Can a Protestant convert directly to Eastern Catholicism?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Regardless of what canon law says, one of my friends, who is a convert, has pretty much no idea how to act or what is going on in a Roman Catholic Mass, but he serves at the altar every week at our local Ruthenian Catholic Church and is one of the strongest Catholics I know.

He’s a Byzantine Catholic, regardless of what the rules say.

Actually the rules do matter.

It is a matter of obedience.

We may not like the rules, we may disagree with the rules, we may think they are not logical, but as long as they are not requiring us to sin they must, in obedience to Christ, be followed.

I believe that this is much more important for a convert from Protestantism as in Protestantism anything goes and you can make your own way, that is not so with the Catholic Church.

 

[Wesley7]

Its better to be properly discourse and taught in the differences of the Rite you’re converting to.

 

[Wesley7]

Can a Protestant convert directly to Eastern Catholicism?

You can if understand the particular differences of the Rite you’re converting to.

 

[Hesychios]

This may be the case with some of the “high church” traditional Protestant bodies (Anglican, Luthernan, Methodist)…but I am not convinced that this assessment is correct when it comes to evangelicals and pentecostals - who today, globally, form the vast majority of “Protestants”. .

I would say the Evangelical and Pentacostal Protestants as well.

High church - low church - no difference.

 

[twf]

I would say the Evangelical and Pentacostal Protestants as well.

High church - low church - no difference.

I still don’t see it. If I asked the typical Pentecostal what his stance was on the sacraments/mysteries, he would probably stare at me blankly…unless he was particularly educated on comparative religion, or had been raised in a “high church” tradition. Most Pentecostals would practice baptism, but they would not see it as a sacrament in any Catholic sense.

 

[Addai]

I still don’t see it. If I asked the typical Pentecostal what his stance was on the sacraments/mysteries, he would probably stare at me blankly…unless he was particularly educated on comparative religion, or had been raised in a “high church” tradition. Most Pentecostals would practice baptism, but they would not see it as a sacrament in any Catholic sense.

At this point the discussion is silly and contradictory. Why would a Protestant want to convert to an EC if he didn’t even understand the basics of the sacraments? Is it because he likes the icons and thinks the chanting is pretty?

No Protestant with a single scrap of common sense will think of converting without a serious pheromona change. And from personal experience, that quite often takes years of reading and debating over a host of issues. To the point that you often have a better grasp of the basic issues then most of the laity of the church you are contemplating converting too.

However in terms of paradigms and tradition most Protestants would have more in common with the Latin church. Unless they come from a Wesleyian background, which would make them much more inclined towards concepts like theosis etc. of the Eastern Churches.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Actually the rules do matter.

It is a matter of obedience.

We may not like the rules, we may disagree with the rules, we may think they are not logical, but as long as they are not requiring us to sin they must, in obedience to Christ, be followed.

I believe that this is much more important for a convert from Protestantism as in Protestantism anything goes and you can make your own way, that is not so with the Catholic Church.

Yes, I agree with you. However, I am saying, even if on the books he is a Roman Catholic because his baptism was Episcopal, in his heart and in practice he is and always has been a Greek Catholic.

That’s why I agree with Hesychios about how silly canonical enrollment is sometimes.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes, I agree with you. However, I am saying, even if on the books he is a Roman Catholic because his baptism was Episcopal, in his heart and in practice he is and always has been a Greek Catholic.

That’s why I agree with Hesychios about how silly canonical enrollment is sometimes.

I see but if his heart and in practice he is and always has been a Byzantine Catholic then he should go though the canonical process to formally change church membership.

 

[Vico]

Regardless of what canon law says, one of my friends, who is a convert, has pretty much no idea how to act or what is going on in a Roman Catholic Mass, but he serves at the altar every week at our local Ruthenian Catholic Church and is one of the strongest Catholics I know.

He’s a Byzantine Catholic, regardless of what the rules say.

That is because there are two different definitions being used. It does not change the fact that that Church will apply the Latin canon laws to him not the eastern canon law. There is no such thing in canon law as a Catholic at large, rather one is ascribed to one of the Churches sui iuris. The laws order matters and so designate the their subjects.

 

[Aramis]

No you can’t. To join the catholic church, eastern rite or otherwise, you must go through RCIA.
If you are talking about the eastern orthodox church, then i don’t know. But I suspect the answer is still no.

Not true. One must take instructions, but RCIA is a specific program of the Roman Church.

And Orthodox need not even do that - they merely need to make a profession of faith. Check canon law.

 

[Cecilianus]

I personally think the canons are silly. I was raised Lutheran before becoming Roman Catholic and canonically transferring to the East. Swedish Lutherans are not Roman Catholics - we have our own identity and ethnic heritage which we are very proud of, and which is not the Irish-German heritage of the Roman Catholic Church in America.

