www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Converts & Their effect on the Church

Converts are truly a prime indicator of whether a religion or church is alive and carrying forth its particular faith. Judaism, at the time of our Lord, and until proselytizing became a capital offense, Judaism in its various forms (except priestly class) grew and spread through conversion. Today the earlier pattern is going forward again because without conversions the religion dies. Christianity, of course, is first and foremost a convert based faith, even today in many areas of the world, as is/and has been, Islam. There is, however, a difference often between the personalities of "cradle" members of a religion to whom the notion of "spiritual seeking" may or may not have ever occurred (indeed there may appropriately have been no need) and those who converted to another faith as a result of spiritual hunger, prayer and thought. Viva la difference! Moshe Zorea

I am the first one to agree that Orthodoxy must in many ways, "catch up with the times." So often, it is indeed stuck in the first millennium. There has been no serious leadership on problems facing the world today and church leaders seem more intent on preserving an imperial structure, in which the church is in collaboration with and supported by the state, rather than helping its adherents to understand the complexities of life as it effects them today and the many moral choice to be made in our world.

On the other hand, as I've said before, Orthodoxy could have much to teach the universal church about concilliarism versus a hierarchical model. Unfortunately, it does appear that many parts of Orthodoxy are neglecting the concilliar form in favor of a hard handed episcopal authority approach. Even Bartholomew I has been seen as trying to create for himself a type of Orthodox papacy and Moscow can even appear as a competing candidate for this role. Whether or not this is true is open for interpretation.

As Anastasios has said, neither church is perfect. This must be understood before over-enthusiasm for either side gets in the way of honest criticism.

On a different note, it would appear from the comments here, that Anastasios, you are much more comfortable in Orthodoxy while Robert . . . well, you've already made your loyalty to the Holy See and the sacred "rock" quite clear.

God bless you both and let's remember that a balanced approach is what is healthy and needed as we examine the peculiarities of both of our churches.

Fr. Joe

Alex: God bless you and thanks for your comments about the various rites. I am aware that the Mozarabic is still practice in Spain and that some others were suppressed only recently. We probably agree more than not, so again, thanks for the healthy interaction.

Fr. Joe

On a different note, it would appear from the comments here, that Anastasios, you are much more comfortable in Orthodoxy while Robert . . . well, you've already made your loyalty to the Holy See and the sacred "rock" quite clear.

God bless you both and let's remember that a balanced approach is what is healthy and needed as we examine the peculiarities of both of our churches.

Fr. Joe[/QB][/QUOTE]


How can one have a balanced approach to the absolute truth of our divine faith that the Church was founded on Peter and his succesors? Am I supposed to criticize the Holy See in order to appease the Orthodox who might somehow feel that Im being too "offensive" in what Im saying.

It is our duty as Catholics to lead as many persons as possible into the fold of our Holy Mother the Church so that their souls may drink deeply of her life giving water.

I realize that there are many Eastern rite Catholics who feel that Rome is merely a useless appendage for our particular Churches and that we should seperate ourselves from her divine fold in order to become more Orthodox. But in truth the Catholic Church is the most perfect of Churches for it was she alone that was founded by our Blessed Lord and given the command to preach unto all nations. Meembership in her fold is not an option or something that can be discussed or debated. Instead one must simply believe and accept the Papacy for all its marvelous attributes.

Believe me, for those of you thinking on joining Orthodoxy, my advice is that Ive been to the top of the mountian and, while observing many pleasant sights, have non the less found no paradise. To anyone thinking of converting fom Catholcsim to Orthodoxy, please listen to me before you do because where you are going, Ive already traveled. Perhaps my experience could be of help to you to which I know it would be. Of course I shall be despised to the core by the pro-Orthodox Byzantines who, no doubt, may see me as a barrier to their rose colored utopian ideas. But I can take that and all other offenses for the Papacy and Holy Rome, thriced blessed with the blood of the martyrs. She is the only real way to unity, visible unity of the Catholic Church.

Without the Papacy, I am convinced that no real unity could ever be achieved between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox. THe only result of a "Im okay, your okay, lets leave it at that" type of reunuion would be another schism because in order for the Church to be one, shes got to have unity.
Things like the Zogbe approach would never work because they try to downplay (Or as some could say, eliminate) THe most blessed Papal throne as being the only center of communion for the Catholic Church of Christ!

Robert K.

Someone earlier mentioned Peter Meyendorff's book, _The Primacy of Peter_ which gives an Eastern Orthodox view of the role of the Pope.

