www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Converting to Orthodoxy

What are the major reasons for an Eastern Catholic not to convert to Orthodoxy?

We are already Orthodox. How can one convert to something one already is?

It is possible to transfer from a Byzantine Catholic jurisdiction to a Byzantine Orthodox jurisdiction but such a transfer does not change one's lived experience of Byzantine Christianity (i.e., liturgy and theology). The only major theological issue between Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox is the authority of Peter. Until such time as this issue is resolved we choose to live in communion with him (even if we sometimes pay a high price) and the Orthodox live without this communion.

Can you provide reasons for making such a jurisdictional transfer?

Joseph,

I agree with Moose. We Orthodox -- in many cases, moreso than many "Cradle O" parishes are!

Eastern Catholics profess and live the same faith as our separated Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters. The fact that we are in communion with the Church of Rome does not compromise this faith, regardless of what the Orthodox may think or write about this. Some Orthodox seem to be relatively uncomfortable with the concept of two different, yet viable, theological systems being in communion with each other -- but as Eastern Catholics we believe that this communion is not only possible, but real, and beneficial to both East and West. It allows for the fullness of Tradition to be expressed -- in both its Eastern and its Western mode -- within the Church.

The only real difference between the Catholics and the Orthodox of the East has to do with the role of the Pope. We Eastern Catholics believe that it is important to be in communion with the Pope, the Successor of St. Peter, as the Orthodox East was until the time of the schism. The Orthodox do not place the same importance on this issue. Basically, there is a difference of opinion, in particular, about the role of the Pope in the Christian East -- a role that remains unfortunately ill-defined, to be honest (even the Vatican has called for further study and clarification of the issue). Eastern Catholics believe that we should remain in communion with the Pope while the definitive role of the Pope in the East is worked out, whereas the separated Orthodox believe that they should refrain from restoring communion with the Church of Rome until the definitive role is worked out. That's the only real difference -- the rest of it is classical "making mountains out of molehills".

I really can't emphasize this enough -- *don't* let the Orthodox polemicists (or the Roman Catholic ones, for that matter) make you think that there are real theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church that justify the present division. Eastern Catholics and Orthodox profess the same faith in the same way. And the doctrines of the Roman Church are fully complementary with those of the Byzantine Church -- they are different, but they are not heretical, as some Orthodox claim.

One final idea -- someone else (I think Dr. John) has wisely pointed out elsewhere in this forum that all salvation is local. If the only real issue between the Orthodox and the Catholics relates to the role of the Pope, there really isn't any spiritual reason to become an Orthodox, because that legal/jurisdictional issue doesn't really have any practical impact on the way Byzantine spirituality is experienced, on the personal level, in your local parish.

I hope this is helpful.

Sincerely in Christ,

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Your answers seem to make sense. I have been struggling with the issue of transfering Rites within the Catholic Church or "converting" to Orthodoxy. That quote about salvation being local really helped put things in perspective. Any other input from anyone else would also be helpful.

If I may, I'll present another view.

As much as I loved the Ruthenian Church I left it and was received into Orthodoxy this past Pentecost. Orthodoxy is not without its warts, especially when it comes to church politics...but that's been the story of the Church from day one. (When the Church was one things were not solved as easily as is done in the Catholic Church today.)

I sought reception into Orthodoxy for various reasons but primarily because I no longer believed in Vatican I. There's a lot of mental gymnastics done by some Catholics about Vatican I but if one reads the official Catholic documents (Vatican II and the new Catholic Catechism) what is taught in Vatican I is dogmatic theology for Catholics.

I agree that there is too much polemicism on both sides on these issues. However, I also feel that Vatican I cannot be nuanced away as some Catholics want to do. It will have to be discarded before any union of faith comes between Catholic and Orthodox.

In Christ,

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

I have great respect for David Brown and his decision to formally join Orthodoxy. I do, however, take great exception to his conclusion that we Byzantine Catholics who consider the Vatican I teachings on the petrine role as incomplete as somehow engaging in "mental gymnastics". No one is trying to act as if Vatican I never happened. We are, however, pointing out the lack of Eastern perspective in these teachings, the unacceptability of this lack of Eastern perspective, and accepting Pope John Paul's invitation to help redefine the petrine role. I do find it a bit disheartening that even David has chosen to use Roman Catholic theology as the default standard to which Byzantine Catholics must adhere to. It is simply not the case and I'm sorry he came to this conclusion when he was within the Byzantine Catholic jurisdiction.

Dr. John summed it up well when he said: "All salvation is local". We profess and live the same Orthodox Faith. I'll bet that David's day-to-day prayer life and parish liturgical life hasn't changed much since he transferred into an Orthodox jurisdiction.

