Should We Proselytize the Eastern Orthodox?

[Theoketos]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='Apr 2 2004, 02:05 PM'] 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. [/quote]
Well said

I love my Eastern Brothers and really pray that we all will be one!

[theculturewarrior]

Me too, but love is a cross.

[PedroX]

Of course we should "evangelize" the Eastern Orthodox, just as we need to evangelize many "Catholics". Any one who does not agree with or abide by the teachings of the Authentic, Apolstolic Magisterium needs to be evangelized (even myself!). Not acknowledging the Petrine minstry is a serious fault in the EO tradition. Are they are brothers? Yes. Are their sacrements valid? Yes. Are they in full union/communion with the Church? No.

peace...

[Pope Saint Pius V]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Apr 2 2004, 04:53 AM']
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. [/quote]
Nice post Crusader. Christ founded One Church only. This is the Church outside of which no man may be saved. It is not an invisible Church as some have recently posited, rather it is a visible Church to which we must adhere. Christ placed as the head of this Church a vicar, who would govern His Church until His Second Coming. It is to this Church that Christ gave the command to go and "call ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." It is only within the Catholic Church that are found the essential marks of Christ's church. Therefore, one must look to St. Paul, that if they (apostles and their successors) or even an angel from Heaven were to preach something other than what he had taught them (Deposit of Faith) they should resist it. This is just what St. Paul did to St. Peter at the Council of Jersualem saying to that first Pontiff, "I resisted him to his face." Therefore, even if the Holy Father had stated that we ought not evangelize the Orthodox,of which no one on this post has yet given a citation, we may resist and remain firm in the faith, following the example of that great Apostle to the Gentiles, St. Paul.

[Trying2BFaithful]

There is no real need to prosletyze members of the Eastern Orthodox faith. Their teachings on faith and morals are essentially identical to Catholics'. The only non-liturgical differences between the Catholic Church and the EOC are the filioque argument of the Creed, respect for Papal authority, and the fact that their priests can marry. Other than that, we essentially believe all of the same things. We have some different saints because of the separation, but that's not a big deal.

Be careful, however, when using the term "eastern churches" because that can be misleading. Some eastern churches do NOT follow the same faith and morals as the Catholic Church. The Ukranian Orthodox Church is one example. They are opposed to all forms of birth control ONLY until a couples first child is born. Then for some reason its ok to artificially interfere with God in creating life.

[Pope Saint Pius V]

I have to wonder if we'd be using the same logic of non-conversion, or downplay papal authority if we were speaking of the SSPX who have far less doctrinal problems than the Orthodox? I think most people on this post would avoid saying that we have no need to convert the SSPX and yet those same people are opposed to converting the Orthodox. In logic I learned that a thing cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same way. I think my logic teacher would be disapointed with the above reasoning.

[cmotherofpirl]

Anybody who is not Catholic should be evangelized. Period.

[theculturewarrior]

I am going to explore a middle ground between PSPV and Trying2BFaithful. (BTW I am impressed with the broad demographic this site draws!)

I offer all this as an idea. Please help me form my opinion...

I believe there is no salvation outside the Church. The Church is a communion. Not only is the Church One, Holy, and Apostolic, but it is also a communion of saints on heaven and on earth.

How is man to be visibly united to the Church? "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." Would you agree PSPV that baptism is what initiates us into the Christian life? Would that be visible unity?

If so, what is the requirement for this sacrament? Valid form and intention, verdad? I assure you that most Christians (and especially Eastern Orthodox) have this. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. How can both Catholics and Orthodox be one Church?

Well, they are baptized into the Church. Therefore they are numbered among the communion of saints. The Church is still One, but communion is impaired. When we reunite, it won't be a question of the two becoming one, but of the One becoming healed.

Nevertheless, I fully believe that those outside the auspices of the Holy Father are in spiritual danger, and we need to pray for them. Complete communion is a must.

