Should We Proselytize the Eastern Orthodox?

[MagiDragon]

ummm . . . i just reread my last few posts in this thread.

I think i need a timeout.

*goes and sits in the corner*

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Apr 3 2004, 10:27 PM'] 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. [/quote]
popestpiusx,

I agree with you. There is a lot of bitterness, mostly on behalf of the Orthodox. Not all of this is unjustified, but the majority of it is not theological, but historical. Even so, the most Orthodox churches consider us to be heretics. The addition of the filioque, the insistance on papal primacy, etc. are [u]very[/u] serious issues for them. As far as the liturgy goes, I believe one of the biggest problems they have with the validity of our Mass has nothing to do with the so-called Tridentine rite or the current rite. It is because we use unleavened bread.

Anyway, being as I'm not talking to Eastern Orthodox people about how to behave toward Catholics, I didn't address that issue. I am talking to Catholics, so that's who I addressed.

[theculturewarrior]

[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. [/quote]

at first seemingly conclusive evidence? What are you, dairygirl, EOx or prot?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Apr 4 2004, 10:36 AM']
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. [/quote]
Actually, it is possible to "convert" from one rite to the other (though it is not a conversion per se). I know of several people who have done just that. They switched canonically from the Latin Rite to the Melkite and Ruthenian Rites. I agree though, that this poses some danger to the Eastern liturgies, just as incorporating eastern preactices into the west is dangerous. Different cultures and traditions equal different spiritualities. These should not be mixed.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='MagiDragon' date='Apr 4 2004, 02:32 PM'] ummm . . . i just reread my last few posts in this thread.

I think i need a timeout.

*goes and sits in the corner* [/quote]
Good idea .

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Apr 4 2004, 10:19 PM'] popestpiusx,

I agree with you. There is a lot of bitterness, mostly on behalf of the Orthodox. Not all of this is unjustified, but the majority of it is not theological, but historical. Even so, the most Orthodox churches consider us to be heretics. The addition of the filioque, the insistance on papal primacy, etc. are [u]very[/u] serious issues for them. As far as the liturgy goes, I believe one of the biggest problems they have with the validity of our Mass has nothing to do with the so-called Tridentine rite or the current rite. It is because we use unleavened bread.

Anyway, being as I'm not talking to Eastern Orthodox people about how to behave toward Catholics, I didn't address that issue. I am talking to Catholics, so that's who I addressed. [/quote]
Is that what the issue is? Very interesting.
I was not trying to pose the Trid. against the NO. I intended it merely as a statement that they flat reject all western liturgies. Now I know why. Thank You!

[BeenaBobba]

Hi all,

In short, no, we should not proselytize the Eastern Orthodox. Here's why: In the past, groups of Catholics would go into Orthodox churches, create mini-schisms, and convert the Orthodox to Catholicism. Or, on the other hand, some Catholics would go to a place like Russia and try to help them out in their misfortunes; the Orthodox would appreciate these good works, and then the Catholics would convert some of the Orthodox flock. In the end, the Orthodox ended up feeling like they had been had. Surely, the Catholics were well-intentioned -- but they erroneously believed that the Orthodox must be converted to be saved. This is how our Eastern Catholic Churches came into existence. I happen to love the Eastern Catholic Churches, but there are some Orthodox today who are very bitter over this, and to a degree, I can see where they're coming from; however, I don't think that that in any way justifies the virulent anti-Catholicism sometimes displayed by the Orthodox, especially in their bitterness over the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Uniatism, the converting of the Orthodox to Catholicism, reaped 7 million converts to Catholicism, which isn't much compared to the size of the Orthodox religion (I believe there are roughly around 300 million Orthodox Christians in the world; there are over a billion Catholics). Because Uniatism had failed to reap a large amount of converts, and because it has further embittered the Orthodox against Catholicism, I can see why trying to convert the Orthodox could prolong the schism instead of helping to heal it. Therefore, the Pope has taken the stance (and I agree) that we should not actively try to convert the Orthodox but instead dialog with them and mutually work towards a healing of the schism. We must see them as our brothers and sisters, and they are; the Orthodox are aren't very far behind we Catholics in the truth department.

What, then, does this entail? Does this mean we have to stand with our hands tied behind our backs while the Orthodox (many of whom do not support the Balamand Agreement) diss our religion and try to convert Catholics? Not at all, as is my understanding. To the best of my knowledge, we are not prohibited from defending our Catholicism against the Orthodox, nor are we prohibited from voicing our opinions in areas in which we find them to be in the wrong. But as to the latter, Catholics must be especially careful not to antagonize the Orthodox, who are already bitter as it is. I know, this sometimes seems like we're commanded to be doormats while the Orthodox can do or say whatever they want to us, but remember -- the job of the Holy Father, the Pope, is to ensure unity; therefore, it's his responsibility to do all in his power to have this horrible schism healed. Frankly, the fact that the Pope is doing all in his power to heal this schism, and the fact that he's taking much of the initiative in doing so, shows that he is a true successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, working hard with the grace of God to bring unity. I even think this is an example to the Orthodox. And being that we are in communion with Rome, it is our duty to follow his example.

