www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Catholic to Orthodox

I was a little curious about whether there were any semi-public converts from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, and lo, I found an audio interview with Jim Likoudis on his journey from Greek Orthodoxy to the Church of Rome. Mr. Likoudis has written for The Wanderer and other Catholic publications over a number of years.

http://www.fisheaters.com/responses.html

(Look for the link "Catholic to Orthodox". Requires Real Audio.)

This is an interesting interview conducted by Marcus Grodi of ETWN's "The Journey Home."

Sultan,

I'm not sure that "convert" is really the proper term when it comes to individuals who move from one apostolic jurisdiction to another.

One better known individual who has entered union with Rome in recent years is Father Chrysostom Frank. He came over from the OCA and is now the pastor of St. Elizabeth of Hungary in Denver, CO...a bi-ritual (Russian and Latin) Catholic community. Part of the reason for his move was his study of the writings of St. Maximos the Confessor on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

There are others, of course, but out of respect for our Orthodox brothers and sisters, I won't list them here.

God bless,

Gordo

Born and raised an Irish Catholic, I now have one foot in the Roman Catholic Church and one foot in the Byzantine Catholic Church. I don't think I could ever go all the way to the Orthodox Church because I have been told it would necessitate that I give up my devotion to St. Therese of Lisieux, the Little Flower. This will never happen.

There are more than 20 Catholic Churches in the Universal Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is far and away the largest one. You can attend any of the Catholic Churches and receive any of the Sacraments/Mysteries at them.

However, you are only allowed to switch one time from a Catholic Church to another Catholic Church. Thus, I attend the Divine Liturgy at my local parish in the Byzantine Catholic Church of America, while I am still a Roman Catholic according to Canon Law.

I have read that you must renounce the Pope and many of the teachings of the Catholic Church in order to join an Orthodox Church. I have no idea if this is true or not.

Attending my local Byzantine Catholic Church where I attend Divine Liturgy and receive the Holy Mysteries is the perfect solution for me at this time.

In short, one foot in the West and one foot in the East. I suspect there are a lot of people like me in the U.S.

If I married someone who was orthodox I might consider switching, so as to keep familial unity. If I traveled to a country that had 90% orthodox I might switch as well. Otherwise I would not officially join the orthodox church. Even if I officially joined..I could not renounce Rome, if thats what was required I could not join. I dont understand the process exactly. I will always try my best to be a bridge between the different churches, apologizing for all three (oriental) . I still struggle to understand how similar the eastern orthodox church is to the western catholic church. I was just told some of the orthodox hierarchs may not view the western catholic sacraments valid, however the laity doesnt seem to worry about that. As I see it I already am orthodox but not all orthodox may not recognize this to be true.

"However, you are only allowed to switch one time from a Catholic Church to another Catholic Church."

Most everyone thinks that's true but there are exceptions to be made. For the sake of making lives easier the western church says only once, but if you're really mixed up or pressured a 2nd switch can happen if necessary..it's not as big a deal as people think, not worth worrying about. The church reflects God's love and forgiveness.

I had an armenian-persian aquaintance named Mariam Yasseri who was baptised roman catholic because the armenian apostolic priest was too scared of government reprisals on his head if he baptized her. So she is very happily catholic especially as the Armenian church has so much in common with the Latin church in it's appearances and rituals. I don't notice that many converts going either way, I am not a person who would know about this yet. I have noticed a few protestants that convert to the roman catholic church and than join either the eastern catholic or eastern orthodox church, but I dont know how significant they are.

I think the priest was afraid of the consequences of baptising someone who was seen by the Islamic Authorities as a Moslem. I met some elderly ladies in Melbourne (Aust) from Poland. They had been baptised publicly as RCs by day and were secretly baptised as Orthodox by night. This was in a particularly rough period of history before WW II in Poland.

ICXC
NIKA

Although I am sure that Mr. Likoudis is well intentioned, as an Eastern Catholic I do not agree with him on various Triadological issues (e.g., the filioque, the uncreated divine energies, etc.), or on issues related to the modern Western notion of doctrinal development.

Nevertheless, I found his interview with Marcus Grodi interesting, so thanks for the link.

