![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/03\/OrthodoxInterior.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This is an exchange with four people: from my old Internet discussion group (3-20-99). Words of the first person (Catholic) will be in brown<\/span>, two Orthodox participants\u2019 words in blue<\/span> and green<\/span>, and a Protestant in purple<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n <\/p> I have heard of many Orthodox Christians who are former Catholic Christians but I have yet to hear of any Catholic Christians who are former Orthodox Christians. I would love to hear your views on this. By the way, I am not trying to start a list war. I am just genuinely curious.<\/span><\/p>\n Interesting observation and question. My speculations (and I reiterate that they are no more than that) would be the following:<\/p>\n 1) There are many more Catholics than Orthodox (especially in the US), so you would expect to find more movement in the Catholic \u2014-> Orthodox direction, by sheer force of numbers.<\/p>\n 2) The false equation of Catholicism with theological liberalism, whereas Orthodoxy is perceived as pure Christian traditionalism and a refuge from modernism (I have argued the contrary \u2013 in essence \u2013 in my paper:\u00a0Is Orthodoxy Immune from Modernism and Dissent?<\/a>). For example, I myself ruled out Orthodoxy as an option early on because of its acceptance of divorce<\/a> and contraception<\/a>: precisely some of the areas I had come to disavow as an evangelical, and of the essence of a theologically liberal outlook, as I understood it, then and now.<\/p>\n 3) Liturgical abuse in Catholic circles is quite real, troubling, and widespread, of course, and that scandalously leads many conscientious, pious folks to Orthodoxy, which has done a commendable job of preserving reverence and piety and beauty in its liturgy (my response would be that such considerations are too limited to warrant abandoning a faith \u2014 truth or falsity not being determined by abuses).<\/p>\n 4) Orthodoxy suffers from much incipient anti-Catholicism, whereas Catholicism has no similar strain of anti-Orthodoxy. We are officially ecumenical. The Orthodox are divided on this issue (as is so often the case). Therefore, we would expect to see Catholic \u2014> Orthodox movement, because we regard Orthodoxy as a \u201csister Church\u201d and accept her apostolicity and sacraments. In other words, it is more conceivable to move from one apostolic Church to another than it is to move from the<\/strong><\/em> Church to the apostate, heretical \u201cchurch\u201d with neither valid sacraments nor apostolicity;<\/p>\n 5) I would contend that many Orthodox hold a purely \u201cfideistic\u201d notion of their faith. As such, they are less open to reason and rational analysis in matters of faith. Assuming the truth of the foregoing, it would stand to reason that Orthodox would not as readily convert, since they have less\u00a0reason<\/i>\u00a0to. ) One Orthodox on our list, for example, strongly implied in dialogue with me that no one can really comprehend Orthodoxy short of espousing it. I stated that if there was no reason to join Orthodoxy, then I could not join it, since I value God-given rationality too much. He has as his motto \u201cI believe because it is absurd\u201d \u2014 case in point. Converts to Catholicism, on the other hand, often have lengthy theological, moral, historical, or experiential reasons as to why they converted (indeed, all four variables were involved in my own conversion);<\/p>\n 6) I would highly suspect that such converts (like many many converts to Protestantism from Catholicism) were also usually weak in their Catholic faith, particularly in those areas where the Orthodox sharply disagree: development of doctrine, the papacy, some Marian doctrines, contraception, divorce, philosophical apologetics, etc. Not knowing their faith, they are easy prey for Orthodox apologists who stress the horrible liberalism in the Catholic Church, which they take to be its essence, when in fact it is a corruption (albeit tragically widespread at the moment);<\/p>\n 7) Orthodoxy is much less prone to bashing from the overall society, since it is basically insulated (by choice) from the larger society. With less lies told about it, and less prejudice (from sheer unfamiliarity), it is less likely to be seen as \u201cundesirable\u201d by converts to it. Catholicism, on the other hand, is subjected to a constant barrage of disinformation and propaganda. That makes it much harder to convert to it.