless and convert him.

I was amused by this because I know this is exactly how some of my Catholic friends, such as the Transalpine Redemptorists, pray for me. :smiley:


#8

You mean that we are not united to the papacy. In point of fact we have several Successors of Peter in our Church. There is the Patriarch of Antioch and the Patriarch of Alexandria.

Check this article, from a Catholic source.

melkitecathedral.org/melkite/history3.htm

**Peter’s First See
**
**The evolution of the Patriarchate of Antioch
**
The article features a fascinating photograph of three bishops with the apostolic succession of Saint Peter, photographed all together in Damascus in 2001.

Three successors of Peter:
http://www.melkitecathedral.org/melkite/29-2-3-gathering-215x193.jpg
– Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I,

  • Pope John Paul II,
  • Greek Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius IV
    gather in the Syriac Orthodox Cathedral of St. George in Damascus, May 2001. (photo: L’Osservatore Romano)

The oldest lineage of bishops which comes down to us in the 21st century who is a successor to St Peter is not actually the bishop (Pope) of the Church of Rome, but the bishop (Patriarch) of the Church of Antioch.

Peter founded the Church of Antioch in 34 AD, and he remained there for 5-7 years. Paul (and Barnabas) came to Antioch to see Peter there and it was in Antioch that the dispute between Peter and Paul flared up about whether converts had to be circumcised. In order to resolve this Peter and Paul took the dispute to James in Jerusalem and James called all the Apostles to a Council in Jerusalem to make a determination.

Early than this, Antioch had received a large number of Christian refugees who fled Jerusalem after the martyrdom of Saint Stephen the deacon, a period of martyrdom in Jerusalem which Paul himself had initiated while he was still the uncoverted Saul!

To succeed him in Antioch Saint Peter consecrated Euodius (Evodius) as bishop of that city. Euodius was succeeded as bishop in Antioch by the great Saint and holy martyr Ignatius who was himself consecrated by either Saint Peter or Saint Paul. The Patriarch of Antioch is the 170th successor of Saint Peter. Here is a complete list of his apostolic succession from the holy Apostle Peter
web.archive.org/web/20040209…/patriarchs.htm
Tinyurl: tinyurl.com/6s6q2

So the Church of Antioch founded by Saint Peter is a little bit older than Rome, and like Rome it has an unbroken apostolic succession going back to Saint Peter.


The truth will make you odd. - Flannery O’Connor


#9

Yes, the Successor of Peter, as head of the Universal Catholic Church, who is the Bishop of Rome. What you posted is not what I’m talking about.


#10

No, you are speaking of* one* of the successors of Peter.

I agree with you that the* Roman* Peter is the acknowledged head of the Universal Catholic Church - comprising the Roman Catholic Church and the 22 (or 24?) sui juris Churches which are in submission to him.

None of the other Peters (Antioch, Alexandria, etc.) make such a claim.


#11

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.