We have so much in common with the Orthodox. We both have valid Sacraments (or Mysteries, as Eastern Christians call them); we both have valid apostolic succession. There are other minor issues that we disagree upon, such as the filioque (although this might not be so much of a problem anymore), Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception, and Atonement Theology, to name a few, but these arguments seem to be semantical. The real crux of the disagreement lies in the papacy and its function. I've been studying this issue for a year now, and to me, the reasons behind the schism seem more political than theological. And to some extent, I think this is true even to this day. It seems to me that many Orthodox are afraid that the Pope will "lord it over" them. This is why the Eastern Catholic Churches are so important. Their church government, different from that of the Latin Church in several ways, will serve as an example of what the Church would look like reunited.

God bless,

Jen

Edited April 11, 2004 by BeenaBobba

[ironmonk]

Heretical teachings slip in and out of Eastern Orthodox. They drift further and further away from the truth.

For example, they do not believe in purgatory. Not only do they not believe, they say it's impossible.

Eastern Orthodox need to be proselytized for the love of Christ. For the love of Christ brings the love of truth. Charity demands correction. We are our brother's keeper.

The EO needs to come home to Rome, where they belong.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Apr 3 2004, 11:17 PM'] 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. [/quote]
If you think it's not conclusive or ambiguous then you do not know the history or the bible.

PLEASE STUDY.

[BeenaBobba]

Hi Ironmonk,

Not proselytizing them is in a way bringing them home to Rome. The Uniatism experiment failed and has embittered the Orthodox. Not proselytizing them but working towards reunion by dialog may be what our two Churches need to reunite. Mutual respect and understanding is what is going to bring Catholicism and Orthodoxy back together again where they belong.

When talking to Orthodox Christians (I have several Orthodox friends), I defend Catholicism very strongly if they bring up anything against it. The rest I leave to God.

God bless,

Jen

[ironmonk]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='Apr 11 2004, 01:04 AM'] In the past, groups of Catholics would go into Orthodox churches, create mini-schisms, and convert the Orthodox to Catholicism. Or, on the other hand, some Catholics would go to a place like Russia and try to help them out in their misfortunes; the Orthodox would appreciate these good works, and then the Catholics would convert some of the Orthodox flock. In the end, the Orthodox ended up feeling like they had been had. Surely, the Catholics were well-intentioned -- but they erroneously believed that the Orthodox must be converted to be saved. This is how our Eastern Catholic Churches came into existence. [/quote]
I'm sorry, but that is an error.

Here is a little research for the schisms:

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm[/url]
[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ23.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ23.HTM[/url]

All of the Churches were loyal to the Pope who is the Successor of Peter, the schisms happened because they wanted to deny the authority of the Pope. There are eight Patriarchs, one of the is the Pope and he is above all the others. Some of them didn't like that, so they split.

Every Church that split in a Schism had Patriarchs and Bishops, hundreds of years before the split showed loyalty in various ways to the Pope. They all recognized the Papal Authority in letters. There is no denying it when looking at the Early Church Father's writings.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[BeenaBobba]

Hi Ironmonk,

As a Catholic, I know that there is plenty of evidence for the papacy in the writings of the Church Fathers -- that is essentially why I'm Catholic. That is not what I'm arguing, though. I was talking about the behavior of some post-schism Catholics towards the Orthodox. I've been reading Anthony Dragani's EWTN Q&A Eastern Catholic forum, and I believe he has stated that there were some Catholics who thought it best to go into Russia, for example, to convert the Orthodox, as they thought that that was the only way the Orthodox could be saved. They often did this somewhat sneakily -- by helping out the Orthodox charitably in works of mercy and then converting their flocks to Catholicism. This is what has embittered the Orthodox, who felt betrayed and misled by the Catholics. It is because of this (and admittedly, many other things) that the Orthodox are bitter and untrusting of Catholics. I said I can [i]understand[/i] where they're coming from to a [i]degree[/i], but I in no way think that their anti-Catholicism is justified.

Also, when I said that Catholics often created "mini-schisms" in the Orthodox Churches, I meant that the Catholics often made divisions between Orthodox communities to win converts.

Proselytizing has only embittered the Orthodox. I'm fully behind the Pope in trying something new regarding the Orthodox. This schism has lasted too long as it is.

God bless,

Jen

[Donna]

Here we go.

The Orthodox and Catholic are not Sister churches because they have not the same Mother: Holy Mother Church.