Edited April 3, 2004 by theculturewarrior

[Pope Saint Pius V]

CultureWarrior, I have to wonder what spiritual danger you refer to if those "outside the auspices of the Holy Father" are nonetheless within the bonds of the visible Church. Pope Blessed Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X, Pope Pius XI, all acknowledged that the Church of Christ is the visible Catholic Church with the Pope as its head. Furthermore, this notion of belonging to the visible Catholic Church under the auspices of the Holy Father is explicitly what is required (apart from those exceptions of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood) of those who wish salvation. Pius IX clearly contradicts these notions that the Orthodox, barring invincible ignorance, can be considered to be within the Catholic Church, nor should those outside the Church have any great hope for their salvation. If, however, those Orthodox are in a state of invincible ignorance, as many probably are, then we Catholics have a duty to lift the veil of ignorance from their hearts and bring them to the Fulness of Truth expressed within the Catholic Church alone. Also, Warrior, what is the definition of the ambiguous notion, "imperfect communion?"

[Pope Saint Pius V]

I did not mean my list of Pontiffs to be exclusive, but merely to show that this is a constantly held teaching. Obviously many more could be named, but for the sake of brevity, I have left the list as is.

[theculturewarrior]

I believe I used the words "impaired communion."

I guess my idea is one of an orthodoxy gradient. Catholicism, the fullness of Truth. Orthodoxy the mostness of Truth, protestantism, the partness of Truth. Either way, all of the above are Christians, most of whom have wrongly held beliefs through no fault of their own. My idea is that the Catholic Church has the keys to the Kingdom, the others fall along the gradient in relation to their relative conformity to Catholic doctrine. Either way, they have been baptized in the name of the Most Holy Trinity. The danger is the danger of any falsehood. But it isn't an either or situation, otherwise other Christians wouldn't be recognizably Christian. They are though.

Do you suggest that Orthodox baptisms are invalid? If not, what is the effect of an Orthodox baptism if not initiation into the Church?

Edited April 3, 2004 by theculturewarrior

[theculturewarrior]

I need to extrapolate on these things...I think the traditional teaching along the lines of what you have given still flies, even today, post Vatican II.

But I also believe that the fundie feeneyite interpretation is NOT the traditional Catholic teaching, but an misrepresentation of it. Those outside the Catholic Church are in danger of losing their souls. Those outside Christianity are in greater danger. The danger increases and decreases along the orthodoxy gradient.

[MagiDragon]

ummm . . . guys . . . i think we've missed something . . .

I believe there's actually some sort of agreement that says that a person *cannot* convert from Catholic to Orthodox and vice versa.

Also, the Orthodox have the four marks of the true Church.

1. They have unity of teaching (One)
2. They teach what is from God (Holy)
3. They accept all peoples (catholic)
4. They can trace their roots to the 12 (Apostolic)

I would have to agree with theculturewarrior's hypothesis that we *are* the same church. We even have unity of teaching between the two (one?!?) of us.

even though they don't directly follow Peter, they are still governed by the 12. The 12 follow Peter . . . thus do they really go where we do not?

i'm possibly wrong on everything here . . . but i'm not sure where i would have made a mistake.

[cmotherofpirl]

There is no agreement not to evangelize the orthodox on a one-to-one basis.

[Pope Saint Pius V]

I'll have to respond to MagiDragon and the CultureWarrior later this evening. I have to return to playing cards right now, but I do want to respond to cmotherofpirl and say that if we are not opposed to conversion on a one on one basis then what are "we" opposed to? Are we opposed to public efforts by the Church to converting the Orthodox? Also, if we aren't supposed to convert the Orthodox then somebody ought to tell Our Lady of Fatima who declared the need of Russia to convert and the promise that it would come by Her Immaculate Heart. She seems to stand in contradiction to this whole non-conversion business.

[PhatPhred]

This is from [url="http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/balamand_txt.htm"]the Balamand Statement (THIS IS AN HTML LINK!!!)[/url]:

[quote]18) Towards this end, Pope Paul VI affirmed in his address at the Phanar in July 1967: "It is on the heads of the Churches, of their hierarchy, that the obligation rests to guide the Churches along the way that leads to finding full communion again.  They ought to do this by recognizing and respecting each other as pastors of that part of the flock of Christ entrusted to them, by taking care for the cohesion and growth of the people of God, and avoiding everything that could scatter it or cause confusion in its ranks" (Tomos Agapis, n. 172).  [b]In this spirit Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I together stated clearly: "[u]We reject every form of proselytism[/u], every attitude which would be or could be perceived to be a lack of respect" (7 December 1987).[/b]

...

