Should We Proselytize the Eastern Orthodox?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Pope Saint Pius V' date='Apr 3 2004, 06:12 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]
No, Paul did not.

When Paul preached about the statue of the unknown god, he preached to move their hearts, not insult them.

[theculturewarrior]

Wow, that's interesting. (The Balamand Statement, that is). What is it's history? And what does it mean?

Also, I still believe it is kosher to defend the Truth, so long as the objective is not proselytization.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='MagiDragon' date='Apr 3 2004, 08:04 AM'] 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. [/quote]
Your post is full of glaring historical inaccuracies. However, for sake of time I shall only address this one example of the lack of logic in your argument (I'll save the historical stuff for another time.) You said, "These people already have the fullness of truth. The Primary dividing point is the Pope." Do you not see the contradiction in that statement? Is it not de fide that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff, and in matters of Faith and Morals teaches infallibly? Yes, it is. Do they reject this? Yes they do. Can it then be said that they have the fullness of truth? No it cannot. It is not a matter of them simply thinking the Patriarch of Constantinople has that power and essentially making the debate over which Patriarch has supreme power. Rather, they reject the very notion that there is one supreme power in the Church and that he teaches infallibly. They do not have the fullness of faith, nor are they in communion with Rome. They do have valid orders and valid sacraments, but that does not indicate communion, but merely, apostolic succession (which is not the same as communion). The only option is to convert them.

[popestpiusx]

By the way, the Balamand Agreement is a disaster. The have been Orthodox bishops, compelled by conscience (and obvious truth) to reconcile with Rome and who were turned away because "it would be bad for Ecumenical relations". If that is not scandalous I don't know what is.

[p0lar_bear]

1. The word "proselytize" has rather negative connotations. It has intimations of forced conversions and manipulation. Saying that we should not proseltize our Eastern Orthodox brethren does not mean that we should not seek to bring them into unity with the Church. Also, any efforts to "Latinize" them should be definitely be avoided. Their religious heritage is an important part of the heritage of the Church and it should not be dismissed.


2. As a general rule, calling someone a heretic or schismatic is not the best way to evangelize them. People aren't too inclined to listen to someone who begins the conversation with "die heretic scum!" The fact that the Eastern Orthodox are in schism is important, but if the goal is to bring them back into communion, we need to approach them in love and draw from the truths that their faith already has.

[popestpiusx]

I agree, polar bear. More often today, however, it is the Orthodox who are doing the mudslingling. Many of the Orthodox (though not all) will not even acknowledge the validity of the Tridentine Mass, much less the Novus Ordo.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I think what this boils down to is that the Catholic Church knows it's making some pretty big assumptions of authority in history. It may seem clear to a RC but the evidence is more circumstantial, not conclusive, to anyway else. For me personally, I think that the historical evidence is ambiguous at best and lacking in its favour. The Catholic Church probably recognizes this (that the Catholic Church might seem probable to some, but not necessarily if you're honest), and that's why there's often a tone of silence, such as the first few posts had even here, concerning the EOC and such churches. If more Catholics would take the time to proselytize or evangelize they would recognize that the Catholic Church isn't as obvious in its historical foundation of authority as some like to think.

Edited April 4, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Apr 3 2004, 01:34 PM'] You said, "These people already have the fullness of truth. The Primary dividing point is the Pope." Do you not see the contradiction in that statement? [/quote]
no, actually i don't see a contradiction here. the fullness of the truth is the truth revealed within the Word, guarded by the apostles. Because they have both of these, they have the fullness of the truth.

[theculturewarrior]

As far as the Catholic Church being unsubstantiated, I think the same could be said of your post, dairygirl.

The historic claims of Roman Catholicism are supported by patristic, scriptural, and experiential evidence. For the latter, just ask on any Catholic forum how many Catholics are converts. We are many.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]The historic claims of Roman Catholicism are supported by patristic, scriptural, and experiential evidence. For the latter, just ask on any Catholic forum how many Catholics are converts. We are many.[/quote]

What often happens is that protestants see that the Catholic Church can be defended after thinking otherwise. Such a major change in thought, combined with some at first seemingly conclusive evidence, often compels the inquiering protest to conversion.

Edited April 4, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Hananiah]

[quote name='MagiDragon' date='Apr 3 2004, 10:15 PM'] no, actually i don't see a contradiction here. the fullness of the truth is the truth revealed within the Word, guarded by the apostles. Because they have both of these, they have the fullness of the truth. [/quote]
That is a contradiction, Magi. Part of the Word of God handed down by the apostles is the jurisdicional primacy of the Pope, subjection to whom is necessary for salvation. The EO deny this, and thus necessarily confess not being the sheep of Christ, to quote Pope Boniface.

