I love listening to stories like yours.. I’m currently a traditionalist Catholic whose been discerning Orthodoxy for several years now… hope you make more videos!
With regard to Traditionalist Catholicism, it seems to me that their core belief about Catholicism is that Catholicism has content in itself. While Vatican II was the spark, their issue actually stems from Vatican I (and all of the claims of Papal authority leading up to it). The doctrine of Papal Infallibility raised the question of whether the Pope is the steward of Tradition or if he is the author of Tradition. Until the radical liturgical changes following Vatican II, this question was latent because, notwithstanding certain changes (e.g. the revision to the Breviary under Pius X, Holy Week under Pius XII, and going further back, the new Jesuit versions of hymns and the suppression of liturgical uses following the Council of Trent), the most visible practice of Catholicism - the Mass - was pretty close to what had been done for centuries, and so there was not significant difference between what Catholicism had been and what the Pope was representing it to be. This went out the window after Vatican II because of just how obviously novel the Mass of 1968 was. The sedevacantists resolve the problem of their reception of Vatican I by rejecting Vatican II altogether. Since the Pope infallibly teaches the Catholic faith, and since what happened at Vatican II was not the Catholic faith, the Popes from Vatican II onward cannot therefore be real Popes. The “moderate” traditionalists resolve the problem by minimizing the scope of Vatican I: The Pope is infallible, but only under certain conditions, so the promulgation of novelty and/or heresy, while bad, doesn’t contradict Vatican I because the very specific conditions for Infallibility have not been met. The sedevacantist position is more internally consistent and doesn’t raise the question of what the point of Papal Infallibility is if it never applies to anything the Pope does, but in both cases, traditionalists believe that Catholicism is not simply whatever the Pope says it is. However, both versions of traditionalists effectively posit a visible true Church that is nevertheless somehow hidden - outside the structures of the current Roman Church in the case of the sedevacantists, and within the structures of the same, albeit surrounded by that which is not Catholic (or only “Catholic” if that term is minimized). Continued…
My story is similar to yours. When I converted to Catholicism from a secular background, Orthodoxy wasn’t even on my radar when examining Christianity (thus demonstrating how wrong I was about the comprehensiveness of my examination). I discovered traditionalism soon after I converted, but while I dabbled in it a bit, I spent most of my Catholic life as a Uniate. Frankly, having seen the Mass as it is today, I would not have converted to Catholicism if I had then known what the Mass had been before Vatican II because it makes no sense that the True Church would treat what it considers to be the most quintessential thing it does - the Mass - with such carelessness. Nevertheless, I stuck it out for a while as a Uniate until I was having a discussion with my priest about the state of the Catholic Church in America. This was when Benedict XVI was Pope, so the craziness that Novus Ordo Watch likes to highlight was not in accordance with Rome (unlike today under Francis); I suggested that Rome should be in communion with “orthodox” dioceses, and consider the rest of the U.S. (and, I suppose by extension, Europe as well) to be missionary territory. This is Orthodox ecclesiology (simplified), and obviously not Catholic, so I had to finally admit to myself that I was not really a Catholic. The fundamental problem with Catholic ecclesiology is that it only has one bishop - the Bishop of Rome. Every other “bishop” is really a mitered archpriest with delegated jurisdiction, not the successor to the Apostles in his diocese, despite what the official doctrine claims. The various bishops act the way they do because they feel that ultimately, the Pope is responsible for their respective dioceses, not themselves. They have no moral obligation to uphold the Faith or admonish fellow bishops because the Faith is whatever the Pope deems it to be, and ultimately, he will sort it out. Instead, their role is to be franchise managers tasked with marketing Catholicism to people who live in the areas for which they have been assigned. Gone is the notion that the bishop is the fullness of the Church in his own diocese, that he is the successor to the Apostles (as a whole) therein, and that the Lord will ask him to account for the souls entrusted to his care when he goes before the dread judgment seat of Christ. In addition, gone is the idea that bishops are responsible to each other such that they can lovingly correct each other for errors in promulgating the Orthodox faith as well as the necessary burden of deposing an intransigent heresiarch; it is not their problem - it is Rome’s. This exacerbates the politics of the Vatican; since the Pope essentially determines what Catholicism is, the religion having no real content apart from the Pope, the path of the bishop, then is to get a red hat and move to Rome so that he has the opportunity to become Pope and therefore be able to be the one to decide what is Catholic. Were Catholicism still Orthodox, it wouldn’t be having to deal with the current scandal of Francis and his heresy (such as Fiducia Supplicans), or the political maneuvering within the College of Cardinals to position this or that candidate as his successor. Rather, the other Patriarchs, or even bishops of neighboring dioceses would depose him and an Orthodox bishop would be elected. There would still be office politics, of course, but the stakes would be lower, and both the process as well as the heretical teachings necessitating such process would be less confusing and scandalous to the faithful (and the World). continued...