That being said, most people have their heads on straight, and pastors of Eastern Catholic parishes usually have arrangements with the local Roman Catholic bishops to receive baptized converts from secularism or Protestantism directly, handling the canonical paperwork themselves. The Roman Catholic bishop is usually going to just be happy that someone is becoming Catholic without caring which rite he comes into - the Eastern Rites are smaller and a part of the patrimony of the Church they have just as much interest as we do in preserving, and they almost never object to one of their own flock transferring, much less a Protestant who has never been to a Roman Catholic Mass in the first place.

It is important to rectify and clarify one’s canonical situation, because it determines what fasting discipline you are bound to. You may have never been to a Roman Catholic Mass in your life, but if you are canonically Roman you are bound to Roman discipline - meaning that you do not fill your Sunday obligation by going to Vespers the night before, and if you eat two full meals on Ash Wednesday, regardless of whether you avoided wine and non-vegan food, you have broken the fast. Likewise, if you are canonically Byzantine but practicing Roman, you are still bound to much higher fasting standards and many more Holy Days of Obligation than you are probably actually practicing.

If someone becomes an Eastern Catholic directly, he does not go to RCIA - typically he simply talks to the priest. At my parish which received three converts from Protestantism Pascha before last, many of these educational talks were given by the priest over brunch after Liturgy which the whole parish (fewer than 20 members) usually attended together.

 

[ciero]

I personally think the canons are silly. I was raised Lutheran before becoming Roman Catholic and canonically transferring to the East. Swedish Lutherans are not Roman Catholics - we have our own identity and ethnic heritage which we are very proud of, and which is not the Irish-German heritage of the Roman Catholic Church in America.

That being said, most people have their heads on straight, and pastors of Eastern Catholic parishes usually have arrangements with the local Roman Catholic bishops to receive baptized converts from secularism or Protestantism directly, handling the canonical paperwork themselves. The Roman Catholic bishop is usually going to just be happy that someone is becoming Catholic without caring which rite he comes into - the Eastern Rites are smaller and a part of the patrimony of the Church they have just as much interest as we do in preserving, and they almost never object to one of their own flock transferring, much less a Protestant who has never been to a Roman Catholic Mass in the first place.

***It is important to rectify and clarify one’s canonical situation, because it determines what fasting discipline you are bound to. You may have never been to a Roman Catholic Mass in your life, but if you are canonically Roman you are bound to Roman discipline - meaning that you do not fill your Sunday obligation by going to Vespers the night before, and if you eat two full meals on Ash Wednesday, regardless of whether you avoided wine and non-vegan food, you have broken the fast. Likewise, if you are canonically Byzantine but practicing Roman, you are still bound to much higher fasting standards and many more Holy Days of Obligation than you are probably actually practicing.

---

If someone becomes an Eastern Catholic directly, he does not go to RCIA - typically he simply talks to the priest. At my parish which received three converts from Protestantism Pascha before last, many of these educational talks were given by the priest over brunch after Liturgy which the whole parish (fewer than 20 members) usually attended together.

I have been told by a number of RC bishops that this is NOT the case…even canonical Latins should follow the fasting and holy day “obligations” of the church they attend regularly and NOT the church that they are officially enrolled in. They ALL felt it made no sense to be “obligated” to follow a discipline of a church they were not going to.

 

[Cecilianus]

I have been told by a number of RC bishops that this is NOT the case…even canonical Latins should follow the fasting and holy day “obligations” of the church they attend regularly and NOT the church that they are officially enrolled in. They ALL felt it made no sense to be “obligated” to follow a discipline of a church they were not going to.

That makes sense to me too - especially since it that would mean ramping up the prayer and fasting. But that’s why one should receive a canonical transfer. How often do you have to start attending a church before you are dispensed from the obligation of following the discipline of the church that you are enrolled in? Some of my friends join my for Liturgy once a month - others come to our church every other week, others every week but then go to a Latin church when college is on break. I used to go to Divine Liturgy only on breaks from school and to a Latin church when I was at school, before I found a Byzantine parish at college. Whose discipline are people like that bound by?

But the point is right. Personal ascesis is determined by liturgical life.

 

[akemner]

Yes, a protestant can enter directly into Eastern Catholic Church. My wife was raised and baptised Nazarene, and when she converted, she converted to the Byzantine Catholic Church. When, soon after, I applied for transfer of rite, my initial petition was rejected on grounds that since I was married to a Byzantine Catholic, all I needed to do was write a letter declaring my intent to transfer and that it was of free will, and then I had to have that signed by two witnesses, and it was entered in the parish books (the point is, I did not have to appeal to Rome for the transfer).

In Christ,
Adam

 

[Vico]

That makes sense to me too - especially since it that would mean ramping up the prayer and fasting. But that’s why one should receive a canonical transfer. How often do you have to start attending a church before you are dispensed from the obligation of following the discipline of the church that you are enrolled in? Some of my friends join my for Liturgy once a month - others come to our church every other week, others every week but then go to a Latin church when college is on break. I used to go to Divine Liturgy only on breaks from school and to a Latin church when I was at school, before I found a Byzantine parish at college. Whose discipline are people like that bound by?