[popestpiusx]

Thank You for driving home that point Hananiah!!

[homeschoolmom]

Well, here's what I know about the Orthodox converting to Catholicism...

We have a Russian college student living with us. She was baptized and confirmed in the ROC (same ceremony)... but never attended after that... did not even have any faith in Christ at all (she was raised in an agnostic household). She came to live with us and learned more about Christianity from Protestants than she'd learned in Russia. Anyway, I digress...

Now she wants to convert to the Catholic Church. All she had to do was to send to Russia for her baptism certificate and have one meeting with a priest from the Byzantine Catholic Church (although she's never set foot in that parish, has no intentions of doing so again-- she attends a Latin Rite parish)... and make a profession of faith and she can receive the Eucharist. No RCIA classes etc. So... she could have become Catholic, really, with no knowledge of Catholicism (or Christianity for that matter!!). It just seems to me that all converts should have some classes of some kind (even practising Orthodox converts should have a class or two...)

An interesting thing... Our student DID attend RCIA (twice) because she wanted to know what it was all about... But she still could not be converted into the Latin Rite parish. Why's that, I wonder??? Why couldn't she just say that technically she was Orthodox, but for all intents and purposes she was Protestant and then let her be a member of the parish she attends... ?

[Dave]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Apr 4 2004, 09:50 AM'] An interesting thing... Our student DID attend RCIA (twice) because she wanted to know what it was all about... But she still could not be converted into the Latin Rite parish. Why's that, I wonder??? Why couldn't she just say that technically she was Orthodox, but for all intents and purposes she was Protestant and then let her be a member of the parish she attends... ? [/quote]
RCIA is really for those who haven't been baptized, not for those who have already been baptized in other denominations. Yet many parishes even require the already-baptized to go through it. Why? Who knows?!

[p0lar_bear]

[quote]RCIA is really for those who haven't been baptized, not for those who have already been baptized in other denominations. Yet many parishes even require the already-baptized to go through it. Why? Who knows?! [/quote]

You are right in saying that RCIA is for the unbaptized, but most parishes don't have the people or the resources to have separate catechesis classes for the baptized Christians seeking to enter the Church. Most people need at least some catechesis on the Church, and the parish (the pastor in particular) is responsible for making sure that they receive that catechesis.

[quote]An interesting thing... Our student DID attend RCIA (twice) because she wanted to know what it was all about... But she still could not be converted into the Latin Rite parish. Why's that, I wonder??? [/quote]

The Church is very interested in preserving and maintaining the Eastern rites. A Latin rite Catholic cannot convert to an Eastern rite, and vice versa. The liturgies and traditions of the Eastern rites are very valuable and we do not want to lose them because people leaving for the Latin rite or because Latin rite Catholics join and introduce western elements.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Apr 4 2004, 12:03 AM'] That is a contradiction, Magi.  Part of the Word of God handed down by the apostles is the jurisdicional primacy of the Pope, subjection to whom is necessary for salvation.  The EO deny this, and thus necessarily confess not being the sheep of Christ, to quote Pope Boniface. [/quote]
yes, i suppose i do have to concede that it is a contradiction.

Edit: I withdraw this concession in light of evidence that Boniface *couldn't* have said this. The split didn't happen until after his reign. Now if you told me that it were Boniface II or later, *that* i could concede to.

From their point of view however they are not in error: The two churches initially seperated because the empire had grown too large and rome had become something of a backwater. when the empire split, so did the Church. The Patriarch became in charge of the EO because that was the new seat of power in the eastern empire. This followed the precedent set forth by Peter: the guy in charge is Bishop of the most important city.

I know i'm on dangerous grounds here, i'm arguing with a Pope, but still . . . I don't think the EO could be said to deny the primacy of the Pope until after reconciliation attempts had begun, and at that point the Church shunned them!

another thing to note, in spite of the quote from Pope Boniface, Pope Paul VI said " . . . do this by recognizing and respecting each other as pastors of that part of the flock of Christ entrusted to them . . ." this certainly implies that we are of the same flock . . . hmmm . . . i may have to take back my concession.

Boniface was Pope clear back in 418-422 (list of Popes, NAB) . . . reconciliation attempts didn't begin until the 9th century: [url="http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0860172.html"]http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0860172.html[/url]

Perhaps you have the wrong Boniface?