Finally, I agree with you that Catholicism (almost all of Western Christianity for that matter) has become a philosophy, not a religion. The mental approach to Christianity is best exemplified by Evangelical soteriology in which being a Christian is reduced to “accepting Jesus Christ as one’s Lord and personal Savior,” but it is also a problem for Catholics. Perhaps the “liberal” Catholics better understand the truth that one’s faith is what one prays than the “conservative” Catholics. The latter have to keep explaining away practices like liturgical abuse with, “Well, it’s still valid,” or the blessing of gay couples with, “Trust us it is really the blessing of individuals for growth in faith even though it clearly demonstrates approbation for a relationship predicated on sin;” the former pushes for permanent liturgical revolution like Maoists because they *want* to change Catholicism from what it was to something more in line with the ways of the world. Because of “lex orandi lex credendi,” I date the real schism, that is, the point where Catholicism became a different religion from Orthodox Christianity, to the triumph of Scholasticism in the West. Rather than be content with experiencing the ways of God, the Scholastics sought to *understand* these ways - a fool’s errand because the Energies of God are ineffable even though the theologian still participates in them. Transubstantiation is a good example. I do not think the idea is wrong per se, but there is no good reason to try to force the Mystery into Aristotelian categories. The bread and wine become the True Body and Blood of Christ. It is something that we accept on faith, not something that we rationally discern with inductive logic. Getting into the weeds about form, substance, accidents, sacramental veil, &c. all serve to encourage one to think *about* God rather than worship God. This is why I believe that the real break happened with the Palamite controversy, not the Filioque controversy. Regardless of whether adding the filioque to the Creed was bad grossly imprudent, the word itself could be acceptably glossed (as St. Maximos the Confessor did) so long as both East and West worshiped in the same Spirit. However, the Scholastics shifted the meaning of “orthodoxy” away from primarily meaning “right glory” to “right doctrine” such that Western Christianity became about a set of propositions proven by logic, scriptural passages, or both rather than the practice of the Faith supported by the teachings passed down from the Apostles. Even if stuff like the filioque could be resolved acceptably via joint statements and the like (which I doubt), I fear that we would still be too far apart in religious ethos for any intercommunion to be possible. fin
@@hanng1242 Thanks for writing this. It verbalises my exact thoughts on the situation but you say it better than I could. This is what I've thought for some time but it took me years to finally make the decision to convert. I've been through every position in the Roman Church, from charismatic to Sedevacantist and everything in between. I feel like I've exhausted every avenue. I was received into the Orthodox Church a couple of months ago at Pascha and I believe I've made the right decision.
@@hanng1242 Brother... We are kindred spirits! Your journey is almost 1:1 with mine, except that I spent more time in Traditionalist (FSSP/SSPX) circles before joining the Melkites for a little - and now we are inquirers at the OCA. Your points about Catholic bishops being "mitred archpriests with delegated jurisdiction" expresses exactly how I've been feeling. As we saw with Traditionis Custodes, the bishops were pressured into axing the TLMs from their dioceses, and some of the ones that didn't got ousted (Bp. Strickland and Bp. Torres come to mind). What St. Gregory the Great opined about to St. John the Faster - that there can't be a universal bishop - I think has come to fruition in Pastor Aeternus. I also really resonate with your point about how Western Christianity has become a philosophy and not a religion. It was a hard pill to swallow because I had hunkered down at a TLM parish (where I drove past numerous other Catholic churches to get to) where there was a good spiritual life - but ultimately I couldn't reconcile it with what I encountered at the other parishes I went to. I was trying to convince a neighbor to become Catholic, and when I could only tell him that he could *only* go to a pre-selected group of churches there were "actually Catholic," I realized I was merely creating my own church inside the Catholic Church. God bless you brother, you should transfer your comments to a Substack and write more!
I think in time you may return to catholicism, you are in a honeymoon period and when you have been around for a few years you will see the mess which is orthodoxy . You will see Jesus Christ is the head of the church not fallible priests or bishops .
I rely on God to keep me in his Church, because I know my own weakness will drive me out of it. I am Orthodox BECAUSE Christ is head of the Church rather than a single bishop.
![Cordae - Saturday Mornings (feat. Lil Wayne) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z2GYJua09F0/mqdefault.jpg)
I love listening to stories like yours.. I’m currently a traditionalist Catholic whose been discerning Orthodoxy for several years now… hope you make more videos!
Thank you for watching! I hope your journey leads us to the same Church. I am trying to get in the habit of uploading.
Why not consider Byzantine/Eastern rite Catholicism ?
@@johnsteiner2960he addresses that.
