Choosing between Orthodoxy and Catholicism was the hardest choice in my life. I ended up Orthodox by Gods grace, but there's the terrifying notion and possibility that I possibly chosen incorrectly and have screwed myself over. I don't really have much of a desire to convert to Catholicism, I don't know if I should or if it's the actual right church or not. I am not making any sudden jumps. I just mainly desire to grow closer to God, and feel Orthodoxy would be the best option. Of course there's many other reasons why I converted but that's not important. I would say i'm ignorant of Catholicism if it IS the true church, but the whole history and possibilities in Christianity is so damn complicated and messy, that I just would rather focus on life and building a relationship with Christ rather than worrying about the issue.
What are the chances I chosen wrong? Will I still be saved by God? I pray God will forgive me if I made the wrong choice.
All you can do is expose yourself to the history, facts and teachings of these churches and then discover which one you believe is authentic. It's not really a choice.
If you genuinely believe X over Y, then it would be dishonest of you, to go around pretending to believe in Y. God wants authenticity, he knows you are a flawed entity prone to error, but at least you should be honest with yourself and not fall into hypocrisy.
Ask yourself if you're joining the Orthos because of the rottenness in the church or for some other reason. The sins of men shouldn't even enter into the decision - what they believe and what the doctrines are, is the most important thing at the end of the day.
That's because you did user.
Heresy never dies, it will forever rise like a phoenix only to be smote again.
What's wrong with that post? You think LARPing as a denomination you don't really believe is better?
Obviously I'm not going to support your choice, as I want all people and nations to come and unite in the Catholic Church, which I believe to be the one and only Church of Christ, but should you go to hell over it? Don't get me wrong - schism is a grave sin and willfully staying outside the Church because of your pride or some other vice can very much so send you to hell. But only God knows the state of your soul and from your post I think you have the fear of God, which is the begining of wisdom, and you want to follow him. Whether you find your way home or not, I hope to see you in heaven if I make it there But seriously dude, begome gadolig :DDDDDDDD
Can you imagine having to choose between the right religion (out of thousands) to dictate your soul's fate after biological death? And then on top of that you have to choose the right church or spend the rest of eternity separate from god. What a trip. I sincerely hope all Christians sit down and look at this from all angles. If you are simply adopting the church/faith of your parents, culture, people, etc. without actually making a conscious effort to find the truest path, you are gambling with your soul, LOL.
To be clear, I believe Orthodoxy is the right choice, it's just that i'm worried that when I die I'll be judged and damned because I made the wrong decision
This schism is bullshit and shouldn't have ever happened.
My family are atheists
If you choose the wrong church then every week you are making God angrier and angrier
That's an understandable concern to have, but why post this on a catholic board then?
Read the Bible. Pray. Follow Jesus's commandments. Your goal is not only to be saved. Your goal is primarily to become a son of God. You want to have the mind of Christ. You want to have the desires of Christ. You want to be holy like Christ. If you are having such doubts, don't listen to the apologists for now. Don't concern yourself with Popes and schisms. Read the Bible, the gospels especially, pray, and follow Jesus. You will be led where others are doing the same. Remember, you will know them by their fruits. Then read the rest of the Bible. Read some of the Fathers, if you're ready. If you are lost, you retrace your steps. I'll be praying for you, friend. I hope you find the truth.
How is it hard to choose between the largest and greatest Church on earth, and some random weird insignificant eastern European nationalists who have literally never evangelized a single country. I think maybe you've gotten caught up in memes and thought orthos are actually at all important or worth considering.
Also why not oriental Orthodoxy? They are just as insignificant and undignified as the EO.
You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim, each for himself, separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedrs would already be a schismatic and a sinner. St. Optatus a 4th century eastern Saint tertullian.org/fathers/optatus_02_book2.htm#C2
Some good lectures I also like to post to get a better idea of the Papacy, first one goes over more well known stuff but second one gets into some more obscure stuff.
But for your final question you are saved if you are in a state of Grace, you enter into that through the sacraments. It's hypothetically possible but not really likely, by rejecting the Pope you are rejecting Christ exercising his authority over you, and rejecting Christ. By the Papacy Christ can act in the world to specifically bind you to certain things so that you must follow them and not yourself, to avoid that you are basically ensuring you will never enter into heaven.
I don't think it's as clear a choice as it would have been, say, before 1958. (Also, reminder that Palamas had Gnostic influences.)
If it was clear before 1958, it's still clear. The Church is the same Church it's always been despite what you read in some crappy books. The idea that there could be a clear Church before some time period and not after another completely goes against any proper understanding of the Church. It was planted in the beginning and won't change.
I disagree. Do you realize the human element in all this? The Church today is manifestly disordered. That's just a fact–take a look at all the heterodoxy being preached, and not reprimanded. That is why, for a time, I was Eastern Orthodox, and then a Sede. The human instinct is to guess that Christ's promise is, at the very least, being stretched to its limits–and then look elsewhere. By God's grace I was brought to the truth, but not without much agonizing.
