www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Catholics becoming Orthodox

This is the Declaration on Religious Freedom (Vatican II):

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v10.html

Dear Alex et al.

I'm only an Anglican outsider but it seems that the stance "be Orthodox OR Catholic if that's your conscience," is disrespectful to those men and women who laid down their lives as martyrs rather than deny the papacy, or accept it.

Surely, those martyrs didn't die for nothing. How do you as an Eastern Catholic with amicable feelings for Orthodoxy deal with these martyrs with convictions.

I don't mean to be challenging. I'm just curious.

Also, please pray for me as I am trying to decide over Catholicism and Orthodoxy. This damned schism! I hate the fact that such a decision must be made by someone looking for the historic faith.

love in Christ,
Marshall

Dear Marshall,

Well, I hope you become Eastern Catholic!

But as for the conscience thing, it is important, as you know.

The Catholic Martyrs in Britain, as a case in point, did die for their belief in the papacy.

But there is certainly more to it in that their martyrdom was for the maintenance of union with a canonical Church with valid episcopacy, period.

The only Patriarch they had was the Patriarch of Rome, the Pope, their only link to the Apostles and Christ.

Even St Thomas More who was said to have died for the papacy, in fact, personally referred to several "church models" in which the Pope would figure prominently, of course.

After explaining a collegial understanding of the papacy, Thomas Cranmer himself admitted that he agreed with Thomas More on the role of the pope and sought ways to get him released. But King Henry would not . . .

I know Orthodox Christians who are convinced of the truth of their Communion. I know Roman Catholics who are the same.

Before God, are they different in terms of Grace? Only God knows.

I, for one, believe that both Churches share the same life of Grace, are very close on matters of faith, share the same Sacraments and Mysteries together with the same historic episcopacy.

For me, the two sides of the One Church are already one, but not yet. . .

The Eastern Church has an Anglican Rite, and so does Rome now.

The rest is definitely up to your conscience before God.

Sorry, but that's the way it is. God bless.

Alex

If one were Catholic and then became Orthodox, then why would he care what the Catholic canon law says about his status?

anastasios

Anastasios hits the nail on the head, once again, as Alex had alluded earlier in this same thread.

If one truly believes Orthodoxy is true (which would be the best reason for becoming Orthodox, ISTM), then the issue of what the Catholics think of you should not be very relevant. If it *is* relevant to you, that should be a red flag -- ie, it should be something that tells you "hey, maybe I should wait a bit and sort this issue out before proceeding".

In my opinion (although I know others differ on this), the same approach applies to how Orthodoxy chooses to receive one. If that is a significant issue (and, when it is, it usually is so because of one's views of one's former ecclesiastical affiliation), then that should also be a "red flag" -- for while one, as an Orthodox, is allowed to believe that Catholic sacraments are real, one must also, as an Orthodox, fully accept the contrary view as equally permissible. Again, if that causes one heartburn, IMO that's a red flag again, and one should question whether one really ought to convert.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Yes, but . . .

There have been converts to Orthodoxy who have joined specific jurisdictions that had "more charitable" views of Rome than others.

Lev Gillet, according to one Priest who met him in London that I know, was never asked by his Orthodox bishop to "repudiate" Rome in any way.

I think that Orthodoxy is broad enough that it would allow for the sensitivities of new converts.

I know that such sensitivities exist and are respected among Western Rite Orthodox, as well as Eastern Rite converts.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada receives Ukrainian Catholics simply by Confession where one states one's intention to "return to Orthodoxy", recites the Creed without the Filioque (I already do that, Big Guy!), and then promises to be faithful to the Church. And - voila! Presto, change-o!!

To move from Catholicism to Orthodoxy is a legitimate enterprise in the eyes of the Orthodox Church, to be sure.

To have to try and "kick dirt" on the Catholic Church or else repudiate it in any negative way is something that should not have to be expected from any former Catholic convert.

Although I understand that they sometimes volunteer the kicking of themselves . . .

Alex

Some--eleftheri--receive the Holy Eucharist in both communions and really pay little attention to what either "institutional" church has to say about the subject.

I know an Orthodox fellow who, after his divorce, received Holy Communion in a Byzantine Catholic Church because his ex-wife was still a very active member of his former Orthodox parish and he just felt uncomfortable remaining an active member of that parish until a year or two had passed.

He eventually returned to his Orthodox parish and the pastor didn't say a word about his "defection" to an Eastern Catholic parish.

Question: By receiving Communion in the Byzantine Catholic parish, did this fellow "unite" himself to the Church of the See of Peter, even though there was no conscious commitment on his part to the See of St.Peter?

