Former Orthodox Christian on why he became RC

Feel free to tell our little section of the Internet why you're right. Forum rules apply.


Post Reply
User avatar
NektariosLopez
Jr Member
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon 1 January 2024 6:32 pm
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC-K

Former Orthodox Christian on why he became RC

Post by NektariosLopez »

https://onepeterfive.com/left-orthodoxy-regret/

I was looking for commentary on the 1 Epistle of St Peter, specifically chapter 5, but came across this article which was posted a few days ago, which makes sense why it came up in search results based on the website name. Out of curiousity with the title, I read it.

I was confused by this part as to what he means:

The Roman primacy is instituted by God
During my time as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I came to realize how much my view of Rome was obscured by my own pride. The central claim of many Orthodox — that Vatican I is a heresy of self-aggrandizement — does not hold up to scrutiny. Not only do the Orthodox Latin saints preach this doctrine over a span of centuries, but at one point, the entire Eastern hierarchy promised to be in agreement with the Holy See and confessed the Roman primacy (this was the Formula of Hormisdas). What Orthodox fail to see is that over the course of the 464 years from Constantine to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the eastern bishops were heretical and out of communion with Rome for at least 203 years [1]. Meanwhile, their Eastern saints who were orthodox confessed the Roman primacy: St. Athanasius the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril, St. Flavian, the Blessed Theodoret, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Theodore of the Studium, et cetera.

Thus in order to assert, as Orthodox do, that the Roman primacy is a heresy, they need to admit that their own saints are heretics, or else claim — as they are forced to — that their saints were sycophant men given over to hyperbole and flattery.

I'm also unaware of what he's referring to in his fourth point, "The pathology against charity" specifically about Ss. Photios and Gregory Palamas:

Let us consider one final example: “Our All-Holy, Immaculate, Most Blessed and Glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary” [13]. In considering the Immaculate Conception, the eminent Russian theologian Fr. Sergei Bulgakov states emphatically that “[t]he Orthodox Church does not accept the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin” [14]. What is meant by “The Church does not accept?” On what grounds? Was there a universal declaration about this dogma from the Orthodox Church? This statement is a fantasy.

The more objective Met. Kallistos Ware is able to admit that “in the past individual Orthodox have made statements which, if not definitely affirming the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, at any rate approached close to it; but since 1854 [when Rome dogmatized it] the great majority of Orthodox have rejected the doctrine” [15]. A close look at the sources shows that some of Chalcedonians’ most revered saints — Photius and Palamas — in fact taught the Immaculate Conception [16]. Thus the anti-Roman pathology twists their doctrine to the point of even committing one of the blasphemies against the Immaculate Heart, for which we make reparation on the First Saturdays.

“Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." -St Luke 12:32

User avatar
Suaidan
Protoposter
Posts: 1348
Joined: Thu 8 April 2004 2:31 pm
Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Metropolia of the Americas
Location: Northeast PA

Re: Former Orthodox Christian on why he became RC

Post by Suaidan »

NektariosLopez wrote: Fri 8 May 2026 6:33 pm

https://onepeterfive.com/left-orthodoxy-regret/

I was looking for commentary on the 1 Epistle of St Peter, specifically chapter 5, but came across this article which was posted a few days ago, which makes sense why it came up in search results based on the website name. Out of curiousity with the title, I read it.

I was confused by this part as to what he means:

The Roman primacy is instituted by God
During my time as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I came to realize how much my view of Rome was obscured by my own pride. The central claim of many Orthodox — that Vatican I is a heresy of self-aggrandizement — does not hold up to scrutiny. Not only do the Orthodox Latin saints preach this doctrine over a span of centuries, but at one point, the entire Eastern hierarchy promised to be in agreement with the Holy See and confessed the Roman primacy (this was the Formula of Hormisdas). What Orthodox fail to see is that over the course of the 464 years from Constantine to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the eastern bishops were heretical and out of communion with Rome for at least 203 years [1]. Meanwhile, their Eastern saints who were orthodox confessed the Roman primacy: St. Athanasius the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril, St. Flavian, the Blessed Theodoret, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Theodore of the Studium, et cetera.

Thus in order to assert, as Orthodox do, that the Roman primacy is a heresy, they need to admit that their own saints are heretics, or else claim — as they are forced to — that their saints were sycophant men given over to hyperbole and flattery.

I'm also unaware of what he's referring to in his fourth point, "The pathology against charity" specifically about Ss. Photios and Gregory Palamas:

Let us consider one final example: “Our All-Holy, Immaculate, Most Blessed and Glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary” [13]. In considering the Immaculate Conception, the eminent Russian theologian Fr. Sergei Bulgakov states emphatically that “[t]he Orthodox Church does not accept the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin” [14]. What is meant by “The Church does not accept?” On what grounds? Was there a universal declaration about this dogma from the Orthodox Church? This statement is a fantasy.

