www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodoxy and Justification

My apologies if I am speaking out of turn since this was directed to Andrew.

Yes, the specific renunciations that a former Catholic entering the Orthodox faith would agree to would be
*the filioque
*the Bishop of Rome as being superior to other bishops, that he alone is the successor to Peter (the idea being, that not all bishops are equal)
*the infallability of the Bishop of Rome
*and a more general one which says "other erroneous doctrines, both old and new..."

Priest Thomas

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for your irenic posting.

I am happy not to use the word "heretic" to name Western Christians. But do your Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ agree? Given Orthodox ecclesiology, which is truly either/or when it comes to identifying the Church, can you accurately describe Catholics or Protestants as schismatics? Most Orthodox folk I speak to readily describe the Filioque as heretical, perhaps dangerously so. Bishops Kallistos Ware and John Zizioulas, who seem to be more ecumenical on the Filioque, are roundly criticized for their openness. So if we are neither heretics nor schismatics, what are we? Semi-Christians? Pagans? Deluded, misguided Westerners?

In any case, must not Orthodoxy be zealously seeking our conversion to Orthodoxy? And if this is so, then the one thing Orthodoxy cannot engage in is ecumenical dialogue with the West. It might engage in interreligious dialogue with us, in the same way a Christian might dialogue with a Hindu or a Buddhist; but it cannot engage in ecumenical dialogue, which presumes some level of communion in Christ. I realize that most Orthodox do not deny the possibility that such communion in the Spirit might exist outside the visible boundaries of Orthodoxy; but only God knows if it does, and so the Gospel, thus understood, rightly demands that Western Christians be identified as objects of evangelistic mission.

Most of my Orthodox friendships have been with ecumenical Orthodox. We share a true fellowship in the Lord. It has been quite an awakening--a very painful awakening--to learn that mainstream Orthodoxy really looks upon Western Christians as ______. More than anything else, it is this attitude, and the ecclesiological convictions that undergird it, that has prevented me from converting to Orthodoxy. Quite frankly, I have a much easier time swallowing the present Catholic claims for the Papacy, which would be very difficult indeed for me to embrace, than accepting the claim that the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ now exists exclusively as the Orthodox Church. I find the claim implausible, especially when it is not coupled with a passionate, missionary love for the unsaved, which of course is everyone else.

If Orthodoxy really is the one and only Church, then I truly expect--and indeed demand!--to see Orthodox Christians zealously engaging in evangelistic mission to us Westerners. I really expect to see Orthodox Christians boldly, graciously and winsomely, witnessing to the Gospel of Jesus Christ at every opportunity. Money is not the problem. Lack of financial resources do not stop evangelicals from going into the inner cities to make disciples. I am surrounded by Orthodox churches here where I live, yet they are almost completely invisible, perhaps almost as invisible as my little Episcopal Church is. The most evangelistic Orthodox believers I know are the ones who have converted from evangelicalism; but they brought their zeal with them into Orthodoxy; they didn't acquire it as a result of their conversion. If, because of Latin betrayal of the Truth, the Orthodox Church is now the one and exclusive bearer of the Gospel, then this brings with it an awesome responsibility and burden--and also terrible spiritual risks.

Thus the secret is out: I do not engage in these internet conversations in order to irritate people or to engage in polemical debate. I do so because I keep hoping that I can be persuaded that Orthodoxy is true. I adore the Orthodox liturgy. I find much Orthodox theology to be rich and compelling. But then I run into the Attitude ... (present company excepted) ... I guess I am predestined to be a Western Christian or whatever we are.

Yours in Christ,
Schismatic Alvin+

Dear Denise,

Please thank Fr. Thomas for an excellent and timely reply.

Christ is Risen!
Andrew

Local practices differ on the reception of converts. I, for example, was not asked to specifically renounce anything, but was asked to recite the Orthodox Creed and to state that I believed everything the Orthodox Faith teaches. I would have been happy to renounce things if asked, but I was simply not asked to do so. Not everyone uses the service for reception found in Hapgood.

Brendan

Dear Fr. Kimel,

Did you really mean "Irenic?" It means "peaceful and it is something to which I aspire. Thanks, if you did.


