I could be wrong here, but my impression is that Eastern Orthodox today see these differences as essential and serious, whereas from the Catholic point of view, these differences are seen largely as a result of a different cultural framework and that with a certain amount of good will on both sides that they can be resolved in a manner satisfactory to both sides.
I understand this. And I agree that is what the Vatican must think on the matter.
I think it is a manifestation of indifferentism.
So, it is assumed that by going to Catholic Mass, listerning to the sermons and doing a moderate amount of reading in the area, an Orthodox who converted to Catholicism will have no trouble in recognising the Catholic point of view on the relevant issue.
The same could easily be said for Lutherans, I think. Perhaps Methodists and Anglicans as well. They wouldn’t even show up at the rectory door if they were not already reconciled with some important points of Catholic dogma, but are they really properly catechized with that background alone, that’s the question.
This should not be too surprising to the Orthodox Christian, because a similar situation held in the case of thousands of Eastern Catholics who were received into the Orthodox Churches in Eastern Europe in the aftermath of WWII and the communist takeover of the areas. The Churches which the Eastern Catholics were going to, were suddenly, overnight said to be Orthodox Churches, and no initiation or catechism class was required of the Eastern Catholics who were now attending religious services in the same building, but different Church.
This is beside the point, but it obviously did not work, did it?
That’s the kind of thing that happens when the church becomes a tool for politics. The Soviets were not all that concerned with the details, they hardly cared what people believed, they just wanted all the eggs in one basket they could watch.
I am not addressing the case of Orthodox individual converts who post here who may think they know all of the necessary doctrines and accept them, I think they most likely do since they are the type to post on CAF. So let’s give these the benefit of the doubt for the moment and move on.
I am addressing the run of the mill bloke who may or may not know, and it is his priests duty to see that they have it all down right.
That’s why I think that a priest, Latin or other, who expects a new convert to audit the RCIA classes (or ECF) is actually doing his job correctly. He cares about what the new member thinks. He makes sure that these people know about (i.e.) Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception and Papal Universal Jurisdition and that they are not to criticize these things.
The point I wish to make here is that many Byzantine Rite Catholics, by their own admission, do not believe in some of the Latin doctrines. This is a fact. It’s not a case of them just not understanding but accepting in theory, it’s very often a case of simply
rejecting Latin theology outright. I don’t blame them, of course, but it does not jive with what we are being told Catholics must believe.
And this has historically been true of Byzantine-Ritual Catholics as a group (of the Melkite and Slavonic churches alike), even into modern times, and the most likely cause is that they were not catechized into “Catholic” (by that I mean Latin Catholic) theology at the outset, after the Unions of Brest and Uzhorod.
This is why large numbers of Ruthenian and Ukrainian Catholics were able to leave so readily with Alexis Toth, and fifty years later it happened again. The people involved were able to say with clear consciences that they do not believe Latin Catholic doctrine, don’t need it and don’t want it…even after being under Popes for over three hundred years. They voluntarily left.
And…this is why we still see Byzantine Ritual Catholics being accused on this very board of not being real Catholics, to the point where I have seen posters ask why they are not Orthodox!
Even intimations are made that “they are still working it out” as if to imply that they have not sufficient spiritual growth.
So now we are discussing a longstanding formal policy of the Roman communion that Orthodox can potentially be admitted without any catechesis at all, just a profession of Faith. The exact same policy that got them into all that trouble in the first place.
If a new member of the church must absolutely and positively believe some things, or at least not publicly deny them, don’t you think that this fact should be made clear to them? Don’t you think some effort should be made to enhance their knowledge?
I happen to know that there are a lot of Byzantine Catholic/Ukrainian Catholic priests who will not even broach the subject, so happy they will be to have an Orthodox Christian join their parish. Some of them likely share the opinions of Orthodox and would be glad to have more members who share that sentiment.
There is an underground of Holy Orthodoxy in the Roman Communion, people who do follow Orthodox theology and praxis, and do not believe in some of the vital Papal doctrines (like Purgatory and Papal Infallibility). I don’t know how many there are, but I have met them in many places and I know they exist.
Among other things this group has also been a rich source of converts to the Orthodox church continually for decades, and there are many more of them among you.
Are they “Cafeteria Catholics”?
The policy of not catechizing new Orthodox into the church risks and even invites adding to their number, but to what purpose?
Michael