@@TheRomanOrthodoxoodegr.com/english/biblia/Ballester/perieh.htm
With regard to Traditionalist Catholicism, it seems to me that their core belief about Catholicism is that Catholicism has content in itself. While Vatican II was the spark, their issue actually stems from Vatican I (and all of the claims of Papal authority leading up to it). The doctrine of Papal Infallibility raised the question of whether the Pope is the steward of Tradition or if he is the author of Tradition. Until the radical liturgical changes following Vatican II, this question was latent because, notwithstanding certain changes (e.g. the revision to the Breviary under Pius X, Holy Week under Pius XII, and going further back, the new Jesuit versions of hymns and the suppression of liturgical uses following the Council of Trent), the most visible practice of Catholicism - the Mass - was pretty close to what had been done for centuries, and so there was not significant difference between what Catholicism had been and what the Pope was representing it to be. This went out the window after Vatican II because of just how obviously novel the Mass of 1968 was.
The sedevacantists resolve the problem of their reception of Vatican I by rejecting Vatican II altogether. Since the Pope infallibly teaches the Catholic faith, and since what happened at Vatican II was not the Catholic faith, the Popes from Vatican II onward cannot therefore be real Popes. The “moderate” traditionalists resolve the problem by minimizing the scope of Vatican I: The Pope is infallible, but only under certain conditions, so the promulgation of novelty and/or heresy, while bad, doesn’t contradict Vatican I because the very specific conditions for Infallibility have not been met. The sedevacantist position is more internally consistent and doesn’t raise the question of what the point of Papal Infallibility is if it never applies to anything the Pope does, but in both cases, traditionalists believe that Catholicism is not simply whatever the Pope says it is. However, both versions of traditionalists effectively posit a visible true Church that is nevertheless somehow hidden - outside the structures of the current Roman Church in the case of the sedevacantists, and within the structures of the same, albeit surrounded by that which is not Catholic (or only “Catholic” if that term is minimized).
Continued…
My story is similar to yours. When I converted to Catholicism from a secular background, Orthodoxy wasn’t even on my radar when examining Christianity (thus demonstrating how wrong I was about the comprehensiveness of my examination). I discovered traditionalism soon after I converted, but while I dabbled in it a bit, I spent most of my Catholic life as a Uniate. Frankly, having seen the Mass as it is today, I would not have converted to Catholicism if I had then known what the Mass had been before Vatican II because it makes no sense that the True Church would treat what it considers to be the most quintessential thing it does - the Mass - with such carelessness. Nevertheless, I stuck it out for a while as a Uniate until I was having a discussion with my priest about the state of the Catholic Church in America. This was when Benedict XVI was Pope, so the craziness that Novus Ordo Watch likes to highlight was not in accordance with Rome (unlike today under Francis); I suggested that Rome should be in communion with “orthodox” dioceses, and consider the rest of the U.S. (and, I suppose by extension, Europe as well) to be missionary territory. This is Orthodox ecclesiology (simplified), and obviously not Catholic, so I had to finally admit to myself that I was not really a Catholic.
The fundamental problem with Catholic ecclesiology is that it only has one bishop - the Bishop of Rome. Every other “bishop” is really a mitered archpriest with delegated jurisdiction, not the successor to the Apostles in his diocese, despite what the official doctrine claims. The various bishops act the way they do because they feel that ultimately, the Pope is responsible for their respective dioceses, not themselves. They have no moral obligation to uphold the Faith or admonish fellow bishops because the Faith is whatever the Pope deems it to be, and ultimately, he will sort it out. Instead, their role is to be franchise managers tasked with marketing Catholicism to people who live in the areas for which they have been assigned. Gone is the notion that the bishop is the fullness of the Church in his own diocese, that he is the successor to the Apostles (as a whole) therein, and that the Lord will ask him to account for the souls entrusted to his care when he goes before the dread judgment seat of Christ. In addition, gone is the idea that bishops are responsible to each other such that they can lovingly correct each other for errors in promulgating the Orthodox faith as well as the necessary burden of deposing an intransigent heresiarch; it is not their problem - it is Rome’s.
This exacerbates the politics of the Vatican; since the Pope essentially determines what Catholicism is, the religion having no real content apart from the Pope, the path of the bishop, then is to get a red hat and move to Rome so that he has the opportunity to become Pope and therefore be able to be the one to decide what is Catholic. Were Catholicism still Orthodox, it wouldn’t be having to deal with the current scandal of Francis and his heresy (such as Fiducia Supplicans), or the political maneuvering within the College of Cardinals to position this or that candidate as his successor. Rather, the other Patriarchs, or even bishops of neighboring dioceses would depose him and an Orthodox bishop would be elected. There would still be office politics, of course, but the stakes would be lower, and both the process as well as the heretical teachings necessitating such process would be less confusing and scandalous to the faithful (and the World).
continued...