1. Apophatically, we can tell you that you are not an heretic or a schismatic since you didn't break off from us. You'll have to pick your own label.

The filioque in and of itself is not heretical. To contend that it is the only acceptable way to properly describe the procession of the Spirit is heretical.

2. There is no problem with Orthodox in dialogue with other Christians or other religions. The problem is with the delusion that this is a dialogue among equally kata 'olon groups. We "have it all" and they have most or some of "it."

Ecumenical Simply means of "the inhabited world." Even Alex has on occasion called my sentiments "ecumenical." this doesn't mean that I want my bishop to stand in an auditoruium while Lesbian Pristesses perform a pagan rite of worship.

Regarding evangelism, I rue the day when we see people as objects. They are souls created in his image and likeness. We zealously desire, for their good, that they join the true Church, but we shouldn't be counting them as so many apples to pick. As each is ripe in God's time, it falls. This is a kind of ecclesial humility so often lacking in many denominations.

3. I don't know how you came to declare the rest of the world (the non-Orthodox) as unsaved. We never should say who is saved and unsaved. The judge will do that on the last day. If you read scripture in Greek, you will notice that Paul almost always uses the present progressive tense "for those who ARE BEING SAVED." It is surely a process. I may not tell you that I am saved.

Please don't assume that because one is in the true Church that one is saved. Many of us may be damned to Hell on that last day because of our hypocrisy. To "have it all" and fail to respond is quite a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

The true Church is not the only bearer of the Gospel. We bear it and understand it in all of its fullness, but many others live out the Gospel even better than we do.

So the short of it is, if one is living out the Gospel or wants to live out the Gospel, join the true Church (or as close as one can find) so that one enjoys the fullness of it. If one is not living out the Gospel and does not desire to live out the Gospel, stay away from the true Church!

Please remember that the body of the Church has many members. And some of them are a bit lazy, unsightly, hypocritical, should be plucked out or cut off, or even have an attitude. But the head is sinless and speaks of the beauty that awaits those who love God.

With love in christ,
Andrew

PS: regarding your secret: You are welcome to visit me here at Covenant House Pennsylvania in Philadelphia where four Orthodox Christians (including two clergymen) out of a staff of 50 (which certainly includes numerous devout Christians and Jews) attempt to live out the Gospel through our work, when we aren't spending time on the Byzantine Forum. After work, we'll show you how we live it out at home and in ekklisia. May all glory be to God.

Bless me a sinner, Father Kimel,

I write this as my boss (no, not the Forum Administrator! ) is breathing down my back . . .

But just to respond to your note that more than participation in the Liturgy is needed for effective evangelization - yes, of course.

But it is the liturgical life of Orthodoxy which truly does make it so attractive and which literally anchors people in a way of life.

Leaflets, conversion calls and other, rather Western, models of bringing people to Christ can serve a purpose.

But as someone who was formerly deeply involved in such activities, I know that people who come to Church because of a leaflet don't stay in Church or else their commitment falls off otherwise.

It is the Liturgy that draws via the Spirit Who speaks to us through the Church and her Liturgy.

Mental argumentation and trying to "convince" people is really going the way of the dinosaur because people don't respond to such.

They do respond to a Church that answers their deeply felt need for community, the "Mysterium Tremendum," and truth lived out in practice.

You yourself say you are dissatisfied with your own Communion.

Perhaps you are so dissatisfied for the very reasons that you give as arguments against Orthodoxy?

I had a similar conversation with another Anglican some time ago.

He is now an OCA priest.

Forgive me, but I wish the same blessing for you!

Alex

CHRISTOS VOSKRES!

Alex wrote:"...I write this as my boss (no, not the Forum Administrator! ) is breathing down my back..."

Your wife has been reading your posts about her mother again, right???

BLESSINGS!

Paska krasna Nas vitajet!

mark

Dear Fr. Kimel,

You present an interesting dilemma. Orthodox should either change their praxis or quit being so exclusive. I vote for the latter.