<\/p>\n I know of at least one published convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism: James Likoudis. His story is recounted in\u00a0Spiritual Journeys<\/i>\u00a0(edited Robert Baram, Boston: St. Paul Books & Media, 1988). I\u2019m sure there are others published. This is the only one I recall offhand.<\/p>\n But why exclude the ones who started out Catholic? Since Orthodox make a big deal about the Catholic \u2014> Orthodox journey, why should we minimize or dismiss those who made that journey and then felt compelled to return to Catholicism? Their odysseys are just as valid and worthy of consideration. I know of two such people personally.<\/p>\n There are also many Catholic converts who seriously (with a great deal of comparative study) considered Orthodoxy\u00a0and<\/i>\u00a0Catholicism, and decided upon Catholicism. I know four such people just among my circle of friends, including Steve Ray, author of\u00a0Crossing the Tiber<\/i>, and Al Kresta, whose story appeared in\u00a0Surprised by Truth<\/i>\u00a0after mine.<\/p>\n When all these factors are taken into consideration, I don\u2019t think the observable trends are especially troubling or a negative reflection of the Catholic claim to preeminence over against the Orthodox claim. That\u2019s just my opinion, and I acknowledge that this subject matter is highly subjective, but that\u2019s the explanation of the situation, as far as my own analysis, for what it\u2019s worth.<\/p>\n <\/p> I didn\u2019t reduce its importance in the slightest, I was simply acknowledging that abuses<\/em> occur. But it is simple enough for a Catholic to attend a Mass where they do not<\/em> occur. It is not a reason to reject Catholicism and go to Orthodoxy simply because of these abuses. That was my argument.<\/p>\n [regarding my point #4 above]\u00a0This is simply not true. You notice anti-catholicism because you are Catholic, and therefore sensitive to it.<\/span><\/p>\n You deny that Orthodoxy has a pronounced anti-Catholic strain???!!!<\/p>\n Case in point: Frank Schaeffer\u2019s\u00a0Christian Activist<\/i>\u00a0has produced yet another ranting and raving diatribe against Catholicism, replete with half-truths, flat-out lies, slander, historical revisionism, glaring omissions, one-sidedness, countless barbs and insults, gratuitous and unnecessary slams, etc. It is a pathetic rag, and Schaeffer (for whom I\u00a0have a great deal of respect in other ways) ought to know better. But this merely reinforces my point that Orthodoxy (like fundamentalism and much of Calvinism) almost has to be anti-Catholic, by its very nature.<\/p>\n In the latest issue (vol. 13: Winter\/Spring 1999), they go after the history of the papacy, papal infallibility, St. Augustine, and Scott Hahn\u2019s understanding of Orthodoxy before he converted. Isn\u2019t it possible for these folks to present Orthodoxy proactively without lying about us? It is so childish, and embarrassing to observe. Then in the cover story, of a conversion, by Professor William Bush (\u201cThe Mystery of the Church: The Pilgrimage of an Orthodox Convert\u201d), we see such silly and fatuous remarks as the following:<\/p>\n [M]edical tribunals must verify miracles, thus betraying the Roman Church\u2019s overweening desire to be respected of men by submitting the works of God to the standards of western technology. (p. 11)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I guess, then, that Jesus was compromising with \u201cwestern technology\u201d when he allowed Doubting Thomas to feel the wound in His side. In case anyone didn\u2019t notice, this is empirical (scientific) proof. He went on to say that those who didn\u2019t see, yet believed were more blessed (John 20:24-29), but the point was that empirical evidence was\u00a0okay<\/i>. But \u2014 our Orthodox friend would have us believe \u2014 even so, just forget all about \u201cproof\u201d and reason and \u201cjust believe.\u201d<\/p>\n The Resurrection itself is also something which is historically verifiable, and in an eyewitness sense. All through the Bible God manifested Himself miraculously and physically in order to bolster the faith of His people. But it is wrong to attest to miracles, according to our critic. He shows himself very ignorant of a constant biblical theme. And is it true that, for example, Orthodox weeping icons are never allowed to be tested by scientists? Is there a refusal to ever do that? I would like to know.