I must confess that having just read this book, while I found it quite interesting I also found it unconvincing -- and believe me, when I was reading this book it was an open mind, being prepared to accept Eastern Orthodoxy.

A more powerful work for me on this matter was one published by Ignatius Press, _Upon this Rock_ by Stephen Ray. In this book, I found a very strong argument, based upon the Fathers, scripture, etc. which demonstrated the obvious reverence for which the Pope was held, complete with a commentary which seemed to logically demonstrate that Pope did have more than an honorific role.

There was much commentary in this work, and I was reading it at the same time frame as the Meyendorff book. Fearing that I might rather be swayed by the commentary rather than the actual writings of the Fathers, I tried to read the commentary afterward. Even then I found that the meaning of the Fathers seemed most clearly in favour of the Catholic understanding of the papacy.

I say all this not as a triumphalistic proclamation because, like many others, I see this schism as accursed. I take no glory in the schism of the Orthodox and Catholics. It also doesn't mean I devalue the Orthodox. But, those caveats aside, I feel that what Robert K. has said is true and I thank him for remininding me of this reality as well.

Robert,

if i may ask, were you ever really Orthodox in your heart? Did you ever really believe that Orthodoxy was true and Catholicism false?

Christian

Robert K and SR,

Can you describe for me--with facts, not ideology or assumptions--where the Pope of Rome was able to successfully impose upon the Eastern Church a dogma or practice that the Eastern Church did not share with the papacy.

It seems to me that the Eastern Church pretty much functioned on its own, with few interventions from the Church of Rome, and when the Church of Rome did intervene, the Greeks often simply ignored the popes or rebuked them for intervening in situations the Eastern Patriarchs denied the papacy had any right to jurisdiction in.

Clearly, the concept of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, though eventually adhered to by the Western Church, was never considered to be the consensus of belief of the Greek Church. The same paadigm applies equally to the Roman Catholic concept of papal infallibility.

At least this is the opinion of my cousin, Dimitri Sarajic,--RIP-- who studied at both Holy Cross--Brookline--and in Bucharest, Romania, under priest scholars of the Orthodox Church.

As an outsider looking in, I believe both sides make arguments that are too simplistic and ignore the complexity created by the facts.

However,I am prejudiced in favor of the Orthodox facts since I believe they hold the upper hand on facts verifying their position.

The assumption that the Orthodox sources Catholics guote in an effort to prove certain papal positions could very well do just the opposite since there seems to be an a priori assumption that these Orthodox sources clearly understood papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc., through the prism of the 19th century, which is obviously a logical impossibility.

If I can ever convince my mother to embrace Christianity, both of us will embrace Orthodoxy since they clearly have kept the true faith undefiled and are the spiritual descendents of the Holy Greek Fathers, as Catholics might very well be the descendents of the Latin Fathers.

No matter the anonymity of Holy Orthodoxy in the West; no matter its current difficulties over jurisdictions and administrative unity; or any other real or perceived difficulties, She remains the "truest of the true," and certainly no other Christians have offered up more martyrs to God than the Orthodox. Muslims should know!

I must say that I am disgusted with the Orthodox that have failed to come to the defense of their Faith on the issues presented here for discussion. I certainly am not impressed with the so called Orthodox converts--from cultures foreign to Orthodoxy--who seem to be too cowardly to engage in spiritual jihad in defense of their faith.

Too many so-called Orthodox converts are nothing more than Sunshine Patriots and entered Orthodoxy with ill intentions based on their insincerity and with no intention to remain loyal to vows and oaths they made to God.

This matter of playing with vows and oaths is a sign of our times and the moral corruption of our cultures and the hearts of many: God is aware..He is aware.

However, it is best for the insincere to return to their previous religious affiliation; best for them and for Orthodoxy, and especially for Orthodox children.

Abdur

Seeker and friend of Orthodoxy

[ 04-20-2002: Message edited by: Abdur Islamovic ]

Alham'dol'illah!

Our Muslim friend has given a challenge (in rather harsh words) to us Orthodox on this list.

But why do we need to defend our faith when the Muslims do it so well for us?

However, I'll try to make one small contribution to the "spiritual jihad" for Orthodox Christianity:

What is the essence of Christianity, an external organization and institutional unity, or the purity of the Apostolic faith and unity in faith?

Robert claims that only the papacy can guarantee unity...

Purhaps in matters of organization this is true, but in matters of faith??