When we stand at the judegement throne of Our Lord Jesus Christ, will we be judged on human respect or upon charity?

The Balamand Declaration is wicked.
Missionaries have no reason to "go therefore and baptize all nations". And souls are abandoned and may be eternally as a result.

Fraces Xavier would not recognize this impotent stance and spirit.

[BeenaBobba]

Hi Donna,

I thought it was just the Orthodox who were so virulently opposed to the Balamand. Those who are against it are usually anti-Catholic, so I suppose this can work both ways; there can be Catholics who are anti-Orthodox. I just don't see how bitterness on the parts of both Catholics and Orthodox will heal the schism.

Indeed, the Pope has said that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are "Sister Churches." Does that mean that the two are absolutely equivalent to each other? No. The Catholic Church is in the fullness of the Truth -- but it is a fact that the Orthodox aren't too far behind us (although some are moving further from us with their acceptance of contraception). The reason we call them our "Sister Church" is because they, unlike any other Christian denomination apart from us, have valid Sacraments and apostolic succession. At the end of the day, they believe 95% of what we Catholics believe.

The Pope has asked Catholics to follow what was laid down in the Balamand; it is my duty (and the duty of Catholics) to be obedient to him. I also happen to agree with him. After all, how many converts from Orthodoxy has proselytism reaped? How has it helped to heal the schism in the long run, when healing the schism would [i]bring the [b]entire[/b] Orthodox Church back into communion with Rome[/i]? The truth is that trying to convert the Orthodox has pushed them further away from us. Doesn't that seem a bit counterproductive?

I have several Orthodox friends, like I've said, and one of my best friends converted to Eastern Orthodoxy last year. We have gotten into theological debates before, and when that happens, I express the Catholic point of view and why I don't agree with the Orthodox position. I leave it at that. If she were ever to convert to Catholicism, that would be God's doing -- not mine. On his website, Dave Armstrong has written that, sure, we Catholics want the Orthodox to convert [i]indirectly[/i] (and why wouldn't we, since Catholicism is in the fullness of the Truth? After all, no Catholic would think it a bad thing if any Orthodox Christian wanted to convert to Catholicism), even when we adhere to the Balamand; but being forceful, sending missionaries to Russia, handing out tracts in an Orthodox Church, or any sort of proselytism is not the way to handle the situation.

God bless,

Jen

Edited April 12, 2004 by BeenaBobba

[theculturewarrior]

BeenaBobba, my understanding reflects yours. Proselytizing is an ugly word. Better to defend the Truth, have respect for consciences, and leave conversion is God's hands.

[Donna]

Beena Bobba,

Please consider that calling something wicked does not imply bitterness, nor anti-[i]anyone[/i].

It is one thing for people in private -following their own lights best they can- to discern when to back off.

It is quite another for the Churchmen consecrated to, and for the interests of Almighty God, to refuse God's mandate (the scripture as quoted in my last post).

Bending over backward toward the Orthodox has resulted in contempt from them. If the press is correct, not even the Pope's [i]image on video [/i]was allowed in Moscow. This, and the ousting of Catholic clergy from Russia indicate that the Orthodox cannot stand the sight of Peter, nor Peter's men.

"Russia's errors" which Our Lady of Fatima declared would be spread til the conversion of that poor nation is obtained, date long before 1917. And political realities to whatever degree existant, then or now, the fruit remains: by refusing submission to the Church, the Orthodox do inevitably bow solely to the State.

Christ would not refuse His Churchmen anything they would need, including a brilliant, practical idea of how best to bring back the lost sheep w/out leaving them alone in their state of wreckage; and who has more of a claim on Him to supply every cunning necessary, within an innocense of doves, than the Apostolic successors?

But if His sons refuse His mandate, how may these graces then come?

[BeenaBobba]

Hi Donna,

I wasn't writing with the assumption that you hate Orthodox people. What I was criticizing was something that seemed very much to me to be an exaggerated dislike of Orthodoxy. I say exaggerated because criticism of Orthodoxy can only go so far as to criticize Catholicism as well -- the two really have so much in common, such as valid Sacraments (or Mysteries, as the Christian East calls them) and Apostolic Succession.

I've spoken to many Orthodox Christians who are anti-Catholic in that they go further than merely disagreeing with a few tenets of Catholicism. These people have a disdain towards anything that isn't distinctly Eastern and fail to see Catholicism as possessing valid Sacraments and Apostolic Succession. On the other hand, some Latin Catholics can (wrongly) have a strong dislike for anything that isn't distinctly Western. This attitude drove many Eastern Catholics back to Orthodoxy this century in our country. It is this attitude that that the Pope is against, and rightly so. The Church was both Eastern and Western prior to the Schism, and Pope John Paul II looks forward to the day when the Church will be both fully Eastern and Western again.