<\/p>\n Bush goes on to wax eloquent about the glory days of the Byzantine Empire, from 330 to 800 and beyond, comparing it to Rome being overrun by barbarians, the \u201cilliterate\u201d Charlemagne vs. the \u201chighly literate Byzantine counterpart,\u201d etc. (p. 11). It\u2019s the same old stupid and silly prejudice against the West . . . Of course he never once mentions stubborn facts such as that there were at least 42 heretical patriarchs of the three major Sees of the East during that same period, while Rome remained orthodox at all times (see that documented in my paper:\u00a0Roman See as Historic Standard-Bearer of Orthodoxy<\/a>). That wouldn\u2019t fit in with the myth he wishes to put forth, so he conveniently omits it.<\/p>\n Then \u2014 as always \u2014 he has to bring up the sack of Constantinople in 1204 (p. 13) and go on and on about how wicked the \u201cwestern\u201d Crusaders were. I don\u2019t mind that. It was an unspeakably abominable incident. What I\u00a0do<\/i>\u00a0mind is the\u00a0one-sided presentation<\/i>\u00a0(similar to many Protestant treatments of the 16th century), as if the Easterners were squeaky-clean throughout this period, and the westerners bloodthirsty barbarian murderers and rapists\u00a0en masse<\/i>. The truth (as usual) is much more complex. For some balance, and brief recountings of similar Eastern horrors and persecution, see my paper:\u00a0Sack of Constantinople (1204) & Unknown Byzantine Atrocities<\/a>.<\/p>\n One could find dozens of ridiculous examples of falsehoods and misrepresentation in this article. Some few selections:<\/p>\n [T]his experiment with Renaissance humanism . . . Rome\u2019s own innate Protestant sectarianism has become more and more blatantly manifest in all she does.\u00a0 (p. 14)<\/p>\n [A]t . . . Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II, Rome . . . thanks to her totalitarian organization, set aside ancient traditions touching upon all aspects of the Christian life. (p. 14)<\/p>\n Thanks to the rise of the papacy, the Roman Church has thus virtually lost all sense of the sacred character of Holy Tradition as understood by the Orthodox. The indispensable role of Holy Tradition in the mystery of the Church has thereby largely disappeared in the whole of western Christendom. (p. 14)<\/p>\n The Orthodox rightly suspect that all Rome really wants is to effect a political union such has been brought through all her schemes to join the \u2018eastern rite\u2019 churches to herself. (p. 14)<\/p>\n Catholicism has openly \u2014 and, as it were, with a vengeance \u2014 repeatedly confirmed her own latent Protestantism. (p. 15)<\/p>\n [I]incumbents of St. Peter\u2019s throne have left the West with a church that would be unrecognizable to one of their predecessors of a thousand years ago. (p. 15)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On and on it goes. Note the sweeping, extremely judgmental language, with little concern for fairness or accuracy, let alone charity. But alas, my Orthodox friend sees no major problem of anti-Catholicism in Orthodoxy\u2019s ranks.<\/p>\n I am Orthodox and am therefore more sensitive to anti-Orthodoxy. If there is less anti-Orthodoxy among Catholics than anti-Catholicism among the Orthodox it is because many Catholics are not even aware of Orthodoxy, while all Orthodox are aware of the RCC.<\/span><\/p>\n That doesn\u2019t mean they have to be \u201cagainst\u201d it, yet so often they are.<\/p>\n The RCC has been \u201cofficially ecumenical,\u201d as you say, since the 1960\u2019s. Prior to that they were anything but.<\/span><\/p>\n It has been a development (and much more so in the last century). But it is a fallacy to think that it sprang out of nowhere in the 60s. See, for example:\u00a0Ecumenical Gatherings at Assisi: A Defense: Ecumenism in St. Thomas Aquinas<\/a>\u00a0(Fr. Alfredo M. Morselli).<\/p>\n Quite the opposite. After centuries of bad blood it might take more than 30 years to totally reverse the hard feelings.<\/span><\/p>\n Is this only our problem, or that of human nature in general (including the Orthodox)?<\/p>\n Actually, most of the Catholics I know who have become Orthodox were extremely well educated in the faith.<\/span><\/p>\n I would like to \u201ctest that\u201d myself. Would any of them be willing to dialogue? I shall see how well they knew their former faith. Certainly some did, but I would highly suspect that many didn\u2019t. For example, I have rarely met any Orthodox who rightly understand the Catholic notion of development of doctrine. It is one thing to adopt the view, but quite another to at least\u00a0understand what it is<\/i>.<\/p>\n Trust me, the more the media learns about Orthodoxy the more they will hate us. We are much more at odds with western culture than is the RCC.<\/span><\/p>\n I agree. My point was the\u00a0existing<\/i>\u00a0situation, not the potential or future one.