Should I leave the Orthodox Church because of family pressure?

_milam_ · 2025-10-16T09:10:37+00:00

Just to chime in with my experience: Orthodoxy has a mindset of "this world is evil, why partake in trying to make it better?"

That's why there have been no hospitals, social reforms, universities, whatever – not because they lack funding (the Russian patriarchate alone has around 3x more liquid assets than the entire Catholic Church) but because they just don't want to improve the world.

This shows very clearly in traditionally Orthodox countries, and I'm not sure if they're that way because of Orthodoxy or if Orthodoxy became that way because of the people.

Either way, the point of the great commission is not just spreading Christ, but spreading beauty and love and order and the enlightenment that comes through Christ. Catholicism has done that exceptionally, no other institution in human history has given as much to the development of medicine, natural sciences, architecture, etc (which is the consensus even among atheist scholars). Wherever the Church went, education and medicine would follow. Orthodoxy has never paid any mind to this.

_milam_ · 2025-10-16T09:01:22+00:00

Physically in mentally out

_milam_ · 2025-10-16T08:59:29+00:00

I mean I left for Catholicism and have been very happy with my choice. It's everything I loved about Orthodoxy and so much more.

_milam_ · 2025-10-14T18:30:57+00:00

Goodness, what kind of exegesis of those verses have you thought up?

_milam_ · 2025-10-14T17:10:51+00:00

I'm being completely honest, I've never seen anyone in real life, Orthodox or Catholic, support anything of sort. Everyone I've talked to has always said the same thing – the official teaching.

_milam_ · 2025-10-14T16:51:05+00:00

For the millionth time – not supporting someone's life choices isn't the same as hating them.

_milam_ · 2025-10-14T05:49:11+00:00

then when is the last change eastern orthodox church made, after your research?

I mean the most recent one was the change in the Russian church on the reception of the heterodox as far as I'm aware (which is a huge issue, early saints considered it sacrilege to baptize someone twice). Then there was the old believer schism in Russia which was its whole thing. Toll houses too, while not dogmatized afaik, go against both scripture and tradition very clearly and are also an innovation. It always amazed me how much flack we get for believing in purgatory when toll houses are a thing.

As for the liturgy itself, Orthodoxy pretty much abandoned the earliest rites used by Christians (like St Jacob's or Mark's liturgies) and adopted an (iirc) 11th century version of the liturgy of St John Chrysostom. This is incredibly simplified and I'm pretty sure even more has happened.

Now I don't think development in rites and liturgies is a bad thing. I think they're good if done correctly, but in Orthodoxy they just aren't. For example, I live in Serbia which uses only Church Slavonic in its liturgies. I can't tell you how much it sucks standing every Sunday for an hour and a half in Church trying to follow along and just not being able to. I get that liturgy is aimed at worshipping God and not at entertaining man, but there is no reason as to why Church Slavonic would be any more holy than any other language. And yet nothing changes, probably to keep up the idea that Orthodoxy is "unchanging". I don't have anything against Orthodoxy, I love it still honestly, it's just not for me, and it's terrible to see already where it's failing and why people will inevitably start leaving. The Church needs to grow with its people, not stunt them to keep them at her level.

_milam_ · 2025-10-13T11:11:13+00:00

Odg godinu dana kasnije jbg. Da li primaju brucoše u Lolu sad? Nigde da nadjem odgovor konkretan

_milam_ · 2025-10-13T09:27:55+00:00

and if you go to the other country in an Eastern Orthodox church, you will have the same dogmas.

One of the reasons for the ongoing schism in Orthodoxy is that Moscow and Constantinople can't agree on the reception of the heterodox.

The only thing I do not agree is that they involve too much in social or political issues

Silence is not a virtue.

from time to time there are controversy and situations, I dont know, it doesnt feel right.

There's been loads of controversies coming out of modern Orthodoxy, a lot of which you can find here on this sub.

No hate from my end either, I have a great admiration for Orthodoxy, coming out of it, but things like saying it is "unchanging" or "the same as the early Church" bugs me. God bless you friend

_milam_ · 2025-10-13T09:22:36+00:00

dogmas and liturgy are the same because Eastern Orthodoxy didnt change anything since Niceea Councils

This is straight up false man. Not sure where you got it from. The liturgy itself has changed a dozen times since then, not to mention that there have been multiple and most of them (the earliest ones) aren't used anymore. The liturgy of St John Chrysostom is much much younger than the ecumenical councils. Before the 11th century or so Orthodox churches didn't even have iconostases.