Mr Poland:

I am in a situation very much like yours. Being raised as an Italian-American Roman Catholic, I went to Catholic School and also was an altar boy. I recently attended a Divine Liturgy at the one and only Byzantine Cathoilic Church in the state of New Mexico. I attended mainly out of curiousity, but found the experience very enchanting. I am sure that I will attend again from time to time as a visitor, but I do not believe I will ever be able to switch completely. BTW, my local RCC parish is St.Therese of the OInfant Jesus, the Little Flower

Dear Friends,

As for Orthodox venerating St Therese, let it be known that the devotion to the Little Flower truly BLOSSOMED (no pun intended) among the Russian Orthodox emigres to France (as did the penitential devotion of La Salette and even Lourdes).

There is NOTHING preventing Orthodox from venerating St Therese, or St Francis etc.

The now OCA monastery of New Skete was a former Byzantine Franciscan one.

Now they are Orthodox, they STILL print icons of St Francis and St Clare.

And one ROC bishop has also expressed his desire to see Pope John Paul II beatified soon - I take it he has private devotion to the holy Pontiff already.

In a response letter to me about this question, Orthodox theologian Father John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!) wrote:

"The private veneration of good and holy people who were not formally Orthodox is NOT condemned (by Orthodoxy)."

Alex

A few years ago, I took a course in spirituality at St. Tikhon's OCA seminary in South Canaan, Pa. It was primarily grounded in the writings of Fr. Dimitru Staniloae, a Romanian Orthodox priest, and promoter of Palamistic hesychasm. In my final paper, contrasting Orthodox and Catholic positions in this area, I used some of Likoudis' writings to support Catholic positions vis a vis Orthodox criticisms of Catholic doctrine.I also referred heavily to Ludwig Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma". In my research, I found out some interesting things: (1.) the "Reunion Council of Florence" condemned the teaching of Gregory Palamas which made distinctions between the Essence of God and His attributes (or, His "energies", i.e. the teaching that when one achieves theosis, one achieves a union with the "energies" of God, but not with His essence"). The assertion that God's Essence and attributes are inseparable was held, by that Council, to be a De Fide matter. Interestingly enough, the majority (or all?-I don't remember, but I think there were some who didn't) of Greek bishops present at that Council signed off on that document. Likoudis points out that, in the late 1800's the Russian Orthodox Synod of Bishops removed Palamistic teachings on this topic from the Synodikon of the Russian Church. For a Catholic to reject a Conciliar teaching at this level is problematic, to say the least. This does not necessarily cast any doubt on the holiness of Gregory Palamas. We must remember that St. Augustine taught some things that were rejected by the Church (i.e., that unbaptized babies suffer some level of pain in Hell).(P.S., the professor of the course, a priest of the Moscow Patriarchate, awarded an "A" grade to my paper, and to my work in the course,as a whole. There was no question of polemics or proselytism on anybody's part).
(2.) As to the Filioque controversy, Ott points out (I believe it was Ott-I'm writing from memory) that a good number of Eastern Fathers, understood the procession of the Holy Spirit to be "from the Father, THROUGH the Son", and that this is acceptable to the Catholic Church. It is my understanding that many Orthodox theologians have no problem with that formulation. As I understand it, they have more of a problem with the formulation that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as if from one spiration. Likoudis points out that, for Catholics, it is objectionable to hold, as did Patriarch Photius, that the Holy Spirit proceeds only through the Father, as if the Son was not involved. (I would add that this is logical because in the Gospels, we see Our Lord Jesus Christ promising to send the Holy Spirit).
(3.) As to the issue of "doctrinal development", I think there is a lot of misunderstanding on this topic. Modernists (i.e. Modernist heretics) in the Western Church see this as a "carte blanche" to change content of Church teachings. Many Eastern Orthodox critics of Catholicism are criticising that notion of "doctrinal development" as if it represented authentic Catholic teaching, when it does not. The authentic notion of "doctrinal development" is that the Deposit of Faith handed down to us, down through the ages, is unchanging, becuase it is from God. However, it is akin to a gold mine, and that we are still "mining" the gold. In other words, we are still being "brought up to speed" on the fullness of Divine Revelation, given our human condition. One important aspect of this notion is that "doctrinal developments" can NEVER contradict those matters of Faith and Morals that have already been defined. Just hoping to add some light on these issues.

Fr. Deacon Robert

Thank you Fr. Deacon for your response to my post.