But the point is right. Personal ascesis is determined by liturgical life.

It does not require a dispensation to attend a different Church sui iuris, canonically:

CCEO Canon 403

1. With due regard for the right and obligation to preserve everywhere their own rite, lay persons have the right to participate actively in the liturgical celebrations of any Church sui iuris whatsoever, according to the norms of the liturgical books.

CCEO Canon 40.3
Other Christian faithful [non-clerics] are also to foster an understanding and appreciation of their own rite, and are held to observe it everywhere unless something is excused by the law.

 

[ltwin]

As a former Evangelical Protestant I find that notion that Protestants must automatically be ascribed to the Latin Church absurd. I understand the reasoning when it comes to Protestants of the “high church” tradition (Anglicans, Luthernans, perhaps Methodists)…but evangelicals and pentecostals? They have no more in common with the Latin Church than with the Eastern Churches. How can one be more “Latin” than Eastern when one explicitly rejects:
-Structured liturgy of any sort
-Priestly ministry of any sort
-Celibacy/monastic life of any sort
-Marian devotion of any sort
-Communion of saints
-Sacraments/mysteries (beyond baptism and communion as strictly “symbolic” acts which convey no grace whatsoever)
-Apostolic succession
-Most of the Fathers
-Sacred Tradition
-etc etc etc

I’ve heard some EO claim that Latin Catholics have more in common with Protestants than with the East. I have read the arguments, but completely and utterly dismiss them. I can tell you that coming from an Evangelical background, the faith, theology, devotions, and worship of the Latin Church was completely alien to me. I would have been no more at home at a reverently celebrated OF mass 6 or 7 years than at an English Ruthenian DL. In fact, as an evangelical, I think I would have been more comfortable with the devotions of the East than those of the West - I think veneration of icons, for example, would have struck me as less offensive than carrying statues of saints through the streets on feast days. Evangelicals may use certain theological terms which they have inherited from the Latin tradition (such as justification or sanctification), but their understanding is COMPLETELY foreign to any tradition of the Catholic Church - without the correct understanding/theology, these terms are just words. These terms do not in any way suggest that the theology is more Latin than Eastern - at this point, it is so far removed from apostolic teaching that it is alien to both.
The logic baffles me.

It makes sense to me. Pentecostals don’t really understand Roman Catholics. In fact, we are mystified by them. But, be that is it may, Pentecostalism is a “Western” tradition. It can be traced back to the Latin Church via the holiness movement of the 19th century which was inspired by John Wesley’s ideas on sanctification, the founder of Methodism, who was an Anglican priest.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It does not require a dispensation to attend a different Church sui iuris, canonically:

CCEO Canon 403

1. With due regard for the right and obligation to preserve everywhere their own rite, lay persons have the right to participate actively in the liturgical celebrations of any Church sui iuris whatsoever, according to the norms of the liturgical books.

CCEO Canon 40.3
Other Christian faithful [non-clerics] are also to foster an understanding and appreciation of their own rite, and are held to observe it everywhere unless something is excused by the law.

The question about a dispensation was not about attending the Liturgy of another Church but of being dispensed from the discipline of their Church.

For example a Latin Catholic who is attending a Melkite parish being dispensed from the Latin Churches disciplines and Holy Day obligations or a Melkite attending a Latin parish being dispensed from Melkite disciplines and Holy Day obligations.

 

[Vico]

The question about a dispensation was not about attending the Liturgy of another Church but of being dispensed from the discipline of their Church.

For example a Latin Catholic who is attending a Melkite parish being dispensed from the Latin Churches disciplines and Holy Day obligations or a Melkite attending a Latin parish being dispensed from Melkite disciplines and Holy Day obligations.

But there was hope on my part that “1. With due regard for the right and obligation to preserve everywhere their own rite,” would be noticable, which is actually from OE 4:
Finally, each and every Catholic, as also the baptized of every non-Catholic church or denomination who enters into the fullness of the Catholic communion, must retain his own rite wherever he is, must cherish it and observe it to the best of his ability (4), without prejudice to the right in special cases of persons. communities or areas, of recourse to the Apostolic See, which, as the supreme judge of interchurch relations, will, acting itself or through other authorities, meet the needs of the occasion in an ecumenical spirit, by the issuance of opportune directives, decrees or rescripts.
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

But there was hope on my part that “1. With due regard for the right and obligation to preserve everywhere their own rite,” would be noticable, which is actually from OE 4:
Finally, each and every Catholic, as also the baptized of every non-Catholic church or denomination who enters into the fullness of the Catholic communion, must retain his own rite wherever he is, must cherish it and observe it to the best of his ability (4), without prejudice to the right in special cases of persons. communities or areas, of recourse to the Apostolic See, which, as the supreme judge of interchurch relations, will, acting itself or through other authorities, meet the needs of the occasion in an ecumenical spirit, by the issuance of opportune directives, decrees or rescripts.
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

Sorry about that. Thanks for the clarification.