www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Where can I find the "anti-poaching" directives from Rome?

I know, and have seen, the statements from Rome not to "poach" the Orthodox faithful and to direct evangelical efforts elsewhere,

All my searching, though, has found only a single, unsourced and slipshod article referring to a 1996 agreement between RCC and ROC.

Oh, and some sedevacantist sites criticizing Pope Francis for this as well.

These statements and the policy that unity should come between the churches, not by individuals swimming the Tiber, *do* exist, don't they?

Or its this another of the things "we all know" that "just ain't so" ?

hawk

This study by Monsignor Fernando Ocáriz is enlightening (I have not found an English version, only Portuguese and Spanish):

https://dadun.unav.edu/handle/10171/44329

https://opusdei.org/pt-br/article/evangelizacao-proselitismo-e-ecumenismo/

In short, Orthodox Churches have the status of particular churches, there is apostolic succession, it is as if the Pope of Rome were pope of these churches (even if there is no recognition of this by these particular Churches).

(But that does not alter evangelizing efforts, it is necessary to propagate faith and evangelize Church members, including the Orthodox, it is necessary to defend the integral faith and the dogmas in the ecumenical dialogue - the key word here is evangelization).

Santiago,

I highly recommend you update your terminology to match that of Rome. Never forget that Rome has chosen to speak of the Orthodox Churches in the Catholic Catechism: 838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." 322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." 323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." 324

I expect that you use terminology picked up from older, pre-Vatican II documents. Since the, the Catholic Church has chosen to emphasize what we hold in common, while never neglecting the disagreements we need to work on. I suppose it could also be that English might not be your native language, so you are using older terminology that is simply not used anymore.

Thanks!
John

Hello,

(Yes, for particular reasons English is my fourth or fifth language, I'm practicing, posting to forums is like an "exercise")

For me the Second Vatican Council is perfectly orthodox and Pope Francis a blessing from God, there is no reason to worry.

But I have no problems with other terminologies, but I understand that sometimes we can't "scandalize the weak", you're right. However, it is well known that post-conciliar terminology has been misused to spread relativism and confusion, so I find it more appropriate when it is necessary not to give room for reigning confusion and relativism, is a "provisional" decision which I deem appropriate. There are Catholics today who do not accept Catholic dogma, this is tragic.

Returned to thread, a document from the 1992 Congregation for the doctrine of the faith says:

"Since, however, communion with the universal Church, represented by Peter's Successor, is not an external complement to the particular Church, but one of its internal constituents, the situation of those venerable Christian communities also means that their existence as particular Churches is wounded."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...h_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html

That is, the absence of communion generates a wound in ecclesiality of the Orthodox churches, that is, it is a wound related to the Catholic faith and not only of a disciplinary or canonical nature.