Nevertheless, I think that you are in error about the Council of Florence condemning Palamism. I say this because, as Fr. Joseph Gill indicated in his study of that Western Council, the doctrine of uncreated divine energies was not discussed at the Council, and in fact when the question arose about whether the gifts of the Holy Spirit are the Spirit Himself as energy or whether they are "created" things, the Emperor -- and eventually the Pope himself -- intervened in order to redirect the discussion back to the question of the filioque (See Fr. Joseph Gill, "The Council of Florence," pages 205-206). Now, I am of course pleased to hear that you got an "A" on your paper, but that is quite irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

As a Byzantine Catholic I accept the doctrine of uncreated energies as it was taught by both St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Gregory Palamas (and others in the East), and I also subscribe to the teaching of the Palamite Councils of the fourteenth century, and to the Council of Blachernae (A.D. 1285) held under Patriarch St. Gregory II of Cyprus. That being said, it is clear that I reject the doctrine of the filioque as it was set forth in the Florentine decree of A.D. 1439. Now it is important to note that my rejection of Florence does not mean that I reject the idea that there is an eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit, because, as I have already indicated, I do accept the doctrine established at the Blachernae Council, that is, the doctrine that the Spirit as hypostatis proceeds from the Father alone, but that He is manifested through the Son in the divine energy. Thus, I maintain the distinction -- made by St. Maximos the Confessor -- between the procession (ekporeusis) of the Spirit from the Father alone (i.e., the fact that the Spirit receives His existence from the Father, and not from the Father and the Son as from a single principle, which tends toward a Sabellian view of the Trinity), and the manifestation (to proeinai) of the Spirit through the Son, both temporally and eternally, in the divine energy.

Now as far as the question of "doctrinal development" is concerned, I hold that the faith of the Church was delivered once and for all, whole and entire, to the Apostles, and that a decree (horos) of an Ecumenical Council is not a "development" of doctrine, but is instead simply the reaffirmation of the faith of the Church already held and divinely believed.

Finally, as a Byzantine Christian I reject the Scholastic theology underlying late medieval and modern Roman theology, and I do this because it is not compatible with the teaching of the Eastern Fathers. The theology of the West, especially as it was influenced by the resurgence of pagan philosophy during the late middle ages, should not be confused with that of the East, nor should the two theological traditions be blended in order to create a hybrid tradition. Sadly, there is a tendency on the part of many Roman Catholics (and even some Byzantine Catholics) to confuse the Scholastic schools of theology with the tradition of the Church herself, which would of course require an absolute Latinization of all Christians, but I reject that notion. In place of that misguided form of ecclesiastical imperialism, I support fully the ongoing de-latinization of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and I pray that they continue recover not only their proper liturgical customs (where these have been lost), but that they also reaffirm and embrace the doctrinal tradition of the Orthodox East, including of course the distinction between essence and energy.

God bless,
Todd

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Apotheoun:
[QB]
Nevertheless, I think that you are in error about the Council of Florence condemning Palamism. I say this because, as Fr. Joseph Gill indicated in his study of that Western Council, the doctrine of uncreated divine energies was not discussed at the Council, and in fact when the question arose about whether the gifts of the Holy Spirit are the Spirit Himself as energy or whether they are "created" things, the Emperor -- and eventually the Pope himself -- intervened in order to redirect the discussion back to the question of the filioque (See Fr. Joseph Gill, "The Council of Florence," pages 205-206).

I would refer you to Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma). He indicates that Florence condemned the notion of making distictions between the essence and attributes of God.

As a Byzantine Catholic I accept the doctrine of uncreated energies as it was taught by both St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Gregory Palamas (and others in the East).

Likoudis, in one of his recent books on Eastern Orthodoxy, makes a crucial distiction in this area. It is his assertion that Maximos never made a hard distinction between Divine Essence and Divine attributes. He goes on to say that those in the Catholic world who defend Palmite teachings in this area would need to demonstrate that Palamas' distinctions are not, in fact, making such hard distinctions.

I also subscribe to the teaching of the Palamite Councils of the fourteenth century, and to the Council of Blachernae (A.D. 1285) held under Patriarch St. Gregory II of Cyprus. That being said, it is clear that I reject the doctrine of the filioque as it was set forth in the Florentine decree of A.D. 1439.

