www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Convert Question

Alex, in this particular thread I'm speaking of the Catholic position and from one Catholic (myself) to another (mardukm). At present anyway. Obviously, the Catholic position is that Rome has not fallen into heresy and, therefore, the See of Rome remains primary over all the others.

This said, I'm a bit intrigued by the Orthodox concept of a patriarch excommunicating himself. Who is it that decides in Orthodoxy whether this has, in fact, happened or not? In the middle of something like the Arian heresy when (as I understand it) about 90% of the East's bishops were Arian, would it not look, from this vantage point, as if it were Rome that had defected? And yet...

...And this said...I think we both have our threads mixed up, lol.

Completely agree that this is the state of the case with our Orthodox brethren.

Dear Talon,

I think we are both on topic here.

As with Arianism - yes, a good portion of the Church went into one of the three forms of Arianism at the time.

The East, at that time especially, was theologicall vibrant and active. Rome had become dormant in that respect, save for the need of the Eastern Patriarchs and Emperors of an arbiter for their constant struggles - that arbiter was the Pope of Rome.

Those who held Arian views were condemned. There was a struggle within the Church over this, as you know, and the O-orthodox side won out.

Rome's views on the Filioque were turned into a dogmatic statement - as you also know. That is quite different than struggles with heresies etc.

In fact, had Rome left the Filioque as a theological tradition/opinion of the Latin Church alone while adhering to the original form of the Creed - that would have been acceptable to the East.

The Orthodox party at Florence said as much. The Orthodox Saint Archbishop Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus actually came to Florence with the view to reuniting the Church as long as Rome would removed the Filioque in the Creed (he had no intention of asking Rome to drop it from its theological repertoire).

From the Orthodox Catholic POV, the Filioque teaches two Sources of the Spirit within the Most Holy Trinity - and I've heard RC theology professors say that Rome herself rejects that and did not intend the Filioque to teach that.

Rome could have averted the whole thing by simply returning to the original Creed of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Alex

Hi PR. I see you've already gotten a number of responses, but let me add mine anyhow: the Catholic Church doesn't approve of Catholics going over to Orthodoxy. (Please note that that's in regard to anyone who is already Catholic -- if I were Orthodox I certainly would not go over to Catholicism. And thank God that the days of proselytizing Orthodox, as a matter of policy, are over!)

However, with all due respect to your friend, it seems to me that putting the question as "is it a sin for a Catholic to convert to Orthodoxy" is a slightly skewed way of looking at it.

Don't get me started. In my experience, not-entering-into-full-communion-with-Rome-is-a-matter-of-sinfulness-and-pride is one of the most commonly used polemics among Catholic posters on the web. (Though not on this forum, thank goodness. )

Dear Peter,

There are certainly many layers to Catholic praxis and theory in this regard!

But Rome can't have it both ways. If Orthodoxy is a "Sister Church" and the like, if an EC becomes Orthodox - how is this a betrayal of anything save for the papacy in its current form? (Assuming that there is a version of the Petrine Primacy that would one day be acceptable to Orthodoxy).

If the ecclesiology of the various unions that gave rise to the EC Churches are, in Rome's view, no longer an acceptable basis for future church reunion - doesn't this mean that the existing EC Churches have somehow lost legitimacy in the eyes of Rome (a legitimacy they never had with Orthodoxy in the first place?).

Also, the idea that union with Rome ("communion with Rome" is a later EC concoction) is an historical focus of church unity is something that is part of RC ecclesiology - but it simply isn't part of the more collegial Church model of Orthodoxy.

In other words, Rome has yet to come out of its own idea about how its role has played out in history and is being played out today.

One reason for this, which has negatively impacted ecumenism too, is that the roles of Rome as "Particular Church" and Rome as "Ecumenical Petrine Ministry" have become tangled up in an ecclesial construct that doesn't question its own legitimacy, but, instead, affirms still a form of papal triumphalism - especially when certain RC's (and EC's) accuse Orthodoxy of being "prideful" et alia in refusing to "submit to Rome" (which is what is really meant anyway).

No wonder Orthodoxy is entirely suspicious of RC ecumenism.