Your post makes me sad. I've been Orthodox for two years now and there are two things that really bother me about my new family. First, that it doesn't include more of my friends, and particularly the Roman Catholic ones. Second, along the lines of your post, it frustrates me that Orthodox are not more saddened by disunion, that we can be so triumphalist at times. I can't believe, either, that the Church is to be found nowhere else.

But it doesn't really make me think I shouldn't be Orthodox. I happen to agree with Ware and Zizioulas and nothing my Priest or Bishop had ever said leads me to think that I shouldn't. I can keep right on working out my own salvation even if I disagree with a lot of Orthodox brethren on this point of ecclesiology. They just happen to be wrong about this. It's frustrating, but...


David

Greetings.

I want to apologize if my recent postings have upset anyone. That certainly was not my intention, though when it comes to matters of faith, as we all know, it's hard to sometimes be dispassionate.

I want to thank you for sharing your thoughts so honestly and freely.

I need now to take a sabbatical from internet conversations on theology and faith. I think this would be best for me--and certainly for everyone else.

God bless you.

Alvin Kimel

Bless me a sinner Fr Thomas,
Dear Andrew,

Thank you for both for the timely answer on what a Catholic must renunciate upon entering Orthodoxy.

I note that Brendan says he was not required to renounce anything.

I have heard on this forum that re-Baptism is sometimes required, triple immersion. It would seem strange to be re-Baptized, as if what one's parents provided as religious training was in error

denise

May the Lord God bless you!

The official text of the OCA makes the renunciations optional. However, in principle, I think Brendan agrees, that he actually had to renounce these things, or at least come to the understanding that, from the Orthodox POV, that they are not correct, and that, in joining himself to the Orthodox faith, he gives a tacet rejection to them. This would be indicated by the clear practice that he is not permitted to take communion in the Catholic Church.

Priest Thomas

Just as an addendum to previous posts regarding "numbers and Orthodoxy," a recent article in a Canadian newspaper reports the following [canoe.com] :

"Even though Greek and Ukrainian Orthodox suffered declines in the 1990s, the Christian Orthodox faiths saw a 24 per cent increase through gains in the Serbian and Russian Orthodox religions. In 2001, they represented 1.6 per cent of the population."

There is tangible evidence, both in the US and Canada, that Orthodoxy is definitely on the upswing and growing. (This is not only due to immigration, but it is my contention that the majority of this growth is through conversion.) I do not want to become argumentative with Fr. Alvin, who has taken a hiatus from the forum, and whom I hope will return soon, but I stand by my original report that Orthodoxy has seen substantial growth, although the numbers are still small, in the 90's and beyond. There is no reason to believe that this will not continue in the near future. I was also not exaggerating that there have been "mass conversions" (EOC, CSB, various Vineyard Churches, and other groups) and a plethora of missions planted, especially in the South and West US. There is much more to come as Orthodoxy finds its voice in this culture.

Priest Thomas

Fr. Thomas --

Yes, of course, the fact that one is not required to actively renounce things doesn't mean that one can still hold to them if they are not taught by the Orthodox faith. That's why I noted that it would not have bothered me if I had been asked to renounce certain things, because in effect that's what I was doing through my actions.

As for byzinroswell's question on baptism ... different jurisdictions handle this differently. There are relatively few who will receive a cradle Roman Catholic by baptism, but some will do so (notably, ROCOR, other Old Calendrists, Mt. Athos, etc.). If one's baptism was a Protestant baptism (regardless of whether one is being received from the Latin Church), one is more likely to be received by baptism, but again practice differs. And if one is being received from one of the other non-Latin churches of the Catholic communion, the practice again differs for different jurisdictions.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

But I already reject those things too - and yet I'm in communion with Rome .

I can't take communion in an Orthodox Church, but that's only because they won't let me!

Alex

Dearest Alex-

>>>Leaflets, conversion calls and other, rather Western, models of bringing people to Christ can serve a purpose.<<<

Allow me to ask you a question: How did St. Paul gain converts? Did he invite prospective converts to Liturgy or did he simply preach the Gospel and allow God to work through Paul's spoken word? Please keep in mind that St. Paul wasn't of Western European descent

Columcille