The Moscow Patriarch (MP) is very anti-Catholic; there's no doubt about that. Part of the reason for that (and believe me, this is in no way justification for his behavior) is actually because some Catholics took Our Lady's word at Fatima to mean that Russia was to be converted as quickly as possible to Catholicism. Nowadays, much fewer Catholics are actively proselytizing in Russia, but the MP sees any Western religious influence in Russia as Catholic proselytism -- even when there are few or no Catholics involved! There are currently many Protestant denominations and members of the Mormon religion who are proselytizing the Russian Orthodox. The Russian Orthodox Church is struggling to get back on its feet after nearly a century of atheistic Communist rule that oppressed the ROC and its children. I think in many ways the MP is threatened by the Pope, thinking perhaps his flock can be lost to the Catholic Church at a moment of opportunity. Because proselytizing has driven the Orthodox further from us, the Pope wants to foster in them a trust of Catholicism and of the papacy. They have in their minds a great mistrust of Catholicism, especially of the papacy; they think that if they reconciled with the Catholic Church, they would lose all freedom. Believe me, proselytizing them has only made this bitterness and mistrust worse.

The teaching of the Catholic Church is that the "conversion of Russia" meant the conversion of Russia from atheistic Communism back to Christianity.

If you think proselytizing the Orthodox is a good idea, why don't you list all the good things it's accomplished. I have a feeling there will be very little on that list. The Pope has realized this, so now it is the policy to not proselytize the Orthodox for the greater good of a more quickly reunited Catholic/Orthodox Church. I, for one, as a Catholic Christian in communion with Rome, am going to follow the leadership of the Pope, who I acknowledge as the rightful successor of St. Peter and head of the Church on earth, in this matter.

God bless,

Jen

Edited April 13, 2004 by BeenaBobba

[Good Friday]

[quote][b]Donna writes:[/b]
Christ would not refuse His Churchmen anything they would need, including a brilliant, practical idea of how best to bring back the lost sheep w/out leaving them alone in their state of wreckage; and who has more of a claim on Him to supply every cunning necessary, within an innocense of doves, than the Apostolic successors?

But if His sons refuse His mandate, how may these graces then come?[/quote]
You're right, Donna, Christ won't refuse His Church the means necessary to bring the Orthodox back. But I think you're wrong that the Balamand Declaration constitutes a refusal of Christ's mandate. Rather, I think the Balamand Declaration (and the Pope's own understanding of it) may [i]be[/i] the means to bring the Orthodox back. See, the Balamand Declaration doesn't say we should leave the Orthodox where they are; rather, it says that we should not seek to reconcile individual Orthodox, but to reunite the entirety of Orthodoxy with Catholicism, given the unique status of Orthodoxy in comparison to other Christian denominations. They are [i]almost[/i] Catholic, so it may be more practical to reunite the whole Orthodox church with the Catholic Church, rather than bringing individuals into the Church. In the grand scheme of things, the latter has failed; Uniatism has only caused more rifts between Catholics and Orthodox, while producing relatively few reconciliations.

I would ask that everyone, while feeling free to share their own opinions, please be cautious in the comments made. Saying things like: "The Balamand Declaration is wicked" can be a problem, being that it was signed by Catholic Bishops and has the support of His Holiness Pope John Paul II. This has been a great thread, and I personally don't want to move it to the Back Alley. But if I detect even a hint of Catholic vs. Catholic arguing here, or even a smidge of supporting disobedience to the Bishops or the Pope, I won't hesitate to move it (and, I suspect, the other moderators won't either). Please don't make us do that.

[BeenaBobba]

Hi Nate,

What are you doing up at this late (or early, rather) hour?

I agree with you 100%.

God bless,

Jen

[PedroX]

Good Friday,

Are you a moderator now?

Secondly, while Bishops may have signed it, the declaration is difficult to reconcile with Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The Orthodox may be our "eastern lung", but they risk much by their contempt for the Petrine ministry. I would think that anything that impedes their conversion (as the Balamand Declaration does) is problematic to say the least. Really, either they are in need of conversion, or the Pope is not the Supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, etc...

B.B.,

So, because missionary efforts failed to produce large numbers of converts, we should give up? Wow, I now understand the Great Commission so much better. I never realized that Christ said "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel, unless only a few people are receptive to it." The simple truth is that Christ commanded us to preach the gospel (which include the Petrine ministry) and the Blessed Virgin specifically called for the conversion of Russia. Meanwhile, the Russian Orthodox church does all it can to deprive Catholics of access to spiritual direction. We can not establish diocese, we can not send bishops and priests all because of the Russian Orthodox. Catholics have been there for centuries.

Agh. Enough.

peace...