22) [b]Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox.[/b]  It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church.  Within these perspectives, so that there will no longer be room for mistrust and suspicion, it is necessary that there be reciprocal exchanges of information about various pastoral projects and that thus cooperation between bishops and all those with responsibilities in our Churches can be set in motion and develop.[/quote]
I don't know what authority this statement has in the Catholic Church.

[cmotherofpirl]

We are opposed to in-your-face stand in front of your church type conversion stunts.

[Pope Saint Pius V]

First of all, the Balamand Declaration has no bearing upon the life of the Church, nor is it an authoritative document. And, as my signature clearly states, Paul taught that we ought to resist any novelty with regard to the Deposit of Faith. What could be more novel than for the Bride of Christ to cease, even if only publicly, her mission of evangelization? Even if a pontiff attempted to make such an order binding, we have the Gospels and the Sacred Tradition of Our Church to lead us along the right path. Did not Paul present an "in your face, in front of your church" style of evangelism and conversion to the Gentiles? What better model have we than that great Apostle for the Missoinary Action of the Church?

[MagiDragon]

[quote]"It is on the heads of the Churches, of their hierarchy, that the obligation rests to guide the Churches along the way that leads to finding full communion again.  They ought to do this by recognizing and respecting each other as pastors of that part of the flock of Christ entrusted to them, by taking care for the cohesion and growth of the people of God, and avoiding everything that could scatter it or cause confusion in its ranks" [/quote]

interesting. this confirms one of my earlier guesses: we *are* one flock.

now, since i don't seem to be completely confused about this issue, i'll go a step further. i believe that part of the pact that was ratified between the two of us was that we *would not accept* converts from their faith to ours, and they *would not accept* the reciprocal.

another part of the agreement was that if a Catholic man and an Orthodox woman marry, boys will be raised Catholic; girls Orthodox. if an Orthodox man and a Catholic woman marry, girls will be raised Catholic; boys Orthodox.

personally i don't really like this agreement. it seems to divide the family with no recourse to reunification . . . but then again, if this situation became common, it would create a natural pressure for reunification of the two churches. perhaps The Spirit is at work here. I would *LOVE* to see us reunite with the Orthodox.

I think that it would be interesting to see what would happen if the Pope were to place a few of their patriarchs in the College of Cardinals. Don't give them any real responsibility, but when it comes time to elect the next Pope, they could vote. This could help them to accept the new Pope as their leader.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='Pope Saint Pius V' date='Apr 3 2004, 04:12 AM'] First of all, the Balamand Declaration has no bearing upon the life of the Church, nor is it an authoritative document.  And, as my signature clearly states, Paul taught that we ought to resist any novelty with regard to the Deposit of Faith.  What could be more novel than for the Bride of Christ to cease, even if only publicly, her mission of evangelization?  Even if a pontiff attempted to make such an order binding, we have the Gospels and the Sacred Tradition of Our Church to lead us along the right path.  Did not Paul present an "in your face, in front of your church" style of evangelism and conversion to the Gentiles?  What better model have we than that great Apostle for the Missoinary Action of the Church? [/quote]
ummm, i really think you need to simmer a while on this topic.

first off, paul only said that about what was *contrary* to what the apostles taught.

secondly, we aren't ceasing our mission of evangelization, we are saying that since they teach as we teach, we should let them handle their children, we will handle ours, and the children of others shall be divided between us.

thirdly, they have an equal share of tradition and scripture to the Catholic faith.

finally, it is exactly the 'in your face, in front of your church" style of evangelism' that has cause the rift in the first place.

Edit: If i remember correctly, initial rift was caused by the divide of the roman empire. when communication improved enough for a reunification, both sides sent emmisaries to the other. unfortunately, both were hotheads. The emmisary from Rome said, "You've gotta accept the Bishop of Rome as your head." The emmisary from Constantinople said, "You've gotta accept the Patriarch of Constantinople as your head." Somebody got ticked off, and one excommunicated the other. In retaliation, the other excommunicated the first. This is what caused the schism: two people with bad tempers.

it's fine to do that if it will work, but these people already have the fullness of the truth. the primary dividing point is the Pope. we say he rules, they say the patriarch of constantinople rules. i think that our viewpoint carries a little more weight, but i certainly can't dismiss theirs.

Edited April 3, 2004 by MagiDragon