As a Catholic, Eastern or Western, I would not feel myself to be on solid ground rejecting the teachings of a Council which the Catholic Church holds to be "Ecumenical". I realize that the Eastern Orthodox don't see it this way. But,where Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism disagree, I am a Catholic.

Thus, I maintain the distinction -- made by St. Maximos the Confessor -- between the procession (ekporeusis) of the Spirit from the Father alone (i.e., the fact that the Spirit receives His existence from the Father, and not from the Father and the Son as from a single principle, which tends toward a Sabellian view of the Trinity), and the manifestation (to proeinai) of the Spirit through the Son, both temporally and eternally, in the divine energy.

That sounds somewhat like the formula I mentioned before (from the Father THROUGH the Son).

Now as far as the question of "doctrinal development" is concerned, I hold that the faith of the Church was delivered once and for all, whole and entire, to the Apostles, and that a decree (horos) of an Ecumenical Council is not a "development" of doctrine, but is instead simply the reaffirmation of the faith of the Church already held and divinely believed.

No disagreement there. But, as I mentioned before, "doctrinal developments" must not conflict with that deposit of Faith handed down. I refer back to that "gold mine" analogy.

Finally, as a Byzantine Christian I reject the Scholastic theology underlying late medieval and modern Roman theology, and I do this because it is not compatible with the teaching of the Eastern Fathers. The theology of the West, especially as it was influenced by the resurgence of pagan philosophy during the late middle ages, should not be confused with that of the East, nor should the two theological traditions be blended in order to create a hybrid tradition. Sadly, there is a tendency on the part of many Roman Catholics (and even some Byzantine Catholics) to confuse the Scholastic schools of theology with the tradition of the Church herself, which would of course require an absolute Latinization of all Christians, but I reject that notion. In place of that misguided form of ecclesiastical imperialism, I support fully the ongoing de-latinization of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and I pray that they continue recover not only their proper liturgical customs (where these have been lost), but that they also reaffirm and embrace the doctrinal tradition of the Orthodox East, including of course the distinction between essence and energy.

I think that the most important thing to be aware of is that theology, whether Eastern or Western, is pursued in service to the Church. When an Ecumenical Council of the Church, with the blessing of the Pope of Rome, and the Divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, arrives at a definitive "De Fide" teaching, it should not matter whether the theology employed is from a Western or Eastern source. Because, at that point, it becomes a "received and accepted" teaching. One can see the beauty of this especially in the Church of the First Milennium.

Good chatting with you. Hope to keep up the discussion.

Fr. Deacon Robert

Just for the record:

Saint Gregory Palamas stated that the filioque proceeds from the Father and the Son, but in different ways.

Zenovia

Hi John,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I'm a BC who has decided to become Orthodox if my beloved parish ever closes-- which is unfortunately a likely possibility in the not-too-distant future. I have been contemplating the doctrinal and theological implications of doing so.

I too have a devotion to St. Therese of Lisieux, and I know many Orthodox who do also. You certainly wouldn't have to give that up, and I wouldn't. I'm Catholic, and I have a devotion to the Greek Orthodox Saint Nektarios.

As for the pope, I believe-- and would still believe as an Orthodox Christian-- in the *spiritual* primacy of the Bishop of Rome. He is the "first among equals." I admit that I don't think that the papacy was ever meant to be a monarchy. To the best of my knowledge, this is in line with the Orthodox understanding of the role of the Pope of Rome.

God bless,

Karen

I'm sorry but Likoudis has no competency that I can see in Maximos the Confessor. His grasp of Palamism is also quite poor. Real distinction doesn't amount to separation unless you are thinking of it dialectically or as Plotinus put it "distinction is opposition." If someone wants to learn Maximos, I recommend sticking with experts that actually have done the work here like Joseph P. Farrell, Lars Thunberg, and von Balthasar. Even von Balthasar, in Cosmic Liturgy affirms that the divine logoi are not identical to the divine essence nor identical with each other and are Unconfused and Undivided God. Hmm...wonder where that came from?

It this Neo-Platonic simplicity and its dialectic as taught by Origen and then again later by St. Augustine and the Scholastics that makes everything identical that is wrong and wrongheaded. See my paper Synergy in Christ:

http://www.energeticprocession.com/...%20Saint%20Maximus%20the%20Confessor.pdf

Photios Jones