Alex

If I may butt in, none of the popes in my lifetime, from Paul VI, was triumphalistic (one was larger than life), it is only some apologists and "boosters" of many levels who are. Rome has made vaious obligations to various groups at different times and expressed herself most strongly at all of them. It is hard to go back on what one states so emphatically, as she is wont to do. An early Oxford movement member saw the Reformation as a poor re-setting of a broken limb, I see the RCC as if it were an old person constantly taking medicine, half of which is to couteract the the side effects of the other half (with all due respect to the elderly and the RCC).
Vatican II was supposed to have taken care of this sort of cognitive dissonance between the RCC and other churches, but too many people muffed up the interpretation of the council from the start, which gave fuel to the fire of reaction, which has breathed life into a lot of pre-Vatican perspectives which we have to live with as part if a Catholic revival.
You almost need a split personality to be Eastern rite Catholic.

The same can be said for Orthodoxy, no matter which jurisdiction - EO or OO.. somehow its ok for an EO, OO, or EC to live with such "paradoxes" but when RCs do, it's cognitive dissonance. Why the double (triple, quadruple) standard?

I am not Orthodox, but have been fence-sitting about converting, so I do not understand how being Orthodox requires a split personality. For an Eastern Catholic the split personality occurs thus: otoh ultramontane Latin types teach you have to accept the Latin interpretation of every doctrine, oto some Easterners believe they are as Orthodox as the "separated" Orthodox and you may disregard any Latin particularities as an EC.
I know different Orthodox jurisdictions have differing emphases on disciplinary and sacramental matters (I attend liturgy at a ROCOR church), but this is not as wide a chasm as that between non-extreme expressions of the Latin or Eastern rites. Maybe I am wrong.
I was not trying to construct a double standard. I understand that the RCC for a long time has been the big kid on the block and has had an opinion on practically EVERYTHING, unlike other churches, and therefore has the most historical baggage to sort out to have amicable relations with other churches. The cognitive dissonance occurs when the RCC may speak XXI century, yet another church may hear only XIX century, so to speak. Or as often happens in some apologetic circles, self-appointed Catholic spokesmen intentionally speak XIX century and critics from other churches hear this and say, "See, the Catholics are still as casuistic, (or whatever negative) as they have always been" Yet this would not be authentic teaching in the eyes of proper authorities. The "luxury" for the Orthodox is that usually an outre pronouncement comes from a quarter that could be disregarded as having little importance, such as the Old Calendar Greeks.
Standards are different due to the circumstances of the different churches, but I would not chracterise them as multiple standards.

To return to the topic...I think it may be a sin to convert if it requires re-baptism. I was always afraid that would be a sin against the Holy Spirit.
Although Catholics did this too, and I have seen Catholics do this still on occasion.

That is so precise, you really nailed the Orthodox progressive point of view - to which I ascribe -

The bolded section is the paradox which troubles many.

As one Greek Catholic priest friend of mine complained recently, the Greek Catholics endured as much, if not more, for their support of the Papacy and the concept of
Union and that all they received in return were new signs to put on their backs reading 'Kick Me Here.' Perhaps harsh, and not reflective of the Popes of recent times, but surely entrenched within the bowels of the Curia and Latin church's inner mind.

Somehow we all have to figure out a way to escape history and recognize that destiny is not bound by past errors along the way.

Neither Catholics nor Orthodox "re-baptize", at least not from their perspective. The Orthodox and Catholics alike hold that baptism cannot be repeated. Catholics "re-baptize" when the prior "baptism" was invalid. In the case of doubts, the Catholic Church administers conditional baptism. For the Orthodox, the concept of validity is rather foreign to their mindset. However, if the prior "baptism" was deemed not to have been a true baptism, then baptism will be administered. In either case it is not a matter of re-baptism.

Tough to respond to this without clarification of what you mean. Are you saying this because of the Western-Rite Orthodox?

I'm okay with not calling it betrayal, but I can't see it being acceptable.

Of course, I'm open to hearing alternate povs ... and, likewise, I would be interested in learning whether Orthodox posters believe that it's fine for an Orthodox to depart for Catholicism.

WRO as someone posted on oc.net earlier today has maybe 2000 adherents worldwide and is at best a 'boutique' expression of faith. It gets more play online than in the real world. I usually refrain from discussing it as I rarely can discuss it outside of my own life experience in dealing with the issues between the exponentially larger than WRO Eastern Catholic/Orthodox divide. Frankly, I think people should be what they want to be - both WRO or Eastern Catholics and the existence of either or both doesn't bother me.