<\/p>\n <\/p> The experience is so direct that you can experience directly in the liturgical actions of Holy Church. Outside of Her, it\u2019s the will of God\u2013 but it all goes back to Holy Church eventually. Now, when the faith (not of\u00a0this<\/i>\u00a0world, and incomprehensible) is intertwined with that of this world (say, the Holy Spirit guiding a particular office by default) we get\u2026nervous. Do you see the difference here?<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t even understand what you are saying (let alone judging whether I think it true or not). This has been our problem in the past. But you are living out your motto again, from where I sit . . . :-)<\/p>\n You may view this as an odd interpretation, but \u201crender to Caesar the things that are Caesar\u2019s, render to God what is\u00a0his<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n Are you saying that reason is one of the things of Caesar?<\/p>\n Well, Orthodoxy, brother, is not contrary to reason\u2013 it loves reason. But it certainly does not view a lack of reason as central.<\/span><\/p>\n So if a particular Orthodox view is unreasonable, that is okay? How far do you take this?<\/p>\n We like to keep reason about 12 steps below God.<\/span><\/p>\n The very fact that you feel the need to imply an opposition of reason against God (as if that were possible) is indicative of the problem. God is truth, and truth is not opposed to (right) reason. We can arrive at truths by means other than reason (e.g., experience, intuition, revelation, faith, etc.), but that is a different proposition from saying that reason is somehow \u201cunclean\u201d in and of itself. But your statement has little meaning. It\u2019s like saying:<\/p>\n <\/p> There is a measure of truth to this. Obviously a thing isn\u2019t\u00a0fully<\/i>\u00a0known until one experiences it. But that\u2019s not really what I was driving at. Like all philosophical (in this instance, epistemological) issues, there are many subtleties and nuances. My point was that one can\u2019t fully rejoice in and espouse something he can\u2019t understand. Secondly, that a viewpoint must present itself at least as not\u00a0contrary<\/i>\u00a0to, or apathetic towards reason (plausibility is a further step), in order for any rational person to accept it.<\/p>\n If in fact Orthodoxy is incomprehensible to the outsider, and must be accepted with blind faith, then my original point stands, and this is indeed the perspective known as\u00a0fideism<\/i>. Personally, I cannot join such a faith (assuming for the sake of argument that Orthodoxy is to be characterized as such \u2014 I would suspect there are internal disagreements), as it would do violence to the reason I believe God gave me in the first place. I take a very dim view of any attempts to oppose reason and faith, rather than synthesizing them into a harmonious whole.<\/p>\n She cited my words:<\/p>\n Converts to Catholicism, On the other hand, often have lengthy theological, moral, historical, or experiential reasons as to why they converted.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I\u2019m sure converts to Catholicism have those \u2018reasons\u2019, but are you suggesting converts to Orthodoxy\u00a0don\u2019t<\/i>?<\/span><\/p>\n Not in every case; of course not. I was speaking very generally (by the nature of the subject). I would say, however, that Orthodoxy places reason lower in the scheme of things than I think it should. This is indicated \u2014 in my humble opinion \u2014 by the constant Orthodox disdain of Scholasticism and what it calls \u201cwestern rationalism,\u201d etc. It views rational inquiry into the mysteries of faith and intricacies of theology as somehow an unseemly, improper enterprise (yet, paradoxically, it does much the same in certain selected areas such as the\u00a0filioque<\/i>\u00a0controversy).<\/p>\n Catholics, on the other hand, utilize reason as far as it can take us, while fully aware at all times that we can never fully plumb the depths of the Christian mysteries. As usual, I think a lot of the Orthodox objection to our \u201cundue speculation\u201d is based on misunderstanding as to its nature, scope, and purpose, from a Catholic perspective.<\/p>\n It\u2019s purpose being?