www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Why Can't We Proselytize the Schismatic Orthodox?

Just before I disappear for a month, I am now going to get my head in my hands for this post I have no doubt

I have to admit that my reaction - as a Latin , and as a member of this family [ as Admin reminded me some time ago when I said I was a guest ] that the title of this thread concerned me when it was first posted - in fact my heart sank.

The words Proselytize and Schismatic in the same thread -- aaaaaaargh trouble brewing and then I spotted Orthodox attached to Schismatic - oooops !

It's so unwise to use these terms in my view - we are making a judgement and do we have that right ?

I accept that Paxtecvm [ love the spelling of that BTW - meant to comment on it and kept forgetting ] probably has lots more learning than I do - my theology is definitely at 101 stage but I think in his enthusiastic youth stage he is just so full of love that his heart , and his desire to communicate run away with him.

To me the great thing about being here is meeting with ECs EOs and of course OOs and being able to learn from them - it's fascinating and I have learnt so much. Things now can trip off my tongue at one of our Liturgy Group meetings here that cause our 3 Priests to look at me in complete wonderment and then I realise what I have said [ and sometimes shut my mouth very swiftly - partic . on the subject of Infant Communion ]

When I first introduced myself here I explained that though I was a convert to the RC Church I was uncomfortable with the term Convert - there really is no alternative to it - but it's not so much a conversion to something, more a journey of Faith which, thanks to the Lord , leads you there.

Give him a chance guys - explain gently that it's better to write out your post - re read it carefully , go away from it for about an hour and simmer down and then, re-read it again and see if you think you really should post it. Come to think of it that's something we should all do - and me in particular .

Paxtecvm don't give up heart !

Anhelyna

Dear Friends,

The things you miss over a long weekend!

I think I'm with Orthodox Student on this one, we sometimes get very defensive over things here, call them "offensive" and then effectively move to shut down debate.

Pax Tecum has at least quoted Catholic sources and is well within the parameters of Catholic doctrine, even contemporary Catholic doctrine as expressed by the CCC to hold the views he does.

Does the Roman Catholic Church believe it is the true church with the fullness of Tradition? Yes, it does.

And despite Catholic ecumenical rhetoric, the point is, for all their "sisterliness" as Churches the Orthodox are viewed by Rome as "Almost but not quite."

If Rome TRULY believed as we believe about the Orthodox, then why does Rome not support the Russian Orthodox Church as the primary Church in Russia? Why is it not sensitive to Orthodox feelings when it goes ahead and establishes new dioceses?

We've been over these points before, but I find that there seem to be two realities about Catholic views of the Orthodox - the one we hold as idealists, I'll say, which is the academic, theoretical "wishful thinking" perpsective.

The other is what Rome actually believes, ecumenical rhetoric notwithstanding.

If Rome practiced what it says it believes about the Orthodox, then there wouldn't be the ill-feelings that we currently have in Eastern Europe and Russia especially toward Roman Catholics and "uniates" who are seen as Rome's most insidious lackeys since they "pretend" to be Orthodox etc.

Sorry for all these politically incorrect statements.

But Pax Tecum raised an issue that we are the ones who should be raising and discussing, rather than merely assuming that it has already been put to bed and there is no problem etc.

There most definitely is a problem.

Alex

OS & Dunstan,

Thanks for your posts.

It is my experience that those who come here and post with great charity, seeking information and avoiding condemnation of others, are treated with great respect and charity in return. Those who come here and start posting from the �please prove to me you are acceptable in the eyes of the Catholic Church� attitude receive less friendly responses. In the past seven years I have responded to thousands of questions that have been received at the website. Those asking the questions fall into two distinct groups: 1) those who are curious and open to our testimony of Jesus Christ and how we go about being Catholic and 2) those who start with the notion that we are not really Catholic and demand proof that we have permission to be different from Latin Catholics (which they see as the sole guardian of Catholicism).

PaxTecvm�s error was in his initial post in which he issued a condemnation and challenged people to argue against his position. If he had posted charitably and simply asked some questions he would have been received warmly as are other new members who are charitable. Or even if he had altered his posting style to be charitable after his first confrontation he would have been received warmly.