Don't Greek Catholics accept Vatican 1?

I purchased "Our Faith" by Father Casimir Kucharek when I visited a Greek Catholic parish and it clearly teaches the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Pope.

"The Pope's duty, like that of Peter, is to shepherd and lead the Church. His jurisdiction extends to the entire Church of Christ; he is bishop, not only of Rome, but of the universal Church. As chief shepherd, he is bishop over all his fellow bishops and over all the faithful, individually and collectively, just as a shepherd is responsible for the welfare of the whole flock and for every one of its sheep." Page 168

On infallibility:

"(2) Ex cathedra definitions of doctrine by the Holy Father are also infallible..." Page 174

The subtitle of this volume is:

"A Byzantine Catechism for Adults"

Some of the volume is very good from an Orthodox viewpoint but it does also teach the Catholic dogmas faithfully.

Alexis

Byzantine Catholics respect the teachings of Vatican I but acknowledge the lack of Eastern participation in that council. We can not make this theology our own because we did not participate in the creation of the definitions promulgated at this council. We believe that this lack of Eastern perspective complicates, rather than assists, the on-going efforts between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches to work towards full communion. In the union treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Uzhorod, Byzantine Catholics took written exception to the Latin understandings of the procession of the Holy Spirit (filioque) and purgatory. Although we were in full communion with Peter at the time of Vatican I, this council does not adequately express authentic Byzantine theology. Pope John Paul II has recently acknowledged the stumbling block of Vatican I and has asked Roman Catholics, Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox Christians to help him redefine the role of Peter for the next millennium.

I am familiar with the texts you quote. The explanations provided by Fr. Kucharek are generally accurate but are sometimes so reduced to fundamentals that they miss the point. They were also produced at a time when we Byzantines felt ourselves as second class to the Latins. Just like Vatican II made a step towards acknowledging East as equal to West so newer Byzantine Catholic catechisms will represent a more authentic Byzantine theological perspective.

Is Peter a shepherd to the other shepherds (bishops)? Absolutely. Does his jurisdiction over the other bishops reduce their office? No. Byzantine Catholic, Orthodox and Roman Catholics all accept the universal jurisdiction of Peter in some form. The issue is the extent of the jurisdiction of Peter. A few years back the Byzantine-Melkite Catholic bishops made a profession of faith that included two elements: 1). I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches, and 2). I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation." There was a lengthy discussion on this topic which I won't repeat here (do a search on "Zoghby") but this profession of faith is another step on balancing West with East.

One must be very careful when discussing theology. The theology of the Roman Catholic Church is not the default Catholic theology (although during the last millennium the Latins and even many Byzantines believed this). Catholic theology is professed and taught by the entire Catholic Church. It must be respect both East and West.

Thanks, Alexis, for the quotes.

My wife was given that volume by my Byzantine Catholic pastor when she inquired what Eastern Catholics believe. It is not that old. I believe it was published in 1983. So it does represent a current understanding of Eastern Catholic theology--not the only one, of course, but it is still current in many circles.

I question whether it can be said that Eastern Catholics respect the teachings of Vatican I but cannot make this theology their own (to paraphrase Moose). I think if we asked for *official* statements from the Eparchs of the Ruthenian Church whether:

1)Is Vatican I to be regarded as an ecumenical council?

2)Are the teachings of Vatican I (universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility) dogma and must Eastern Catholics accept these?

we would get a firm "yes."

We might get some qualifying statements about how the Petrine office might be exercised but what is affirmed by Vatican I would not be rejected by the Ruthenian heirarchs, IMHO.

This is exactly what Orthodox reject. I could not affirm Vatican I. As I said before this is what led me to seek reception into the Orthodox Church.

Moose asked if my day to day life has changed since becoming Orthodox. To be perfectly honest there are plusses and minuses in such a move. If one's main motivation is ordination and the "professional" clerical life one might think twice before seeking such in Orthodoxy. As for me, I'll be content to be able to sing in the choir.

If I've offended by these messages I apologize. I just wanted to provide another viewpoint.

In Christ,

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

The Byzantine Catholic Church has made much progress since Vatican II. Kucharek's book in the early 80's was a long step East from where we were at the time of Vatican II. The "Light for Life" Byzantine Catechism published in 1994 (Volume 1), 1997 (Volume 2) and future editions represent another long step East. The Zoghby Initative in 1996 was an even more dramatic step East.

