www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodox to Eastern Catholic?

I would say that the first mistake was to attend anything sponsored by the SSPX. But I think it is unfair to presume that anything one of them would have to say has much to do with Catholicism. I would put this priest's comments in the same bucket with the SSPX bishop who denies the Holocaust.

Canon 897 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states:

To those who were Orthodox and have become Eastern Catholic, could you provide details about the doctrinal and spiritual preparation you received? I take it the profession of faith involved more than just the reciting of the Nicene Creed, but a specific reference to believe all that the magisterium teaches.

Why would a convert from Orthodoxy have to make such a profession of faith, when I, a catechumen baptized as a Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic, did not. In fact, in all my catechumenate, the term "magisterium" was not mentioned once, so the issue of what the "magisterium" teaches never came up. I was, however, properly initiated into the Tradition and Mysteries of the Byzantine Church, mostly using some very good Orthodox instructional materials.

Because one does not become initiated into the mysteries of the Church believing only some things.
Either you believe and accept it all, or you don't. the caveat to that is that the Church understands that it takes time, sometimes a lifetime, to form oneself into "owning" all of those beliefs.
Those who are already baptized make a profession of faith that way, because they are being received from a heterodox Christian sect. One who is baptized is not.

Their profession of faith implies that they believe and accept everything that the Church teaches.

There aren't two standards. Both affirm the same thing, only it is done, liturgically, a bit differently.

The Church does not require more of people than that which is absolutely necessary. When one enters into full communion with the Church one does acknowledge that he accepts what the Church teaches (which is not the same as acknowledging that you understand it all). There really is no need for a "specific reference to believe all that the magisterium teaches" when one is accepted. To demand one for the ordinary convert is to not understand. [The situation would be different for someone who voluntarily and knowingly embraced heresy, maybe someone like Arius.]

On a practical note, those coming from the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome are already welcome to take Eucharist and join the parish without formal conversion. I know of more than a few people who have become full members of the Catholic Church simply by "taking envelopes".

I think there needs to be a clarification here.

griego catolico isn't quite accurate in his reference to the profession of faith as: "a specific reference to believe all that the magisterium teaches"

The actual and exact profession of faith made by baptised non-Christians who enter into full communion with the Catholic Church is (in the Roman Rite at least):

"I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God."

So while his characterization of the profession of faith isn't necissarily wrong, the actual word "magesterium" isn't in that profession of faith that candidates make in front of the congregation during Mass when this rite of reception would occur.

It seems to me, at least, that the actual words used in the profession of faith wouldn't be objectionable to Eastern Catholics, for the words, "holy Catholic Church" encompasses the beliefs and traditions of the East just as much as the West.

Now, it's my turn to make a clarification.

Here is what I have seen done. After the profession of the Nicene Creed, the following is said:

Maybe it's a bit much, maybe not. Maybe it's is in relation to the two new canons to the Eastern and Latin Codes of Canon Law.

Like I said, I can only comment on what I have seen.

When I was received into the Catholic Church from the OCA, there was no preparation involved at all. The pastor of my parish at the time (after having received documentation of my baptism and chrismation) simply announced one Sunday that I was "now a member of the parish."

I'm looking for any specific reference in the Rite of Baptism to accepting or believing specific doctrines other than what is contained in the Creed. I do not believe their are any. By accepting the catechumen for illumination, the priest, as deputy of the bishop, effectively certifies that the catechumen (or, in the case of infants, the catechumen's god parents) is spiritually prepared for baptism. I ought to know: unlike most people, I actually said, and remember, my baptismal vows.

Nope, we left that out, thank goodness.

Verbose, didactic, ugly and utterly unnecessary.

Or maybe the Latin Church has its own rites of initiation, and the Eastern Churches have their own rites of initiation, and they are, well, different.

The proper response to which is "Mazel tov!" Then you get asked to volunteer for Bingo.

When I was received into the Catholic Church from the Greek Orthodox Church I went through a couple of months of discernment with the local Eastern Catholic Priest. I provided a copy of my chrismation and during vespers I professed the Creed and acknowledged my belief in the Catholic/Orthodox faith. (The priest that received me inserted at all the places in the service that said Catholic with Catholic/Orthodox. He wanted to emphasis that I was not changing my faith.)

After that I went to the sacrament of confession. The next morning at Divine Liturgy I received the Eucharist.

Agreed.

Just curious: Does anyone have experience with reception on the part of the Orthodox where they still require statements like these? I recall looking at the steps for receiving non-Orthodox Christians in the 'Book of Needs' published by St. Tikhon's and some of the declarations that converts had to make seemed also to be verbose and unnecessary.