You said it wasn't as clear, which would mean that maybe there were other serious options. Yeah I agree it's not looking as peachy as maybe it has in the past, or how we view it in the past, but that doesn't mean anything in comparison to other things. It's principles and in principle the same thing and as good as it has ever been. The other possibilities are all manifestly absurd/incoherent/or just silly.
Sede, EO, OO (why does no one ever mention OO???) are all manifestly absurd/silly to anyone not under the influence of memes. I originally went to an EO parish as well, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense. I originally went EO to maintain some heresy that the Catholic Church had condemned (fideism), however just as with everything else I've said it's just something that falls apart as soon as you think seriously about it for 5 seconds. The second you think clearly about any of them the only even possible option is Catholicism, the rest as I said before fall apart.
The only sort of way I can understand it is you see something you dislike in the Catholic Church, and in reaction go to some other random claimant without ever seriously thinking about it. However that's not a matter of clarity, that's a matter of thoughtlessness. If your eyes aren't open you can't blame people for obscuring things. I still can see where that comes from and hope Grace can make up for that, but it doesn't make it at all rational/based in clarity. It's just reactionary stuff which in the worst cases ends up with people saying they got some direct divine inspiration, it is the total opposite of reason or anything to do with clarity.
(I'm conflating clarity with reasonableness which may not have been your meaning but I think I covered what else you may have meant)
I was very lucky to have some fantastic parishes and priests nearby when I first converted though so maybe I can't really get the perspective of someone wandering into a full modern thing as their first go and without the whole context. That would be very jarring but like I said, it's a very different thing to the reasonableness of any of the Churches, it's just emotional. I would agree that there is plenty in the Church nowadays to promote excessive emotionality which is likely to lead people to not think about things I guess. Some people are working very hard to prevent people from engaging in that 5 seconds of thought that is needed.
Notice mostly Catholics respond
What do the scriptures say? Love your God with all your heart, mind soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. I too worry whether or not I have chosen the right church. I worry about a lot of decisions I've made. But I know I've chosen the right God and the right Savior. Look user, when I came back from being a backslidden Christian, God laid me bear. I had all sorts of unforgiveness in my heart at the time and horrible sin. God allowed me to be tormented by demons day in and day out after he gave me a terrifying ultimatum about my turning away from him. I devoured the scriptures like hell was chasing me. I went through all sorts of doctrines and churches trying to figure out which one was the right one. Brother, listen to me– when I put my faith in ideas, churches, doctrines and men, I came up shamed. I was constantly afraid of being deceived. I was staring hell in the face, the fear of anathema, losing my first love forever. When you are brought to such a place of terror, putting your trust in a created thing becomes observably silly. When you are faced with such urgency, there is only one you call on. When I was at my deepest despair, I knew the only one who could save me was Christ Jesus, and save me he did. Ever since that point he has been guiding me, and teaching me and giving me wisdom and hope. I'm still making my way back to him, because the first time you come you can have him almost immediately. But if you turn on such beauty, the Lord may see how badly you really want him the second time.
My point is that God looks into your heart before he sees which sect or denomination you adhere to. You won't be anathema because your church. You will be anathema because of your heart. If you do not have Christ abiding in you, you will by no means enter the Kingdom of God. This is what you must cling to. This must be your hope. Christ Jesus is the only one who can save you. There is no other way to the Father except through him. The devil is a liar and a slanderer. The enemy of our souls will use the smallest things to completely distract us from Christ and shipwreck our faith, and sometimes it can totally blindside us. Watch out brother! The enemy of our souls like to ask these "What if" questions, because it causes you to look within yourself for answers instead of looking to Christ. God almost never asks me "What if" questions that I can remember! Know the voice which is speaking to you and learn the voice of God.
I currently do not have a church because I do not know which church I should be apart of. I've been a Protestant all my life, but I'm thinking about the Catholic church. Though I will make no decision on my own. I will fervently pray for the answer and God will answer me and he will tell me what his will is for me and I will obey because he is worthy of my obedience. Worry about nothing dear friend, seek first the Kingdom of God and all other things will be added you!
God bless and have peace.
there is no such thing as a right church. all churches are man-made and thus fallible the same way humans are
whats important is how well you follow the path of christianity before you. act in ways that you think Jesus would.
just stop and think to yourself. "what would Jesus do in this situation?"
The problem is you're putting your own reason and fallibility above revelation and using it to interpret it, just submit to the Pope, all else is subjectivity, papal supremacy and infallibility is a blessing, yet a stumbling block to those who worship their own intellect
The main but not the only issue with Roman Catholicism is the issue of the Pope
Among the Apostles, we have no indications there was no Pope. See the passage where Peter comes before the elders of the Church to discuss the vision God gave him about all the animals and showing that gentiles should be let in the church without requiring physical circumcision of them.
He came before all the elders in the church as a lawyer would come in front of a judge and jury. IF PETER ACTUALLY WERE THE FIRST POPE HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO PLEAD HIS CASE HE WOULD JUST DECREE WHAT GOD COMMANDED. Moreover, the one actually presiding over the assembly was James, but he did not act like a pope he was basically a facilitator, like the VP of the US over the Senate.