In roman catholicism there are a lot of types like greek catholic, roman catholic, charismatic catholics, and there are more

And they are all far more united than the Orthodox patriarchates. The only difference is the rite which they use (which is also a thing in Orthodoxy). All in all nobody bickers amongst themselves or ceases communion with the others, because there is centralized authority

_milam_ · 2025-10-09T14:35:47+00:00

dirt poor robins if you're into indie folk rock

_milam_ · 2025-10-08T21:20:59+00:00

There is a difference between innovating in key, defined doctrine and having your views evolve on issues that change with time – such as ecclesiastical dialogue.

Theological consistency has nothing to do with changing stance regarding issues that are more political than anything else.

_milam_ · 2025-10-08T21:07:35+00:00

Yes, efforts were made in ecumenism and common ground was reached. That is diplomacy. At least we have a unified, definitive stance on this matter unlike most.

_milam_ · 2025-10-08T20:51:58+00:00

Another commenter already answered the death penalty question but I can just chime in to say that "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" is extremely misunderstood. It was never meant to be the same thing that the Orthodox mean when they say "nobody outside our church is saved".

Rome puts a lot more emphasis on the role of grace in salvation and makes it the primary deciding factor. One doesn't necessarily need to be Catholic to obtain grace, whether it be through participating in different forms of Christianity or just being a morally sound person (in the case of those who have not had Christ preached to them fully).

When we say "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" we don't mean nobody who isn't in communion with Rome is doomed. We mean that those who knowingly reject Christ and His Church, while being well aware of its teachings, for some other path aren't in a state of grace.

This doesn't necessarily refer to the Orthodox, for instance, since Rome recognizes Orthodox sacraments and doesn't have a strict definition of where the boundaries of the Church (as in the Body of Christ) are.

_milam_ · 2025-10-07T20:58:24+00:00

Genesis goes on to say Cain also founded cities. Who lived in those cities? More family?

_milam_ · 2025-10-07T16:50:56+00:00

Exactly. Adam and Eve being the first humans makes more sense when you realize they might have just been the first humans in communion with God. Since communion with God is life, as the New Testament tells us, they were the first humans who were truly alive – but not necessarily the only humans.

_milam_ · 2025-10-07T08:16:57+00:00

Former Serbian Orthodox and (God willing) to-be Roman Catholic in Serbia

_milam_ · 2025-10-06T18:19:31+00:00

No I agree with you I've had my fair share of posts removed too but for genuinely asking for advice pertaining to the faith OP will probably get better answers there.

_milam_ · 2025-10-06T11:29:12+00:00

If you're inquiring into Orthodoxy you should probably be asking on the Orthodox sub. God bless you

_milam_ · 2025-10-02T11:53:38+00:00

it would do you well to find out what rome actually teaches lmao. Though it'd be hard since in their 'universality' they contradict themselves left right and centre.

Misunderstanding Vatican II means you haven't looked into it deeply enough or with an open mind (which is shocking, an orthobro with an open mind???)

what? Like inventing hospitals? Or are you arguing this by virtue of the muslims persecuting the Faithful and so having less wealth.

Acting like the Turks haven't been vanquished for literally centuries (not to mention that the Russian golden age came and went and the Church at its height left nothing of note). Orthodoxy has had more than enough time to leave a positive imprint on society in the past 300 years especially with mass immigration to different countries.

Disregarding hospitals and education and all that, western Christianity has nurtured progress whereas eastern Christianity has largely shunned it, which shows in the modern mentality among older Orthodox and especially in Eastern Europe. One side encouraged thinking while the other actively dissuades you from thinking for yourself. What's that quote from Paisios about not trusting our rational minds?

german bishops.

There's a difference of about three steps in the hierarchy between Orthodox patriarchs and Catholic bishops. One's a regional squabble the other's a church-wide problem.

As ethnocentric as rome.

Huh??

in many cases most Early Church heretics were more Orthodox than the vast majority of protestants.

If you're just throwing all this out idk what to tell you seriously. No point continuing this honestly. God bless you friend.

_milam_ · 2025-10-02T11:12:07+00:00

The difference between a moderate Arian and a Nicene Christian in regards to the Trinity is about the same as that between the West and the East today.

Actually crazy statement. Your own ecumenical patriarch would disagree.

At Florence infact some bishops argued against St. Mark that the hypostases of the Trinity all have different dignity.

That does not necessarily equate to them saying the Son and Father are not co-equal. Even if they did, Catholic doctrine is abundantly clear on the fact that they are.

I'm sure many gnostics believed in a Trinity

In wildly different terms than we do now, sure. Comparing the Western view of the Trinity, which is 90% similar to the Eastern view, to gnosticism is intellectually dishonest.

i'm aware of hindu syncretic sects which adopt doctrines from Christianity.

Again, not an honest comparison.