My opinion: I do not believe in ecclesiastical "magic." Therefore, I believe this fellow retained his "Orthodoxy" while---for a time---receiving the Holy Mysteries in a sister community which happened to be Byzantine Catholic.

Amo ergo sum...

ER

I may be off the mark here, but if Athenagoras and Paul VI mutually lifted the excommunications imposed a millenium ago, did that not annul the 'excommunicate' status of the churches mutually?

I mean, it had to have had some canonical effect other than provide a Kodak moment in Jerusalem.

The fact is, the stupid bureaucracies apparently just said: "Nice." and never took the appropriate canonical steps to resume communion. (It wasn't in their best interests.) So, as far as I am concerned, the excommunications are lifted, the Church is once again one, the bureaucrats are dragging their feet -- so what's new -- and I just refuse to allow the administrative droppings in the Ecclesiastical Bat-Cave to hinder my happy progress.

Blessings!

I have lurked for a long time here and have not really posted because I am Orthodox and not Byzantine Catholic. It really bothers me that there are so many different Orthodox ways of doing things. Years ago there was one Orthodox way for everyone and the only differences were ethnic ones. We had a convert join our parish about two years ago. He started off as a Roman Catholic and was received by anointing during the Sunday liturgy. But then about six months later he got upset with our pastor about the way he was doing something and left and joined a ROCOR parish. They baptized him again and said that we were wrong in not baptizing Roman Catholics. How is it that we in the OCA accepted the Roman Catholic baptism as valid while another Orthodox jurisdiction believed that his Roman Catholic baptism was false? How can we Orthodox claim we have unity of faith when we can't even agree on matters like baptism? How is it that we can say we have unity of faith with those Orthodox who call us heritics for using the new calendar?

Dear Ephraim,

Actually, my daddy-in-law's parish has quite the number of Orthodox Christians who formally belong to it and sometimes approach Communion.

They make their annual Lenten Confesson at their downtown Churches, however.

I have to agree with you and I commend you for what I think is your Orthodox AND ecumenical, forward-looking perspective.

Alex

Dear David G,

Welcome to the wild world of posting, Friend .

The last time I commented on different practices within Orthodoxy I got sent to my room, so I wanted to only relate an experience that a friend of mine had.

He was a former Anglican and a convert to Orthodoxy.

He had to go to catechesis with his wife, as this jurisdiction prescribed this for Anglicans and Roman Catholics.

They had to be chrismated - the whole nine yards!

And yet, during a conversation with an Orthodox priest, he told me in their presence that if I wanted to "join up" that I only need go to Confession and recite the Creed.

They were dismayed and annoyed and wondered why such discrimination existed?

They too have changed jurisdictions since.

I too have wondered about the different practices existing in different jurisdictions and know that they annoy people.

God bless you, Servant of Christ!

Alex

Dr. John --

Regarding the excommunication liftings -- my understanding is that the excommunications of 1054 were personal and not ecclesial. The ecclesial excommunication came along gradually and not as a result of a formal decree on either side. Therefore the lifting of the mutual 1054 personal excommunications -- while highly symbolic -- had no practical impact on the actual state of communion between Rome and Orthodoxy, but only revoked the Latin excommunication of Patriarch Michael Kerularios and the retaliatory Byzantine excommunication of the Latin Cardinals.

Brendan

Alex --

I agree. I'm not saying that a convert has to have the most hardline view of his or her prior ecclesial life -- but simply that one must be comfortable with that more hardline view, because it is a legitimate Orthodox opinion.

Brendan

Dear Dr. John,

Holy downward-spiralling Bishop's Mitre, Batman!

Just to save Brendan some time, you should know he probably disagrees with you

But I think you are right.

Then again, as Eastern Catholics, we are sometimes held to be relativists on this issue.

I always knew we were related somewhere back in the times of the Kozaks and the enslaved Greek prisoners!

Alex

Dear Brendan,

Well, I must say I have a LITTLE problem with that.

I know there are RC's who regard the Orthodox as schismatics. I don't agree - like totally!

Now, you might say, by way of rejoinder, that these RC's are going against the accepted and current line as enunciated by Rome.

And that Orthodoxy has no single line on schismatics, therefore one must recognize harder lines as legitimate.

If I were Orthodox (do you think Orthodoxy is ready for someone like me?), I would probably say that other Orthodox Churches' views on Rome are their own, and I don't like them, nomatter how legitimate they really are.

And if the fact that I don't like another Church's view means that I am disloyal as an Orthodox, then I would rather remain Eastern Catholic.

At least I can have more fun, if you know what I mean . . .

Alex