Both of you correctly note that some people might be chased away because they are not made to feel welcome. It is, however, difficult to respond to someone who comes here with an incomplete understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches about the East, has not read any of the Church teachings on the topic, demands that we provide proof that what we state about what the Church teaches is actually true, and then dismisses the proof they asked for because it does not agree with their preconceived opinions. Sometimes it is a no-win situation.

Admin

Alex,

Thanks for your posts.

I am confused by some of the content of your post. I noted clearly in my prior posts that Rome viewed the Orthodox as being part of the Catholic Church, although imperfectly. Your post, if it was a reply to mine, seemed to indicate that I was stating something else. I don�t understand your statement about �Catholic ecumenical rhetoric�. The Catholic Church has always been clear that the communion with Orthodoxy is imperfect.

PaxTecvm�s presentation of Catholic teaching on this topic was very incomplete. In my opinion it was not within the parameters of Catholic doctrine as expressed by the CCC. The Catholic Catechism quite plainly speaks to the communion with Orthodoxy being so profound that there is little lacking which would prevent a common celebration of the Eucharist. As I have noted many times, this points to an understanding of a degree of communion between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I fail to see how you could consider PT�s post as well within the theology of the Catholic Catechism. The Church is clear that individual Orthodox are not to be targets of conversion to Catholicism and that the full restoration of communion must come at the level of Churches.

I do agree that Rome�s stated teaching on this topic is often at odds with Rome�s behavior. Both Rome and Orthodoxy, IMHO, have behaved very uncharitably towards one another.

Admin

As a convert to the Orthodox Church, I have not attempted to convince Roman Catholics to leave their Church. Only for those who are seriously disturbed by the recent events within the Roman Church or have problems with some theological explanations, I have ecouraged them to visit an Orthodox Church. I ask them to look into Orthodox Church before embracing Protestant Fundamentalism or just stop going to Church all together.

Well, depends what you mean by "Orthodox." There are no "two Orthodoxies", certainly on a dogmatic level.

No, I'm Seraphim, an Orthodox catechumen, who recognizes the canons for what they say, and I try to understand the Church as the Fathers did - I don't believe I have some greater insight into these matters than they did, nor do I believe that they in turn had a greater insight into these matters than the Holy Apostles.

What sort of unity, though? The blasphemous "union" of Florence, which eventually was repented of by those who went along with it?

The problem is, there are no "schools" on this subject, at least not in it's basic, dogmatic dimension. The Orthodox Church = the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, and those remain in Her because of their perseverance in the true faith, and their participation in true mysteries. There can be no such thing as a "heterodox Church", at least not by Orthodox reckoning.

The point isn't numbers, or to achieve a politcally successful "unia" - true Christian sincerity is grounded in truth. This is where ecumenism fails, even the use of the word "ecumenism" itself denoting error (since it's borrowed from the fundamentally Protestant, pan-denominational movement that sought to unify people on the basis of a "mere Christianity", rather than the Orthodox understanding of "ecumenical".)

I think you leave out a lot of history in such a reflection on Florence. Keep in mind, the main impetus towards this unia, was the desire of the Emperor to gain the support of the Latins against the Mohammedans, and he knew full well this support would not come without a healing of the then relatively new (at least compared to our present condition) schism between Old Rome and the Orthodox Church of the East.

Unfortunately, we all know how that went. The only Orthodox Father of that whole affair we recognize for having sanctity and the true confession is precisely the one who rejected Florence - St.Mark of Ephesus.

The other problem with your appraisal, is that it assumes a fundamentally Roman Catholic (and a more or less modern one at that) for all of the participants of Florence. You seem to confound the RC concept of "Apostolic Succession" with the Orthodox one. The former, is what allows western born vagante "churches" to claim to have valid sacraments (and as far as the RCC is concerned, many of them do.)

However this outward dimension of "apostolic succession" is only part of the picture - it is merely the outward form. In truth, there is no "apostolic succession" outside of the Church. How can there be? Such ideas treat Holy Mysteries like magical rotes which can be kidnapped and put to their true use outside of the Church. That, from a Patristic understanding (let alone a Biblical one) is incomprehensible.