<\/span><\/p>\n To understand Christian theology, doctrine, spirituality, and God better, in order to more fully enter into it, live it, and to become closer to God, enter into personal relationship with Him, to serve Him, and to become more holy (and \u2014 if needs be \u2014 to defend the Church, so as to bolster the faith of others as well as one\u2019s own). One can\u2019t fail to be impressed by the number of times the Bible talks about \u201cwisdom\u201d or \u201cknowledge\u201d \u2014 or the opposite notions of \u201cfolly\u201d and \u201cfools\u201d (look through Psalms and Proverbs, or check out any concordance). This is a given in the biblical worldview \u2014 it is assumed throughout (though in a very different sense from pagan Greek philosophy).<\/p>\n The biblical \/ Hebrew notion of \u201cwisdom\u201d meant the pursuit and\/or possession of more knowledge of God and His precepts, for the purpose of living for Him more wholeheartedly; in other words, it is always a \u201cpractical wisdom,\u201d never to be understood apart from concrete spiritual reality, as opposed to being considered merely\u00a0abstractly<\/i>\u00a0as its own end (i.e.,\u00a0simply as\u00a0<\/i>syllogisms or logical analysis, or Enlightenment-type agnostic-oriented so-called \u201crationalism\u201d).<\/p>\n That\u2019s why the silly and tired perpetual Orthodox slander against St. Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics (as exemplars of a \u201creasonable faith\u201d) is an outrageous bum rap, because they completely understood this (esp. St. Thomas himself). Martin Luther did the same thing (as I have previously documented on this list), so I suppose it shouldn\u2019t surprise us. Non-Catholics so often commit the same fallacies and \u201ctactics\u201d against the Catholic Church independently of each other (and sometimes not so \u201cindependently\u201d). But I digress . . .<\/p>\n It is only the deliberate attempt to denigrate the reasoning process, or the intellect, or mental effort, or \u201cphilosophy,\u201d or logic, which undermines what is clearly a biblical viewpoint and creates a false and unbiblical dichotomy between reason and faith. I could go on and on about this, but I trust that this short answer will suffice for now.<\/p>\n Luke 10:27<\/strong> (NRSV) You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ***<\/p>\n See much related material on my Eastern Orthodoxy web page<\/a>.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n This is an exchange with four people: from my old Internet discussion group (3-20-99). Words of the first person (Catholic) will be in brown, two Orthodox participants\u2019 words in blue and green, and a Protestant in purple. ***** A Catholic wrote:*I was thinking about this Catholic\/Orthodox, or Orthodox\/Catholic, thing last night and I started wondering […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":45329,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[808],"tags":[1571,1570,3260,2364,308,1888,3261,570,6022,10341,10347,10335,10338,10344,3259],"class_list":["post-45324","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-eastern-orthodoxy","tag-byzantine","tag-eastern-catholicism","tag-eastern-christianity","tag-eastern-orthodoxy","tag-ecumenism","tag-filioque","tag-greek-christianity","tag-orthodoxy","tag-orthodoxy-contraception","tag-orthodoxy-dissent","tag-orthodoxy-divorce","tag-orthodoxy-modernism","tag-orthodoxy-modernity","tag-orthodoxy-scandal","tag-the-orthodox-church"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist<\/strong>:<\/span>\u00a0If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 \/ month \u2014 a mere 33 cents a day \u2014 would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see\u00a0my Resume<\/a>).\u00a0My work has been proven (by God\u2019s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences\u00a0from unsolicited \u201ctestimonies\u201d<\/a>).\u00a0I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nMy book royalties from\u00a0three bestsellers in the field<\/a>\u00a0(published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.\u00a0 I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have\u00a0written 50 books<\/a>.\u00a0It\u2019ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and \u201clikes\u201d and links and shares). Thanks!<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nSee my\u00a0information on how to donate<\/a>\u00a0(including 100% tax-deductible donations). It\u2019s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my \u201cbusiness name\u201d there is called \u201cCatholic Used Book Service,\u201d from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through\u00a0Zelle<\/a>. Again, just send to my e-mail address.\u00a0May God abundantly bless you.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nPhoto credit:<\/strong>\u00a0travelspot<\/a>\u00a0(6-16-14). Orthodox church interior<\/span> [Pixabay<\/a> \/\u00a0Pixabay License<\/a>]<\/div>\n<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"