I believe it is obvious for everyone to see, that even though the Catholic church has external unity, there is much larger diversity in matters of faith and doctrine there, than in the juridictionally divivded Orthodox Church.

And besides, according to modern catholic doctrine, we orthodox are not heretics, in other words even the Catholic church admit that we have managed to perserve the true faith without the papacy or any central authority...

In other words the papacy is not essential to the survival of the church and the true faith!

Is belief that Catholicism is false what "really" makes someone Orthodox "in your heart"? Hopefully not, but if so, I'd want no part of that Orthodoxy...

Mor Ephrem,

of course this is not enough to be "truly orthodox" in your heart.

But if Orthodoxy is true, then Catholicism is false, eigther the Papacy is essential to the church or it is not, you can't have it both ways!

Robert has come to the conclusion the Catholicism is true and the Papacy is essential to the church, thereby rejecting Orthodoxy...

Dear Abdur --

Can you describe for me--with facts, not ideology or assumptions--where the Pope of Rome was able to successfully impose upon the Eastern Church a dogma or practice that the Eastern Church did not share with the papacy.

It seems that you are perhaps seeking to understand the differnce between dogma and culturalism.

I am a convert from 25 years of Protestantism. The more I studied history, the more I became aware that the Protestant teaching of history was simply not what the Early Church practiced. As such, I had to then discern the very thing which you are asking about.

I hope that perhaps a small illustration will be helpful (remember, I am a convert and far from as knowledgeable as many on this board who were born to their respective faiths).

In our Byzantine rite, we commune our children as soon as they are able to swallow. Tiny infants are given a few drops of the Precious Blood of Christ from the spoon with which the priest serves the faithful. However, this is not the case in the Latin rite. Children are made to wait until they are confirmed and then celebrate their "first communion."

These differences are differences of administration of the Eucharist. They come from different understandings of HOW the Eucharist is to be administered to the Body of Christ. The Latin West has not ordered us to cease and desist from communing our infant children, therefore, it cannot be said that this is a dogma.

The dogma that we MUST SHARE, that all Catholics must believe in, is the teaching that Christ is truly and substantially present in the elements after the proper prayers of consecration have been said over them.

I also have to wonder just how dogmatic the filique (you know, that HUGE issue which still separates East from West) when John Paul II printed the Nicene Creed in its original form (sans filique) in his recent DOMINUS IESUS. Seems to me that this four word bomb may not have the status of dogma which it seems to have. Certainly, lacking concicular ratification, I am under no ecclessiastical warrant to include it in my prayers, and thus do not.

The same may be said of the issue (non issue?) of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. When I first heard that there was a row concerning this teaching, I assumed there was a profound difference between the two camps. But the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (also known in Orthodoxy as The Dormition of the Theotokos) seems to be an arguement more over semantics (and may I say, typical human pride and stubborness) than it does of any substance. The reason I say this is that the END is the same -- the Blessed Mother is in Heaven with Her Son. Why the big stress out over the wording we use to describe HOW She got there? (Which is like arguing over going to Harrisburg from Baltimore by using I - 83 as opposed to Route 15 North -- you still will wind up in Baltimore -- is one somehow superior to the other?).

It seems to me that the Eastern Church pretty much functioned on its own, with few interventions from the Church of Rome, and when the Church of Rome did intervene, the Greeks often simply ignored the popes or rebuked them for intervening in situations the Eastern Patriarchs denied the papacy had any right to jurisdiction in.

Hardly, since there is a history of the popes deposing heretical bishops and the Eastern Church submitting to that authority until the schism.

Clearly, the concept of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, though eventually adhered to by the Western Church, was never considered to be the consensus of belief of the Greek Church.

My friend, that is not what I read when I was studying to get out of Protestantism. Had I read such, and a good defense from Orthodoxy, I would be EO today.

The same paadigm applies equally to the Roman Catholic concept of papal infallibility.

During the great debate over the Deity of Christ, between the years of 512 and 518 AD, every Eastern Bishoprick was Arian in their understanding of Christ and persecuted the two men who were not -- St. Athanasius and the pope. Yet today, all Orthodox agree that the teaching of the Godhead in Holy Trinity is correctly orthodox Christian teaching. Therefore, I must say that the promise of Christ to St. Peter that the Church, of which the office of St. Peter is the head, would be kept from error, must obviously have applied in that day.

At least this is the opinion of my cousin, Dimitri Sarajic,--RIP-- who studied at both Holy Cross--Brookline--and in Bucharest, Romania, under priest scholars of the Orthodox Church.

