Should We Proselytize the Eastern Orthodox?

[aByzantineCatholic]

[quote]How to evangelize Eastern Orthodox...[/quote]

DON'T, leave them alone! The Holy Father has requested this.

They have:

1. Valid Apostolic Priest.
2. Valid Sacraments.
3. Grace.
4. Valid arguments against the Catholic Church

They are:
1. Just as old as the Catholic Church

Pax!

[theculturewarrior]

They also have a lot of strange ideas. I don't mean to make converts...but to defend the Truth.

[theculturewarrior]

PS if the Holy Father has requested complete silence on this subject, I gladly submit. I am just not sure of what he said. Can somebody find us the relevant citation?

[theculturewarrior]

Everything that was said about the EOx is true, insofar as it pertains to the validity of their Church. Our Church doesn't have a monopoly on the sacraments.

And I have also heard that the Holy Father has asked that we not missionize Orthodox. But I haven't seen the relevant citation, so I don't know if he meant, "just don't say anything when they call you a heretic."

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I doubt he said that, it'd be ridiculous to not convert people. I'de probably approach one of these Eastern Orthodox people differently, however, than a Protestant.

[PhatPhred]

[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html"]Pope John Paul II's Encyclical [i]"Ut Unum Sint"[/i] on Commitment to Ecumenism (THIS IS AN HTML LINK!!!)[/url] discusses this in paragraphs 50 to 61. Paragraph 50 states in part:

[quote]Speaking of the Churches of the East, the Council acknowledged their great liturgical and spiritual tradition, the specific nature of their historical development, the disciplines coming from the earliest times and approved by the Holy Fathers and Ecumenical Councils, and their own particular way of expressing their teaching. The Council made this acknowledgement in the conviction that legitimate diversity is in no way opposed to the Church's unity, but rather enhances her splendour and contributes greatly to the fulfilment of her mission.

The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council wished to base dialogue on the communion which already exists, and it draws attention to the noble reality of the Churches of the East: [b]"Therefore, this Sacred Synod urges all, but especially those who plan to devote themselves to the work of restoring the full communion that is desired between the Eastern Churches and the Catholic Church, to give due consideration to these special aspects of the origin and growth of the Churches of the East, and to the character of the relations which obtained between them and the Roman See before the separation, and to form for themselves a correct evaluation of these facts"[/b].[/quote]

[Crusader_4]

Yes thats what i heard too... that as far as we are concerned our envagelization might be better spent elsewhere. I live in probably one of the only cities in the world that has two Archbishops from the Catholic Church a Metropolitacn from the UCC (Ukraninan Catholic Church), as well as various Orthodox Bishops. So I am lucky since my city is really dynamic in that regard, and as far as we go we have soo much in common it really divides us to missionize each other especially from the onslaught we face quite often from Protestant denominations in our area. Also the Ancient Eastern Churches are much more complex then the protestant counterparts so for the normal person like me who has a pretty good ground in their faith it makes it difficult for the most part to envagelize with them...altho when we both share our faith we find tremendous gains since both of our faiths have great approches to the divine truth. Also from what i hear from certain factions its not going 2 b terribly long before some of the orthodox Church's come back into communion with Rome.

[Hananiah]

[quote]Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.'

This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. [b]Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.[/b]
Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302[/quote]
By all means do evangelize the Eastern Orthodox. The first issue I would confront an EO on would be filioque. Carson Weber gave an excellent explanation as to why this is an essential component of a good Trinitarian theology on the Q&A board a while ago.

[Hananiah]

Here it is:

[quote]Filioque is a Greek term that means "And the Son". Essentially, the Filioque protects, upholds, and helps explain the Fatherhood of God. Denial of the Filioque is disastrous for a proper Trinitarian theology.

Let me explain.

The Father is "Father" because he fathers the Son. This means that he gives everything he has to the Son and holds nothing back. The Son is "Son" because the son receives this gift of life from the Father and reciprocates this gift back to the Father wholly and completely. There is nothing held back in the Son's reciprocal gift of life, which is the same gift the Father gives.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son as the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity.

If the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father and not from the Son as well, then the Father is holding something back from the Son that he gives to the Holy Spirit, which would indicate that God the Father isn't really Father but something else (e.g. Monarch).

For more, read this article:

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm[/url] [/quote]
To deny the Filioque is to turn the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into the Father and His two Sons.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]Filioque is a Greek term that means "And the Son". [/quote]

Actually Filioque is Latin.

It was a part of the Creed (always said at Mass in Latin): from "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" meaning "Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son" (speaking of the Holy Ghost).

Also, regardless of what the Pope's opinion is...Eastern schismatics are still just that, schismatic. So, even if he has instructed us not to fulfill our Christian duty, we still must do it. (I doubt he actually said not to evangelize them, though.) God bless.