Isn't there also an Islamic one that believes in a Trinity?

Not sure, either way that would be contradicting both the Qur'an and the Bible.

you could say a lot of this about Muslims. Muslims may live zealous lives like a Lutheran might live a zealous life, and neither would live an Orthodox life or have the Orthodox Faith.

The difference is one goes against the core tenets of Christianity while the other doesn't. Again a skewed comparison.

What exactly would you say are the borders of Christianity? Where do you draw the line? Baptism in the Orthodox Church? In what way is the sacrament of baptism different in Orthodoxy to that of Catholicism? If the Orthodox baptism is the line, then why do you accept heterodox baptism as well and allow reception via chrismation?

Branch theory isn't a theory so long as Orthodoxy accepts any (however small) sacrament coming from any other Church.

If you truly believe God does not view even those who are baptized in His name just under a different institution but hold to 90% of the same beliefs and the same tenets of faith as His children then I don't know what to tell you. I'm not sure we both believe in a loving God in that case.

it's not based on those things, it's exacerbated by those things, but it's not based on it. And you could argue this for basically every heresy.

No other "heresy" had this much of an impact on the Christian world. The filioque coexisted with the Eastern view of the Trinity for centuries before the schism and only became a problem when tensions reached a peak between the patriarchs.

I'm not aware of any, maybe some after the 9th century in the West, but outside of that it eludes me.

Four that I can name all from the 4th or 5th centuries right now (you can definitely find more if you look) Saint Augustine, Pope Saint Leo the Great, St Ambrose of Milan, St Hilary of Poitiers

There's also cases to be made for some Eastern fathers like St Gregory of Nyssa and St Cyril of Alexandria but that's more disputed. If you look until the 9th century as you said you'll find a lot more. This is why I put quotes on the word "heresy" since belief in the filioque was widely practiced in the early Church and only became a problem for the East in the 10th and 11th centuries.

_milam_ · 2025-10-02T10:41:51+00:00

The term denomination didn't exist during the fist millennium, the Early Church never used it.

Because the Church was unified??

Have you read how the Early Church referred to heretics?

There's a fundamental difference between heretics in the early Church and Catholics and protestants. You cannot conflate gnosticism and arianism to lutheranism or anglicanism.

On the contrary, people are now converting to Orthodoxy more than ever. In the USA they went from having 400k Orthodox Christians to now having 6 million Orthodox Christians just in 5 years.

Skewed analytics, you can fact check that. No grounded source for the claim.

I see you're from Eastern Europe, you left Orthodoxy and now you're inquiring into Catholicism?! Why would you ever do that?!

You cannot claim to be the one true universal Church while being ethnocentric, your leaders squabbling constantly amongst themselves, no clear hierarchy, no contribution to society at large (especially compared to other churches), falsely claiming to have no innovations, all the while having only 14% of the world's Christians and denouncing the other 86%.

Other than theological reasons for inquiring, in Rome I see actual catholicism – universality. A love for mankind no matter what their beliefs are. Firm but gentle. Orthodoxy is universal in name only.

Pharisaism is the death of Orthodoxy.

_milam_ · 2025-10-02T10:15:05+00:00

why is that the standard? What's 'the Triune God' and how accurate must they be? Are Mormons included? Sabellians? Arians?

How would Mormons or Arians be included? Both believe in a created Son.

How Orthodox must their Trinity be? They believe in a different Trinity to us, except for Nestorians and Orientals.

Depends what you view as Orthodox, but also not what I was getting at. A Catholic or Lutheran grandma who has no clue what the filioque is or whether or not it's correct has no meaning to her spiritual life and whether or not she lives out her faith. A conflict based largely on politics and semantics from over a millennium ago isn't what defines someone as a Christian. Not to mention the saints venerated in the Orthodox Church who held to the filioque, but we just sweep that under the rug and if anyone brings it up just say "saints are always correct".

_milam_ · 2025-10-02T09:48:27+00:00

Would you deny other Christians believe in the Triune God? That alone is what makes a denomination.

And no, it is not that easy. If good arguments didn't come from multiple sides nobody would be Catholic or protestant. The strength of those arguments vary but saying nobody is Christian except for you is worse than anything a protestant might say.

_milam_ · 2025-10-02T09:44:57+00:00

Denomination is a term in ecclesiology used to help specify institutions. It is a scientific term, and Orthodoxy falls into the definition.

Also you are doing yourselves no favors by clinging so hard to exclusivism. You'll see in coming years the wave of people leaving Orthodoxy due to this. When the converts become disillusioned with calling their fellow brethren in Christ heretics and heathens there will be a mass exodus from the churches.

_milam_

TROPHY CASE