The more objective Met. Kallistos Ware is able to admit that “in the past individual Orthodox have made statements which, if not definitely affirming the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, at any rate approached close to it; but since 1854 [when Rome dogmatized it] the great majority of Orthodox have rejected the doctrine” [15]. A close look at the sources shows that some of Chalcedonians’ most revered saints — Photius and Palamas — in fact taught the Immaculate Conception [16]. Thus the anti-Roman pathology twists their doctrine to the point of even committing one of the blasphemies against the Immaculate Heart, for which we make reparation on the First Saturdays.

I'll answer these on Sunday more. The basic answer is "out of context" and "misconstrued" but we can get into more detail. They seem confusing to you because they aren't Orthodox doctrine. What he really means is "I believe how Roman Catholics read these saints now", not that he has a substantive claim.

Fr Joseph Suaidan (Suaiden, same guy)

User avatar
haralampopoulosjc
Member
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue 3 June 2025 9:22 pm
Faith: True Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC (Stephanos)
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Former Orthodox Christian on why he became RC

Post by haralampopoulosjc »

NektariosLopez wrote: Fri 8 May 2026 6:33 pm

https://onepeterfive.com/left-orthodoxy-regret/

I was looking for commentary on the 1 Epistle of St Peter, specifically chapter 5, but came across this article which was posted a few days ago, which makes sense why it came up in search results based on the website name. Out of curiousity with the title, I read it.

I was confused by this part as to what he means:

The Roman primacy is instituted by God
During my time as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I came to realize how much my view of Rome was obscured by my own pride. The central claim of many Orthodox — that Vatican I is a heresy of self-aggrandizement — does not hold up to scrutiny. Not only do the Orthodox Latin saints preach this doctrine over a span of centuries, but at one point, the entire Eastern hierarchy promised to be in agreement with the Holy See and confessed the Roman primacy (this was the Formula of Hormisdas). What Orthodox fail to see is that over the course of the 464 years from Constantine to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the eastern bishops were heretical and out of communion with Rome for at least 203 years [1]. Meanwhile, their Eastern saints who were orthodox confessed the Roman primacy: St. Athanasius the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril, St. Flavian, the Blessed Theodoret, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Theodore of the Studium, et cetera.

Thus in order to assert, as Orthodox do, that the Roman primacy is a heresy, they need to admit that their own saints are heretics, or else claim — as they are forced to — that their saints were sycophant men given over to hyperbole and flattery.

I'm also unaware of what he's referring to in his fourth point, "The pathology against charity" specifically about Ss. Photios and Gregory Palamas:

Let us consider one final example: “Our All-Holy, Immaculate, Most Blessed and Glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary” [13]. In considering the Immaculate Conception, the eminent Russian theologian Fr. Sergei Bulgakov states emphatically that “[t]he Orthodox Church does not accept the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin” [14]. What is meant by “The Church does not accept?” On what grounds? Was there a universal declaration about this dogma from the Orthodox Church? This statement is a fantasy.

The issue isn't Roman primacy which no Orthodox Christian has ever disputed but Roman supremacy, as in the Roman Pontiff has authority over the entire world and can unilaterally intervene in any jurisdiction that he wants to. The latter only became a mainstream view in Rome after the publication of the 'Dictatus Papae' in 1075.

The Formula of Hormisdas is not a good argument for Roman supremacy given that the Emperor and the Patriarch of Jerusalem both edited the original Formula, and THAT was the document that was ultimately signed and accepted by all of the bishops, including the Pope.

Even if the Eastern bishops were out of communion with Rome for 203 years from the time of Constantine to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, that doesn't mean that either side was necessarily heretical or outside of the church during the time of separation.

The Eastern saints had a great deal of respect for Rome especially because of it's resolute stand against numerous heresies in the first millennium. What we during times of heresy, when Rome stands as the sole defender of Orthodoxy, is Eastern fathers like Maximus the Confessor for example, playing up Rome's role as the first see, to bring the other patriarchates into line with Orthodoxy. These quotes are misconstrued by modern Papists as being endorsements from the Eastern Fathers for Vatican I style Papal supremacy.

User avatar
Barbara
Archon
Posts: 6081
Joined: Sat 29 September 2012 6:03 pm

Re: Former Orthodox Christian on why he became RC

Post by Barbara »

That's St Cyril of Alexandria to whom the poster was referring, correct ?

Post Reply