At best, the attempt at reunion at Florence (on the Orthodox side) was built on a desire to see Rome return to the fold. More practically, it was an attempt to gain military help agains the Muslims. Either way, it did not come to a good end.

It's also worth keeping in mind, that the Rome which the Orthodox were "dialoging" with at that time, was a much different Rome (and Latin west in general) than what we know now. There was no "dogma of infallibility" yet, along with the various other dogmas of the Latins. Scholasticism hadn't run it's full course yet, and the total transformation of Latin praxis had not yet occured. I guess what I mean to say here, is that even if we wanted to take for granted the propiety of what happened at Florence, it has to be pointed out that the Rome which the Orthodox Churches of that time was talking to was far more "Orthodox" than the institution which the ecumenists now deal with.

It's not a matter of like or dislike - sadly, that's what it is.

Well, truth is not a democracy (well, at least it's not determined by a democracy into which just anybody is enfranchised.)

Seraphim

There's been a lot of ink spilled here, and I don't have a lot of time because I'm at work, but anyway . . .

Maybe everyone here should meditate on the fact that Paxtecvm's questions are considered "offensive", but Seraphim Reeve's polemics are not.

Seraphim, your views about the Roman Church don't make any sense at all. You confuse validity with liceity. If the *validity* of sacraments is tied to their Orthodox canonicity, then what do you say about the ROCOR, or the KP, or the Macedonians? What do you say about your own Patriarchs and Fathers who have recognized the validity of the Sacraments in the west?

Rome has indeed taught that Apostolic succession can take place outside the Church, and that vagante groups can have valid sacraments. Nevertheless, Rome has also taught that to perform the sacraments outside the Church is to do violence to them, and to commit sacrilege. Maybe that is why, in her maternal concern for all her sheep, Rome has bent over backwards in recent decades to confer licit status upon those eastern jurisdictions separated from her.

LatinTrad

"I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."

"Su ei Petros kai epi taut�n t�n Petr�n oik�dom�s� mou t�n ekkl�sian" --Jesus Christ (Mt 16:18)

PaxTecvm presented his or her questions along with a condemnation as if it were authoritative Catholic teaching.

Seraphim Reeve�s postings are indeed polemical but are not presented as if he were expressing authoritative Orthodox teaching.

L-T, do you see the difference?

Orthodoxy does not have the same sense of validity and licity as does Roman Catholicism. Orthodoxy simply states that the Sacraments of those in communion with Orthodoxy are valid. It does not officially pronounce any judgment upon those who are not in communion with her. An Orthodox Christian is free to believe that Catholic Sacraments, for example, are efficacious. He is also free to believe that they are not efficacious. This is not dismissive but rather Orthodoxy�s way of keeping the focus on the bigger picture.

Orthodoxy makes no official pronouncement about apostolic succession apart from the Orthodox Church. One can certainly argue, however, that Rome does recognize the validity of apostolic succession in the Catholic Church and the efficaciousness of Catholic Sacraments even though Orthodoxy has not issued an official ruling on the issue.

Rome has bent over backward in recent decades to confer licit status upon the Eastern jurisdictions she is not in communion with because Rome has realized that in the past she has been very arrogant in the way she has placed the Latin Catholic experience as superior to other Catholic experiences. Hopefully, every Catholic individual and Church will grow to the fullness of respect of other Catholic individuals and Churches. This is what is really needed before full communion with the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches can be re-established.

Dear Alice:

I agree that terms like "proselytize" and "schismatics" are highly inflammatory. (And "proselytize" isn't even accurate: The proper term for what Catholics are supposed to do is "evangelize," which doesn't carry all the negative freight of "proselytism.")