Combine this with the Roman Catholic Church's well documented crimes throughout history and ludicrous inability to do anything about the pedophilia issue, I think you have your answer. Bad trees bear bad fruit. I was born a Roman Catholic but I will be converting to Eastern Orthodoxy
sorry to be clear, We have NO indications that there was a pope from peter's meeting with the church elders
*leans into the mic* WRONG
There are various arguments used against the Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:18, but all are difficult to argue in favor of. First of all, Jesus had just gathered all His disciples, and He chose to change Peter's name alone, (Abraham also had his name changed, and he was also called called the "rock" (Isaiah 51:1-2)–one argument used against Peter being the foundation of the Church is how 1 Corinthians 3:11 refers to Jesus as the foundation. This is false precisely because the Apostles are also called twelve foundations (Apocalypse 21:14). What this means is that all authority comes from Christ, the Church itself comes from Christ. Well, Peter's authority comes from Christ. He established these things on Peter, so what's setup on Peter is a foundation on Christ, that does not mean He didn't establish an office which would be the rock on which the Church is built. He gives His keys (Apocalypse 3:7, Apocalypse 1:18) to Peter, as it was prophesied in Isaiah 22:22. Jesus is the Good Shepherd, (John 10:14) but He gives that responsibility to Peter also (John 21-15-17), to say that he then points to Peter and calls him "little rock" (Petros is the masculine version of Petra, the reason Petros is used and not Petra (In Aramaic it was "thou art Kephas and upon this Kephas) is to preserve the play on words, not to indicate that Jesus called him little rock) and point to Himself and says "upon this rock" makes no sense, as right after, He gives Him the keys which He possesses (Apocalypse 3:7, Apocalypse 1:18, Apocalypse 9:1, Apocalypse 20:1, prophesied in Isaiah 22:22), and if you pay attention to the wording, it's indicating an office that is established, not something that passes away with Peter. Understanding what the Keys are and Isaiah 22:22 indicate infallibility, and, again, we literally just have to point to early Popes like Leo the Great to see what Papal infallibility/Supremacy is. And you completely ignore the fact that Luke 22 is about which Apostle is the greatest, and Jesus affirm Peter, and He prays for him alone. That's not a mistake. There's a strife among the Apostles as to who is the greatest, Jesus responds by saying His Kingdom is not like that of the Gentiles, describing its structure. He says that Satan has desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) but He has prayed for Peter (singular, also the person who has the Keys), alone, that his faith fail not. This is the unfailing faith of the office of Prime Minister of the New Israel. Whatever He binds on Earth, obviously cannot be false in Heaven, therefore, someone in Peter's Chair cannot make a false teaching Ex Cathedra. And do you believe that those who wrote the Bible wrote infallibly? If so, it's not far-fetched to say He can give the Prime Minister infallibility under certain circumstances
I'd ask you to reconsider. Read my other posts in this thread, and keep in mind that you have just as many modernist wolves in sheep's clothing that want to destroy your liturgy and traditions, as was done to the Catholic Church. And then what? If you had a sappy liturgy like the norm is for Catholics, would you really be Eastern Orthodox? If many here are honest with themselves, they'd say no. There are talks of "modernizing" among the more liberal (Greek/American) strands of Eastern Orthodoxy. If you do go down that road, prepare to try and hang on to your traditions. Really now? Read about the North American martyrs… if you're of good will, you'll realize that 99% of what is said about the Church is slander, because of Her teachings on morality, something fallen man is absolutely opposed to. A recent happening that mainly involves homosexuality. Before you do so, at least try and go to a TLM. For me, the clear errors on contraception/divorce/female ordination (deacons) that Eastern Orthodox have + the unopposed AND unilateral documented actions pre-schism Popes made transfixed me on Catholicism. There is a lot of mewling about Scholasticism/Legalism among Eastern Orthoodx, which is basically a strawman and red herring that Dyerite/Duginite LARPodox will point to as some kind of own. Like I said, the first millennia is why I'm Catholic.
Tell me, what is the point in reading the bible if you dont have church tradition to interpret it? Simply pray everyday, and read the apologists, read the fathers, then read the bible
You do realize that Iesus made a church right? Not really man made. Dont get me wrong, Iesus was fully man, but the incarnate son of God made a church, and you call it manmade
You seem to be conflating popularity with legitimacy.
Maybe because they don't agree with an Ecumenical council called by the emperor? Chalcedon was very important, and according to this very board's definition, they aren't even christian.
If saint Peter truly was "so clearly" made the galactic emperor of the church, why did only two chapters after Iesus called him rock of the church (depending on the way it is read) did the disciples argue about who among them was the greatest? Why was Paul able to publically rebuke Peter? Why was James the brother of Iesus made head of the council of Jerusalem, and not Peter? Holes fill every argument of the so called catholic church.
And yet Jesus told St. Peter and only St. Peter to feed His flock. His flock being both the laity and the other disciples. St Paul rebuking St Peter does not diminish the fact that Saint Peter is still the Pope. People can correct the leaders all the time that doesn't mean that they're not the leader. St James may have led the Council of Jerusalem but St Peter had the final word.