www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Do Most EC Converts Eventually Join The Orthodox Church ?

Joe,

this is indeed a story that I relate to as well.

The impression I've gotten from online forums and personal conversations is that the Melkite Church is the overwhelming choice for EC converts, and even here, it seems that for many it's just a stopover before they join one of the Orthodox Churches.

Perhaps if the Russian Catholic Rite were more of an option, Protestant converts might choose it over the others.

Fr David Straut

I, as a Russian Catholic would be glad to welcome them. now, only if we of that Rite had more members and money, plus, I can relate to Protestants quite well.
Much Love,
Jonn
MABS Temple Baptist Seminary, 2002

Is there a Russian Catholic parish in or around Chattanooga? I thought there were only parishes in NYC, San Francisco, and Colorado.

Fr David Straut

Bless, Father,

None in Chattanooga. The three you referenced, and one in El Segundo are the only ones in the US

All Russian Greek-Catholic Churches in the US, Active & Historical

Many years.

Neil

I really disagree with EC going to the Orthodox. I have known a few, but for the most part they are very satisfied in the EC or go back to Rome.

Those that were Protestant, became EC, then went to the Orthodox, they were headed that way anyway. At least here in the South, they stay EC. Out of all the converts I know from Protestantism, and they are quite a few, I think three went to the Orthodox. But, I also know as many who were Protestant, became Orthodox, then became EC or RC.

So I feel the beginning statement is really a generalization, which only brings confussion to those seeking the Eastern Churches.

there's not a !@#$ thing in Chattanooga for ANY ECs. we are lucky to have a Latin deanery. I do all my fellowship by Internet, whether it be St.Mike's Russian in NYC or with Holy Resurrection (Ruthenian) near Knoxville.
Much Love,
Jonn

A survey would be interesting.

My guesses:

Most Eastern Catholics are born members. Such Greek Catholics don't identify with the Orthodox [home.att.net] at all so they don't convert. (Been so since the second wave of schisms/departures in the 1930s; exactly what leaders like Nicholas Elko taught.) More likely they assimilate into mainstream RC thanks to moves and intermarriage. (The same thing happens to ethnic Orthodox but obviously they're not as likely to go Roman.)

There are the conservative refugees from mainstream RC who are first and foremost interested in remaining under Rome, very faithful to the magisterium. (I understand they're a majority in some parishes like out west where there isn't that big an ethnic presence, unlike Pennsylvania and Ohio.) I'll guess they're the second biggest group. Conversion of course is out of the question for them.

Then there's the little 'convert express' (sorry but it fits), Orthodoxy in communion with Rome (OicwR). These can be born Roman Riters or ex-Protestants/ex-other. A small minority in Greek Catholicism and it remains small as most OicwR get fed up with the latinisations and move on. A way-station in the perhaps overrated Orthodox convert boomlet (most converts probably are still marriage ones). A few do stay though. As I've said before it's appealing: Orthodoxy without the toxic anti-Westernism especially in the convert scene. But many find it untenable.

So my guess is if one looked at all the numbers the answer to the question is no.

I agree that at least some Protestants try Greek Catholicism first because, like RCs, they're Westerners and so go to the version of this that's more familiar. Everybody in the West knows the church under Rome; the Orthodox are much less known.

I don't know how many ECs might become Orthodox, but it's always seemed to me a classic instance of (fatuously) thinking the grass greener on the other side of the fence--a conclusion to which only one suffering from severe myopia could come.

I think there are usually 3 reasons for the change. 1) Liturgics: One of the justifiably big complaints against many EC parishes is their shoddy liturgical life, and perhaps this occasions some to leave for Orthodoxy. But I must say that in my experience I've been a part of 3 different UGCC parishes and chapels where a full observation of all the services, according to traditional usage, has been the norm; and I've celebrated services regularly in 3 different Orthodox parishes in 2 different countries (OCA, Antiochian, ACROD), and none have been nearly as good as the UGCC parishes. In my experience, I have yet to find in either Canada or the US an Orthodox parish of any tradition that is as rich (in terms of both community and liturgics) as St. Elias UGCC parish in Brampton. So when you've got that, why would you leave for something of demonstrably lesser quality?

2) Better quality/different style leadership (cf. the example of Rod Dreher): I've written a doctoral dissertation on ecclesial polity in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and I have no hesitation in declaring that neither has a monopoly on strengths or weaknesses, and sane commentators on both sides will readily admit this. Both have had monsters and saints for bishops, patriarchs, popes. The idea that Orthodoxy lacks centralized, quasi-papal authority is just as much nonsense (cf. the statutes of the Russian Church, esp. in their 1945 version, much of which is retained in the most recent edition) as the idea that Catholicism lacks any expressions of synodality (cf. the relevant canons on synods in the 1990 CIC to comparable Orthodox statutes).

