www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Disappointed with EWTN's Journey Home last night

Father Serge,

Bless, Master!

Speaking personally, I watched over the internet with a 300kb connection. The picture was very blurry, so I did not see how he was dressed. In fact I rarely watched, but listened when my wife and children were not interrupting me!

Certainly he should have been wearing his clerical attire. This is a strange phenomenon among Latin deacons - almost a silent, social pressure not to appear as clerics. But then...



I did hear the blessing at the end. This is a development in the Latin Church I profoundly dislike. It is the sacerdotalizing (if such a word exists) of the diaconate, turning them into presiders and "priests, second-class". The blessing should be reserved to the priest and bishop, but the Latins permit it so I simply chalked it up to the Latins. (I did not see his hand, however...)



In his defense, though, his Catholic formation as a child was sparse and certainly not supported in the home. After he was sufficiently "sacramentalized, but not evangelized" as a Catholic, his mother demanded that he attend a Pentecostal church. His odyssey through "The Way" was a bit strange, but he was searching. The fact that he found a depth of apostolic tradition in Orthodoxy and then the unity of Catholicism seems to me to follow a somewhat logical progression as his faith developed.

As to any triumphalism, there may have been some, but by and large I thought it was extremely toned down on Marcus' part. Certainly Father Deacon Joseph did not demonstrate any.



Here I definitely share your frustration. Father Deacon Joseph's presentation lacked the clarity and precision that I appreciate in speakers, particularly when addressing issues of East and West. I did find him to be a sincere man, not extremely articulate in matters theological, but nonetheless sincere. I was also bothered by some of the apologetic points Marcus was trying to drive home, despite the fact that it was tempered by faint praise for certain things within Orthodoxy. I was delighted by the discussion on the Jesus prayer. My journey started with the discovery of this prayer - I could say that the prayer found me! perhaps others will start that way as well...



I once ran across a text that was published in the early part of the 20th century at a seminary library. (Unfortunately I can neither remember the title nor the author's name.) The author was making the argument that early texts in the Divine Liturgy seemed to give evidence of a strong emphasis on the Petrine ministry. I have no clue how well this was argued or anything else. When I heard Marcus make reference to that, I wondered if he might be thinking of that same text. Who knows - not important. My sense is, though, that he was trying to bring in more specifics...the ones that Father Deacon Joseph did not seem to be providing.



I have actually run across this theory several times over the past few years, and have also seen it argued here on this forum. I have never seen it posited as official dogma, but I have seen it presented, fairly or unfairly, as a fair summary of the patristic witness on Mary and an Orthodox doctrine. Your point, though, is that the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack Roman Catholic will walk away with the impression that "Hey, you know what those Orthodox believe?" I think that yours is a fair critique.



I believe the reason why had to do with going with the rite of his baptism.



I think that you offer a very fair point here, Father. I was just listening to it from the perspective of a personal journey. But this was in fact an opportunity to witness to our shared tradition, and it was less than satisfactory. What was also suprising to me was the fact that he studied at the St. Stephen's program through the Antiochian House of Studies. For those of us who are student's there, we know the rigorous reading that is required!

In ICXC,

Gordo

I found the good Deacon to be less than eloquent about his time in Orthodoxy. Perhaps he simply is not a very good speaker or a very good interview.

Certainly, Mr. Grodi is more adept at discussing things from a point of view of Protestantism vs. Rome, rather than the relationship of Constantinople compared to Rome.

I suspected that the subject of a convert from Orthodoxy to Rome would be more than sufficient to annoy some on this board, as here it is usually the opposite.

EWTN does many things very well. It has played a major role in my wife's "conversion" from a lukewarm Catholic to one who is filled with the Holy Spirit.

We all know they have not done a terrific job in presenting the Christian East. I believe that gently letting them know about it would be the first step in resolving this.

To be sure, EWTN has been a blessing to the Catholic world. God grant them many years!

I would only add that I find it problematic to refer to anyone who moves from Orthodox to Catholic or from Catholic to Orthodox as a "convert".

Gordo

RE: Conversion

Let me say that I could not agree more! In my case, I have not converted to Catholicism but entered into Communion with the Pope of Rome and the Western Church while remaining as Orthodox (in theology and spirituality) as I was before.

Father Bless!

When are you going on The Journey Home?

Dr. Eric

(It actually wouldn't be a bad idea.)

However respectful and grateful the deacon is of his past, I think it can�t be avoided that this is effectively a tool to proselytize Orthodox faithful, just as the reverse would be true if the circumstances were the other way around. That is the whole purpose of the CHN, it�s there to convert people. It�s primary purpose is not for the edification of people who are already Catholic. The fact that he talked about the �errors� present in Orthodoxy simply gives light to this intent.

I should say I have no issue with his decision if he felt that is what he felt he needed to do. His situation however is obviously being used to try and �convert� people who are Orthodox. Just as the show intends to seek converts among the various Protestant bodies or others who are not Catholic.

Andrew,

You raise a very good point. If the intent of the program and the CHN is to "convert" others - CHristians and non-CHristians - to Catholicism, how else should the fact that a former Orthodox clergyman appears on the program be interpreted?

And how does that square with official Vatican policy and teaching?

Boy - between your post and Father Serge's I feel like I completely misread this whole thing. I read it primarily as a personal story for Catholics, but I failed to see how it might be interpreted by others.

That being said, I have also read and heard my share of anti-Catholic "convert" testimonies and material from the Orthodox side. To me, it is a fundamentally different issue with Protestants since they are not members of an apostolic church. But between Catholics and Orthodox, the readings I have made of official Vatican policies indicate that we should be engaging at the grass roots level in a shared apostolate, not actively trying to steal sheep (matters of personal conscience aside).