Finally, I agree with you that Catholicism (almost all of Western Christianity for that matter) has become a philosophy, not a religion. The mental approach to Christianity is best exemplified by Evangelical soteriology in which being a Christian is reduced to “accepting Jesus Christ as one’s Lord and personal Savior,” but it is also a problem for Catholics. Perhaps the “liberal” Catholics better understand the truth that one’s faith is what one prays than the “conservative” Catholics. The latter have to keep explaining away practices like liturgical abuse with, “Well, it’s still valid,” or the blessing of gay couples with, “Trust us it is really the blessing of individuals for growth in faith even though it clearly demonstrates approbation for a relationship predicated on sin;” the former pushes for permanent liturgical revolution like Maoists because they *want* to change Catholicism from what it was to something more in line with the ways of the world.
Because of “lex orandi lex credendi,” I date the real schism, that is, the point where Catholicism became a different religion from Orthodox Christianity, to the triumph of Scholasticism in the West. Rather than be content with experiencing the ways of God, the Scholastics sought to *understand* these ways - a fool’s errand because the Energies of God are ineffable even though the theologian still participates in them. Transubstantiation is a good example. I do not think the idea is wrong per se, but there is no good reason to try to force the Mystery into Aristotelian categories. The bread and wine become the True Body and Blood of Christ. It is something that we accept on faith, not something that we rationally discern with inductive logic. Getting into the weeds about form, substance, accidents, sacramental veil, &c. all serve to encourage one to think *about* God rather than worship God. This is why I believe that the real break happened with the Palamite controversy, not the Filioque controversy. Regardless of whether adding the filioque to the Creed was bad grossly imprudent, the word itself could be acceptably glossed (as St. Maximos the Confessor did) so long as both East and West worshiped in the same Spirit. However, the Scholastics shifted the meaning of “orthodoxy” away from primarily meaning “right glory” to “right doctrine” such that Western Christianity became about a set of propositions proven by logic, scriptural passages, or both rather than the practice of the Faith supported by the teachings passed down from the Apostles. Even if stuff like the filioque could be resolved acceptably via joint statements and the like (which I doubt), I fear that we would still be too far apart in religious ethos for any intercommunion to be possible.
fin
@@hanng1242 Thanks for writing this. It verbalises my exact thoughts on the situation but you say it better than I could. This is what I've thought for some time but it took me years to finally make the decision to convert.
I've been through every position in the Roman Church, from charismatic to Sedevacantist and everything in between. I feel like I've exhausted every avenue.
I was received into the Orthodox Church a couple of months ago at Pascha and I believe I've made the right decision.
@@lifelongcatechumen Welcome! Glad you are here. We have cookies.
@@hanng1242 Brother... We are kindred spirits! Your journey is almost 1:1 with mine, except that I spent more time in Traditionalist (FSSP/SSPX) circles before joining the Melkites for a little - and now we are inquirers at the OCA. Your points about Catholic bishops being "mitred archpriests with delegated jurisdiction" expresses exactly how I've been feeling. As we saw with Traditionis Custodes, the bishops were pressured into axing the TLMs from their dioceses, and some of the ones that didn't got ousted (Bp. Strickland and Bp. Torres come to mind). What St. Gregory the Great opined about to St. John the Faster - that there can't be a universal bishop - I think has come to fruition in Pastor Aeternus.
I also really resonate with your point about how Western Christianity has become a philosophy and not a religion. It was a hard pill to swallow because I had hunkered down at a TLM parish (where I drove past numerous other Catholic churches to get to) where there was a good spiritual life - but ultimately I couldn't reconcile it with what I encountered at the other parishes I went to. I was trying to convince a neighbor to become Catholic, and when I could only tell him that he could *only* go to a pre-selected group of churches there were "actually Catholic," I realized I was merely creating my own church inside the Catholic Church.
God bless you brother, you should transfer your comments to a Substack and write more!
O Lord, save Thy people,
and bless Thine inheritance! ☦️
0:12 you must be born from above before u even consider accepting Christ. If not you be in a wilderness journey.
You will be back to the Catholic Church within 5 years.
Lol. Well, I do not presume on my own righteousness, but my wife vehemently disagrees with you.
...yes, the Orthodox Catholic Church - not the Papal one.
Same evil. NO gospel truth in both.
@@wesleysimelane3423 The Orthodox Church is the gospel.
I think in time you may return to catholicism, you are in a honeymoon period and when you have been around for a few years you will see the mess which is orthodoxy . You will see Jesus Christ is the head of the church not fallible priests or bishops .
I rely on God to keep me in his Church, because I know my own weakness will drive me out of it. I am Orthodox BECAUSE Christ is head of the Church rather than a single bishop.
@@TheRomanOrthodox Lol, then why having Patriarchs at all? Isn't it Jesus the head of the Church in Constantinople?