Dave Ignatius is absolutely correct in pointing out that there is a vast array of understanding of Byzantine theology among our bishops, priests and people. Those educated in Latin seminaries who studied no further are very Latin indeed. Others, who diligently strive to restore the authentic liturgy and theology of our Church, are fully Orthodox.

Would the Byzantine-Ruthenian hierarchy regard Vatican I as an ecumenical council? Ten years ago, every Byzantine Catholic bishop (Ruthenian, Melkite, Ukrainian, Romanian) would have publicly recognized Vatican I as fully ecumenical. Today they would not. In the Zoghby Initiative the Byzantine-Melkites professed "communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation." The hierarchs of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church supported the Zoghby statement from outside the Melkite patriarchate. If we were part of the Melkite Patriarchate I have no doubt that each would have signed. But we are dealing with our own issues. The seeds of Byzantium planted by our bishops in the last 15 years are growing but are not yet deeply rooted. This takes constant care and patience. It should be noted that the Byzantine-Melkites have not retracted their Orthodox profession of faith nor has Rome asked them to. In essence, they have made clear that Vatican I is not ecumenical in the same sense as the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Progress.

Universal jurisdiction? I don't know if the Byzantine-Ruthenian hierarchs would support or reject this. Clearly, even if we don't support the idea, we have lived with it for 350+ years. What is more important: rejecting a Latin doctrine or planting seeds among the Latins that will grow into fruit? Since we are currently under papal jurisdiction we accept this jurisdiction just as we have accepted the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the past and will again in the future in a reunited Church. Unless, hopefully, a new patriarchate is established for America (Judson for Patriarch!). All this takes time and a single generation will not necessarily see the fruit.

Dave Ignatius' posts have not been offensive in any way. They are simply honest. The Church fully recognizes, respects and supports those who, for matters of conscience, transfer between Catholicism and Orthodoxy (the working Balamand Document makes this clear). I have known several individuals who have wrestled with these issues and have made a conscious decision to formally enter into Orthodoxy. I have also known several others who have left Orthodox jurisdictions for Byzantine Catholic ones. When I examine these issues I repeatedly come to the same conclusion: I openly and proudly profess the Orthodox Faith but I am glad I am not a member of an Orthodox jurisdiction. Rome and Constantinople have little, if any, effect on my salvation and my day-to-day life. The current petrine model may be lacking and need redefinition but it carries with it unity - something those within Orthodoxy desperately need and do not have. IMHO, Orthodoxy will not find unity among the Orthodox until the time it finds unity with Peter.

"For the holy Churches of God and for the union of all, let us pray to the Lord!"

While I sympathize with the fine line Byzantine Catholics choose to walk, I also recognize that Orthodoxy has lost something due to it's lack of fellowship with the Roman Church. Each has suffered due to their individual proclivities towards centralization or decentralization. As one coming from a western non-Roman background, but with many Roman sympathies, I have tried to be as realistic about this as possible.

The problem for the Byzantine Catholic is that it is not how they see (or hope to see) the role of Rome as Peter, but rather how Rome sees the role of Rome as Peter. It is clear from the post-schism western "Ecumenical councils" that it is up to Rome, embodied in the Pope to ultimately define this role. Of course he will do so in consultation with his bishops, archbishops, cardinals, etc., but it is clear from what I have read (and heard on EWTN) that the model is more monarchical than conciliar, although the exact balance is unsure. It is, essentially Rome's move. Let's pray for the best.

I am hesitant to counsel any one on conversion, but in the abstract, I believe much is to be said for the principle of "stability", i.e. stay where you are. As Jesus pray that "all may be made one," our first duty is to build up the particular church fate finds us in. In my own parish I have know people who come and go because they don't like the sermons or the hymn selections while others have endured a dozen pastors, both good and bad. It is those in for the long haul that make the parish work and give the parish an ID beyond the personality of the clergy.

So too with our Metropolias and Patriarchates. Church unity is not served by transferring from church to church unless one's conscience absolutely demands it. To me, if an eastern Xian finds himself in communion with the centre of unity (the Pope), why would he break off that unity for anything but the most serious reason?

Lastly, on the issue of the Pope's universal jurisdiction, the issue is sometimes confused by speaking only in highly theological terms rather than practical. I will relate a story a Ukrainian Catholic lady told me about her family:

When the Holy Father Pius XI issued his encyclical condemning Nazism (Mit Brenner whatever...), this act was certainly a claim of universal jurisdiction. What other right would an Italian primate have to teach about the domestic political situation in Germany? But thank God he did. After the war when many displaced Ukrainians were seeking to come to America while the Soviets were saying we were fascist colaborationists, our loyalty to the Pope was evidence to the contrary.