3) Theology. This is perhaps the most serious reason, but I think those who imagine that there are huge differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, when both are fully and properly (ie., non-tendentiously) understood, is a fantastical fabrication used to justify on-going division (as David Bentley Hart has recently and rightly put it). In other words, the theological differences are virtually non-existent, or simply unserious. One can be Orthodox in communion with Rome--I see no reason why one must be Orthodox out of communion with Rome. Have we resolved all major theological issues? No. There is only one--the papacy, and it's being worked on. (See my forthcoming book on Orthodoxy and the papacy!) The rest--unleavened bread? clerical celibacy? filioque?--and all those other tiresome textbook issues trotted out by fanatics on both sides have now been revealed as issues over which we no longer need to be divided--if we ever seriously were. (For a longer elaboration of all this, one simply MUST read DB Hart's essay "The Myth of Schism" in *Ecumenism Today*, edited by Francesca Aran Murphy and Christopher Asprey (Ashgate, 2008, pp. 95-106).

St Elias, Brampton is the exception that proves the rule, or it's about as representative of Greek Catholicism as S. Clement's [s-clements.org] is of the Episcopal Church!


Yup.


You say why there are two churches here:


That's it: the scope of the Pope.

St. Elias is definitely an anomaly. I will say that it is more "Orthodox in practice" than the Orthodox parish I belong to, but is isn't "Orthodox". I still don't understand why this parish is the way it is, when the rest of the UGCC parishes I've seen pale in comparison. (Pews and recited liturgies? )

St Elias and the Russian Greek Catholic Church are like that because according to Rome OicwR is what Greek Catholicism was always supposed to look like.

Ukrainian Catholics in general (Galicians really; actually many more Ukrainians are Russian Orthodox) aren't like that thanks to not so subtle pressure locally from the much larger version of RC abroad (which disobeys Rome but they don't care) and also because they often thought Ukrainianness is best shown in church by having a few Russianisms (onion domes, icons, Cyrillic and married priests) to show they're not Polish but lots of Polishisms (statues, Western devotions, clean-shaven priests) to show they're not Russian. IOW nine times out of ten they've disobeyed Rome and latinised themselves. And still do.

(Which is why Galicia has had two small schisms recently, the Society of St Josaphat under Fr Basil Kovpak and the recently consecrated uncanonical bishops who've been excommunicated - what they're doing is understandable but wrong-headed considering Galicia's history in most of the 20th century under the Soviets. Interestingly though as part of their well-intended conservatism - essentially 1940s Greek Catholic practice is their standard - they share the Slavonic liturgical language with the Orthodox they so bitterly oppose whilst the UGCC uses Ukrainian, which these groups don't like because it's new.)

BTW to be fair my 'Russian envoys at Hagia Sophia' first experience of the rite and culture was 23 years ago in a little Ukrainian Greek Catholic parish church with pews and a recited liturgy - on a Saturday night! - with no incense. But it had a full iconostasis and a priest from the old country. You very much got the flavour of the tradition even though it wasn't letter-perfect.

Young Fogey, I think you're way off base when you claim that Ukrainian Catholics have not become fully Orthodox in Communion with Rome, due to pressure from RC clergy abroad. The UGCC has taken on a certain number of what I like to refer to as universal devotions (others may call them Latinizations) and these are now considered to be part of the Ukrainian Catholic tradition by a good many people, clergy included. Also due to historical tensions of serious proportions, the term OICWR would be considered offensive to more than a few people (at 6 different UGCC parishes I've yet to hear the term used)

It's my personal opinion that being OICWR is initially what many EC converts come looking for. They don't find it in the UGCC, Maronite Church and some Byzantine Rite Churches, and end up Orthodox not in Communion with Rome, because they see the former as an impossibility.

Right, most Ukrainian Catholics don't call themselves, would be offended if you called them, and chances are have never heard of anyway, OicwR.

Example of local pressure that has happened: the only Catholic school locally is Roman so the Greek Catholics go there and get latinised.

I get pastoral sensitivity up to the point the new breakaway 1940s Ukrainian Greek Catholic preservation groups are making; if you've been doing something in church for 200 or more years and it's not heretical it's naš/po našomu ('ours, our way') even though it's not native Greek Rite. But if it's not native and it's done in church it's a latinisation and needs gradual phasing out and replacement with something native (Saturday Vespers, the hours before Liturgy, canons, molebny and akathists for example instead of a vigil Mass and rosary). At home you and I can pray any way we want, rosaries, novenas and all.

(The head of Fordham's Russian Center back when it had one, a formidable English Jesuit called Fr Fyodor Wilcock, once in the chapel took down an icon of the founder of his own order saying 'That's not Orthodox!')

Again it'd be good to see a survey showing how many Greek Catholic converts are refugee conservative RCs and how many are OicwR. My guess is the former are the majority.