Edited April 4, 2004 by MagiDragon

[MagiDragon]

what does it take to become a non-lurker?

i mean, by 30 some posts i really don't think i should be considered a lurker anymore.

and while i'm asking dumb questions, why can other people put more than 200 characters in their signature line and i can't. I really wanted to put my Josemaria Escriva quote in their, but i had to settle for a ripoff of pirates instead . . . (but i really do like my pirates quote!)

[PedroX]

Magi Dragon,

Forgive me if I say this harshly, but your understanding of the Petrine ministry is woefully inadequate. Christ made Peter the Head of the Church. The Supreme Pontif. Christ did not make him the Bishop of the largest city at the time. The successors to Peter are the Supreme Pontif, because they are successors to Peter, not because of the antiquated importance of Rome. The Holy Spirit guided Peter to choose Rome to be the Holy See, the heart of God's Church. All true Catholics must be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, because Christ ordained Peter as head of the Church. To fail to acknowledge the Supreme Pontif is to fail to acknowledge the fullness of truth.

peace...

[PhatPhred]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Apr 4 2004, 10:50 AM']It just seems to me that all converts should have some classes of some kind (even practising Orthodox converts should have a class or two...)[/quote]
[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html"]Vatican II's Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite[/url] is very clear on the matter:

[quote name='ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM']25. If any separated Eastern Christian should, under the guidance of the grace of the Holy Spirit, join himself to the unity of Catholics, [b]no more should be required of him than what a bare profession of the Catholic faith demands[/b].  Eastern clerics, seeing that a valid priesthood is preserved among them, are permitted to exercise the Orders they possess on joining the unity of the Catholic Church, in accordance with the regulations established by the competent authority.[/quote]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Apr 4 2004, 10:50 AM']But she still could not be converted into the Latin Rite parish. Why's that, I wonder??? Why couldn't she just say that technically she was Orthodox, but for all intents and purposes she was Protestant and then let her be a member of the parish she attends... ?[/quote]
She could petition the Vatican to change rite:

[quote name='ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM']4. ... Finally, each and every Catholic, as [b]also the baptized of every non-Catholic church or denomination who enters into the fullness of the Catholic communion, must retain his own rite wherever he is[/b], must cherish it and observe it to the best of his ability, without prejudice to the right in special cases of persons. communities or areas, of recourse to the Apostolic See, which, as the supreme judge of interchurch relations, will, acting itself or through other authorities, meet the needs of the occasion in an ecumenical spirit, by the issuance of opportune directives, decrees or rescripts.[/quote]

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='PedroX' date='Apr 4 2004, 12:04 PM'] Magi Dragon,

Forgive me if I say this harshly, but your understanding of the Petrine ministry is woefully inadequate. Christ made Peter the Head of the Church. The Supreme Pontif. Christ did not make him the Bishop of the largest city at the time. The successors to Peter are the Supreme Pontif, because they are successors to Peter, not because of the antiquated importance of Rome. The Holy Spirit guided Peter to choose Rome to be the Holy See, the heart of God's Church. All true Catholics must be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, because Christ ordained Peter as head of the Church. To fail to acknowledge the Supreme Pontif is to fail to acknowledge the fullness of truth.

peace... [/quote]
i'm sorry if i seemed to be denying this. i understand that it was Peter who was head, not the Bishop of the capital city.

[quote]The Holy Spirit guided Peter to choose Rome to be the Holy See, the heart of God's Church.  [/quote]

True. I personally have no quarrel with this, however the EOC could possibly argue against it in good faith. what i was trying to say was not that *i* believe that the Patriarch of Constantinople is as valid as the Pope, but rather that the EOC can make that claim without invalidating themselves from the flock of Christ.

[quote]To fail to acknowledge the Supreme Pontif is to fail to acknowledge the fullness of truth.[/quote]

again, i did not mean to dispute this.

hmmm . . . i did mispeak however. i suppose to be completely honest, they don't have the fullness of truth in that sense. I think this is a technicality though.

I don't think the Holy Spirit is any less active in their part of the Church than in ours. I'm pretty sure that God is guiding them in their decision as to who shall lead their part of the Church.

I think it is reasonable for the EOC to consider the Patriarch of Constantinople as the supreme pontif. Moreso because they were barred from reunion with Rome than because the idea itself is particularly valid.

hmmm . . . i guess to sum up what i'm really trying to say here I need to explain . . .

I think that if we disobey the Pope and try to convert EO's to RC's then we are no better than they are. They have the fullness of truth with the exception of who (physically) leads their part of the Church. When we try to convert them, we deny who leads us. *We then would have the fullness of truth with the exception of who we allow to leads us.*