Something more to chew on...

Gordo

Without having made any attempt to look for Orthodox priests now serving in communion with Rome, I'm aware of several in the USA. But that's a bagatelle. In Eastern Europe at the moment there are over 500 such priests!

Fr. Serge

Dear Gordo,

Many thanks for your thoughtful and well-taken comments in resposne to my post.

It is true, of course, that one sometimes finds the Orthodox engaging in triumphalism over Catholics who join them - but that's no reason to reply in kind! It is not difficult to make someone welcome, offering our congratulations and prayers, without turning him into An Incident.

However, it would be seriously interesting to investigate the phenomenon of the large number of priests, almost all of whom were educated in Orthodox seminaries, who voluntarily became Greek-Catholics at the time of the collapse of Communism in 1989 and thereafter. A movement of such size becomes a matter of legitimate interest and inquiry.

Just as an example, one such priest and his wife were visiting at the Greek-Catholic Exarchate in Athens a year or so later. Over the dinner table, the cathedral deacon asked the priest "do you believe that it is possible to attain eternal salvation in the Orthodox Church". Without hesitation, the priest replied "of course". The deacon then asked "then why did you become Greek-Catholic?" The priest responded that he and his wife both came from families which were entirely Greek-Catholic and that they had always remained Greek-Catholic by conviction and loyalty, and had been compelled to function within the Moscow Patriarchate by external forces far beyond their control. By returning openly to where their faith and their hearts had always been, they did not intend to deny the soteriological reality of Eastern Orthodoxy.

That visit to Athens was a great joy.

Fr. Serge

I am sorry I just cannot agree.

As a Byzantine Catholic deeply enamored with my brothers and sisters with whom I share patrimony I have a fondness and feel a closeness for them and with them.

As a Byzantine Catholic I have stuggled with Latins and EO parties in coming to an understanding for WHY my parish exists. For why the sui juiris church to whiuch I look for spiritual succor exists AT ALL. To the Romans I explain our Eastern patrimony, to the Orthodox I explain my abiding faith in the Petrine ministry. To some of the more strident Latins, I have had to explain that there is more to Catholism than the Latin rite.

I can't help but think that the program was STILL done for the benifit of American Evangelicals far more than it was done for Orthodox.

What do I mean by that? Well as Orthodoxy has broken onto the "American Scene" in the past several decades in the sense of being a known quantity among non-Orthodox... (heck even among non-Catholics [granting the Catholic faithful were frequently more likely to have some working knowledge that Orthodox even existed!]) Well the call of Orthodoxy has been a siren song.

A siren song that is not totally without leaving baggage aside.

In the interest of charity and ecumenical dialouge, a good deal of the anti-papal polemics have been met with silence. Is this a bad thing? Perhaps not totally, but at what point do we respond?

The efforts of Orthodox parties in apologetics have been strident and fruitful in America. I have no wish to return to days past where a constant and uncharitable polemics-war is fought between CC and OC parties. The Holy Fathers JP2 & B16 have been clear and vocal about a need for detante, dialogue and understanding.

Would that all parties involved were so willing to be conciliatory.

On some other Catholic forums in which I participate EO parties have been vocal in their displesaure and disagreement with with Roman sentiments.

I truly believe that TJH really was not focused on proselitizing the Orthodox, so much as providing some equal time and answer to the unending claims made by some vocal parties.

Does anyone else think that this TJH program was a tour de force of polemics against the EO? I believe it was definately measured and restrained. Perhaps not to the point some wish, but as a Greek Catholic, I am used to not having all parties behave or act according to my script.

A small clarification - mention of the deacon's passing through what appear to be several varieties of Protestantism before becoming Eastern Orthodox was not intended as a criticism of the deacon himself - many people, especially in the USA where there is such a dazzling abundance of competing religions, are apt to try several versions - and still less was I passing judgement on the deacon's spiritual state. My point was that attempting to deal with Pentecostalism, Evangelical Protestantism, "The Way", and Eastern Orthodoxy, all in one 50-minute program, was at best overambitious and bound to cause confusion.

Fr. Serge

Father Serge,

I agree. I'm not sure if Father Deacon Joseph has ever given his testimony as a formal presentation, but this interview format seemed to focus too much on the beginning on his journey prior to Orthodoxy and not enough on the reasons he converted (other than the Greek) and then his reasons for eventually entering communion with Rome.

Of course, having been interviewed once for TV myself, it is not always easy to be as focused as one would be while standing (my preferred mode of presentation as a trainer) plus you are very dependent on the quality and line of questions provided by the interviewer.

God bless!

Gordo

Jut curious, but was this deacon one of the "Ben Lomand" group?

I don't know. The deacon did mention, almost in passing, the Evangelical Orthodox and their entry into the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese, but he seemed confused about the dates in this process.

Fr. Serge

Gordon


I think it fundamentally brings up the point if it's appropriate to target baptized Christians for "conversion".


It seems to me there is a variation in what is said and what is practiced. I also thought it was interesting that it was said - to paraphrase - the Eastern Catholic churches could be a model of reunion. Does that line up with official policy? My impression was it didn't.


The whole point of the show is bringing those outside the church back to their "home", i.e. the Catholic Church.


The Orthodox in this country do very little evangelization (i.e. targetting those who are not Christians). What they do mostly is proselytism (i.e. targetting people who are already Christian for conversion).

A simple sinner


To convince them to convert to Catholicism instead of Orthodoxy. I could see that. Even if you believe that, it still would remain that the secondary purpose is to seek the conversion of Orthodox Christians.


The show isn't a response to Orthodox claims though, or a forum where Catholics and Orthodox could describe their respective positions. It's a show about bringing people home. It's about converting people.