May his memory be eternal. It is, however, quite true that we tend to study and learn that which reinforces our opinions and prejudices. I saw this quite clearly as a Protestant. You would be amazed to see how many different understandings of the Early Church are held by various Protestant sects. The Church was, at one and the same time, Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, etc, etc, etc....

As an outsider looking in, I believe both sides make arguments that are too simplistic and ignore the complexity created by the facts.

Actually, I think that that the facts are more simple and the arguements, with their associated prejudices, are that which complicate things. But I could be wrong here.

However,I am prejudiced in favor of the Orthodox facts since I believe they hold the upper hand on facts verifying their position.

Sorry. Must disagree with you here. Believe me, I was highly attracted to Orthodoxy, since I was viriulently anti-Catholic and anti-papal as a Protestant. I had every reason to try to avoid becoming a Catholic of any stripe. But as I studied the covenant of God and applied the principles of that covenant to the earthly Church, I saw that there must be an earthly head over the Church for several reasons. Be glad to give them to you in a file if you wish. Much to long to post here.

If I can ever convince my mother to embrace Christianity, both of us will embrace Orthodoxy since they clearly have kept the true faith undefiled and are the spiritual descendents of the Holy Greek Fathers, as Catholics might very well be the descendents of the Latin Fathers.

And in the day you do embrace Orthodoxy, I will rejoice for you and welcome you into the kingdom of God as a brother in the faith we commonly share. May your seeking bring you to find the One Who is the joy of all mankind.

I certainly am not impressed with the so called Orthodox converts--from cultures foreign to Orthodoxy--who seem to be too cowardly to engage in spiritual jihad in defense of their faith.

Too many so-called Orthodox converts are nothing more than Sunshine Patriots and entered Orthodoxy with ill intentions based on their insincerity and with no intention to remain loyal to vows and oaths they made to God.

Oh dear. I do hope that is not my case. You make it sound so grim regarding converts.

Abdur

Seeker and friend of Orthodoxy

I do hope that my Orthodoxy (as mentioned in a previous post) is not conditioned upon whether or not I am in communion with the Holy Father, but whether or not I am living to all that which is orthodox in Christian thought.

Abdur,


I knew it! I knew it! I knew It!


Most Holy Mother of God
pray for Abdur & his Mother's Conversion.

Nicky's Baba

[I must say that I am disgusted with the Orthodox that have failed to come to the defense of their Faith on the issues presented here for discussion. I certainly am not impressed with the so called Orthodox converts--from cultures foreign to Orthodoxy--who seem to be too cowardly to engage in spiritual jihad in defense of their faith.]

We Orthodox are still observing the period of Great Lent. This is not the time for a spiritual jihad for us as you label it. It is a time to reflect upon ourselves and our own salvation. A time to prepare ourselves for the miracle of the Risen Lord which awaits us in a few more weeks.
Believe me I have plenty of responses regarding this issue but this is neither the time nor the place to say them.
There were two promises I made myself this year. First was to recognize that in this particular forum (which I highly respect) I am a guest and should act accordingly. As such, I would remain silent at those times my anger got the best of me and I couldn't find a nice or diplomatic way of answering.
Also, that during Great lent I would try and become less defensive and more diplomatic in the various discussion groups I belong to. For that very reason I temporarily signed off one that brings out the worst in me.
So my Islamic friend, it is not a matter of being a cowardly Christian. It is a matter of trying to be a better Christian especially during this Holy period.

OrthoMan
(Whose grandfather came from Croatia. And whose great grandmother as well as other ancestors on that side were all Bosnian Muslims)

Over the past few years I have come to appreciate and highly respect Orthoman's witness of Orthodoxy. Everything he has posted has been written with great Christian charity and attention to both accuracy and clarity. I am confident that, if anyone in greater Philadelphia wishes to know what Orthodoxy believes, he or she needs only to see how Orthoman lives his life.

I must, however, disagree with him that he is a guest here. This is as much his home as it is for myself or any other Byzantine Christian. We may be currently separated but what unites us is far greater than what divides us. Above all, we are still one family.

The Byzantine Forum was designed to be a home primarily for Byzantine Christians and, less specifically, for all Eastern Christians. Everyone else who participates here does so as a most welcomed guest. Many of our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters (like Angela) have come in through the back door and become family because of their enduring kindness.

Administrator

Perhaps there's just something skewed in my understanding, but I personally don't see this as an either/or situation.