[PhatPhred]

I thought that Eastern Rite Catholics omit the "filioque" from their recitation of the creed in the Divine Ligurgy.

[Aloysius]

theres no real theological dispute when it comes to the filoque, the Eastern Church just didn't like Rome claiming authority to add it to the Creed in the Liturgy.

anyway, these Churchs have to come together with Rome, yes, but they still havta come under rome inasmuch as recognizing the Primacy of the successor to St. Peter over the other patriarchs.

John Paul II's quote seems to mean that we should be working for the Eastern Churches to unite with the Catholic Church, not necessarily trying to pull people out of the Eastern Churches.

[theculturewarrior]

I think the situation is a bit more complex than indicated here.

The Eastern Orthodox have completely valid holy orders (and therefore, a valid Eucharist, penance, etc.) So far as I know, they have not adopted as dogma any heresies. Also, there is a history of bad blood between our Churches, because of active proselytization in bygone years.

I would have no problem refraining from active proselytization.

My problem is when it is a question of defending the Truth, of which we have a biblical mandate. Many Orthodox have some bizarre ideas and are rabid anti-Catholics.

BTW, I find it is much more edifying to let others throw the apologetic punches, and just respond with the Truth. Spiritual aikido, if you will. It more gentle, regardless of persuasion.

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Apr 2 2004, 01:55 AM'] You must keep in mind that thier liturgy is really close to being Valid. They do not have to come under Rome but come together with Rome. [/quote]
Umm, actually, their liturgy is valid.




Anyway...

Yes, you should evangelize Orthodox Christians. However, there is a lot of historic bitterness between Orthodox and Catholics, so it has to be done...delicately. The points of the filioque, papal supremecy, etc. are the primary apologetics topics, but you'll probably also have to address more historical things (like the sac of Constantinople). Also, I think it's better not to try to convert them to the Roman or Latin liturgy. Encourage them to join the Catholic rite that corresponds to their church.

[aByzantineCatholic]

theculturewarrior,

[quote]They also have a lot of strange ideas. I don't mean to make converts...but to defend the Truth. [/quote]

They have NO strange ideas. It is just your ignorance of their ideas. There is NOTHING seperating them from the Catholic Church except Peter.

[theculturewarrior]

[quote]They have NO strange ideas. It is just your ignorance of their ideas. There is NOTHING seperating them from the Catholic Church except Peter.[/quote]

First off, this belongs in the debate forum.

Second off, remember, I am not speaking off what's on the books, I am speaking about actual EOx laity. And yes, they have some strange ideas. One of them is Peter. Another is Original Sin. Another is the Filioque. Another is grace outside the EOx Church. (Yes, I too have been called a heretic).

As far as my ignorance is concerned, guilty as charged! As to the extent of my ignorance, do not presume.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='PhatPhred' date='Apr 2 2004, 07:59 AM'] I thought that Eastern Rite Catholics omit the "filioque" from their recitation of the creed in the Divine Ligurgy. [/quote]
We have recently been instructed to cease reciting it, for the sake of ecumenism with the Eastern Orthodox. This does not mean we deny it however, as to deny it would be heresy.

Edited April 2, 2004 by Hananiah

[Theoketos]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Apr 2 2004, 11:31 AM'] Umm, actually, their liturgy is valid [/quote]
Okay, I submit Licit instead of Valid...

Would that work Polar?

Edited April 2, 2004 by Theoketos

[Theoketos]

[quote name='aByzantineCatholic' date='Apr 2 2004, 12:44 PM'] theculturewarrior,



They have NO strange ideas. It is just your ignorance of their ideas. There is NOTHING seperating them from the Catholic Church except Peter. [/quote]
Although I would say that because we in the West are not familiar with Ideas of East, those Ideas are strange, though not wrong...

Also what about the canonical difference between Latin Marriage where consent makes the Marriage and Eastern Version where Consent is takes a lesser role and The Priest thus is the minister?

Please do not take the above as a barb but I really want to know. I think that eventually they might be reconcilable…

[theculturewarrior]

I think as far as marriage goes, the EOx rite represents a legitimate difference in [b]form[/b]. There is a difference in sacramental theology, but it is legitimate, and it is also (IIRC) the same form and intention celebrated by Eastern Catholics in union with the Holy Father.

I would use the word valid to desrcibe Orthodox sacraments. IIRC this is the word the CCC uses. Whether it is licit or not depends on the circumstances.

Several ideas I have heard from EOx laity are not only strange, but also wrong. Not only that, but they are often presented (online) in a "shut up you heretic" format.

Edited April 2, 2004 by theculturewarrior