Yet I do believe Pax Tecvm is asking a basically valid question. (Perhaps it would help if he asked it in a more diplomatic way. )

For the record, AFAIK, the Holy father has never said that both of our communions have the "fullness of the faith" -- leastwise not that I know of! What he has said is that Eastern Orthodoxy "lacks little of that fullness" required for full communion. There may be only a subtle difference between "lacking little" of the fullness and "having all" the fullness. But it's a difference nonetheless. This may sound condescending, but please bear in mind that many Orthodox routinely say far more patronizing-sounding things about us. (Not that you do, of course--quite the contrary. But on the Internet at least, you seem to be the exception that proves the rule! )

Second point: Per Catholic Teaching, the Holy Father is not merely the "first among equals." As we see it, according to Our Lord Himself in the Gospels, Peter's Successor is the Rock upon whom the Church is built, the Holder of the Keys, the Chief Shepherd and Tender of the Sheep, the Confirmer of the Brethren. He possesses not merely primacy of honor (which would be pretty meaningless anyway) but also primacy of jurisdiction -- real authority, IOW, over the Church Universal. That is Catholic teaching, and it is why we've historically regarded the Eastern Orthodox as technically "schismatic" (although we try, um, to avoid using that term nowadays ). We recognize that we lose much through the tragic division that separates us from your patriarchs. But we don't believe we lose any of the fullness of our catholicity thereby. "Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia." The Church in union with Peter's successor is the only Church that has the fullness of faith and truth--although y'all come really really close.

This, again, is Catholic Teaching. In saying so, I feel sure I will get slammed for being "triumphalistic" and "ultramontanist" -- but then, please remember that many EOs' attitudes toward us are no less "triumphalistic." Such "triumphalism" is kind of unavoidable when both communions claim to be the One True Church. Know what I mean?

Blessings,

ZT

They aren't? Coulda fooled me.

ZT, who knows Seraphim from other boards, other polemics. Hi, Seraphim, BTW!

I almost choked on my baklava at this one. :lol:

I've heard apologias like this before. They always strike me as Orwellian newspeak. Sorry.

Love,

ZT

It is true that Orthodoxy has an official view of us that (frankly) strikes us as, er, a tad insulting. But it's also true that our official view of y'all is not quite as mushy-indifferentist as many Orthodox seem to think.

As several folks here have pointed out, no "official" binding Catholic document says that we both (EOs and RCs) possess the fullness of the truth. Au contraire, the latest official document to address the issue -- Dominus Iesus -- clearly reasserts the time-honored dogmatic Church Teaching that only the Catholic Church in union with Peter possesses that fullness--although Orthodoxy does come close.

Likewise, no binding Church document says that Catholics shouldn't work and pray to bring their Orthodox brethren home to the fullness of the faith in communion with Peter.

Balamand doesn't count. It's neither binding nor dogmatic.

Just to clarify.

God bless,

ZT

ZT,

You should always keep something to drink close by when you munch on baklava.

Look at the way the West categorizes sin into mortal and venial and has a well-developed definition and ranking. Then contrast this with the East�s refusal to embrace such a categorization because it removes the focus from the fact that all sin is a walking away from God and that it is the repentance and reformation that is important (and not the measurement of the sin). Orthodoxy�s non-comment on the status of the Sacraments of the Churches that are not in communion with her is directly reflective of the same approach. There is nothing Orwellian about this at all.

One of the mistakes Roman Catholics often make is to assume that Eastern Christians speak the same theological language as they do. When I see this happening I always think of the TV program M*A*S*H and the episode where Frank Burns was telling someone that all Koreans understand English if you spoke it loud enough. It just isn�t true.

Also, please note that PaxTecvm has caused ill will because of the uncharitable way in which he or she asked the questions. No one has suggested that such questions were invalid. Again, if he or she had asked questions without the condemnatory attitude this thread would have taken a quite different direction. People need to begin these discussions with �Why do you believe X� or �Please explain Y to me� rather than issuing condemnations.

Admin

Thank you, Orthodox Student!!

I seldom come to this board for that very reason. I find it extremely hostile to RCs (unless they toe the ideological line that prevails around here -- about which line I hesitate to speak for fear of being trounced for not toeing it;)).

Thanks for understanding.

ZT

Amen, Dunstan.

I know you are not making a blanket statement about the forum but just commenting on the general tenor or atmosphere.

I used to want to become Eastern Catholic -- or at least attend a BC parish if I had the opportunity. But I've been so confused (and yes, sometimes put off) by the posts on this board (and at other places) that I no longer know if that's what I want. It's very confusing and distressing.

Please pray for me, too. I'm certainly well aware that I have often offended.

ZT