Originally Posted by Peter J
No argument there. But you realize, I assume, that no side is completely innocent with regard to proselytizing (“sheep stealing”); not just protestants, but also Orthodox and even Catholics.
Agreed, but switching sides isn’t something to be done lightly in either direction.
Actually, you might be happy to hear that this is one area where I’m critical of the Balamand Statement. Well, maybe
critical is too strong a word, but I think this section is prone to misunderstanding:
- It will also be necessary—on the part of both Churches— that the bishops and all those with pastoral reposibilities in the Churches scrupulously respect the religious liberty of the faithful. In turn, the faithful must be able to express themselves for this purpose. In fact, particularly in situations of conflict, religious liberty requires that the faithful should be able to express their opinion and to decide without pressure from outside if they wish to be in communion either with the Orthodox Church or with the Catholic Church.
I believe the part I highlighted could give the impression that, for people already belonging to either Catholicism or Orthodoxy, switching over to the other side is no big deal – what I sometimes call the “no-fault divorce” attitude toward conversion. There was a great response/commentary by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation:
- The Balamand Document speaks frequently of the “religious freedom of persons” (10) and “the religious liberty of the faithful” (24), of “freedom of conscience” (27) and “respect for consciences” (25), acknowledging “the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of the consciences” (15). The language employed in modern presentations of this theme is familiar enough in the Western world in its concern for human rights, and is certainly not alien to either of our churches. In developing this theme, however, our churches have called attention to the need for a coherent understanding of community and therefore to the need to locate individual rights and responsibilities within the common good. When the Document speaks of “the faithful” and of their religious liberty “to express their opinion and to decide without pressure from outside if they wish to be in communion either with the Orthodox church or with the Catholic church” (24), this distinction becomes crucial. Neither the Orthodox nor the Catholic understanding sees the “faithful” only as referring to an individual Christian apart from community. Rather, we both urge that personhood can only ultimately be grasped in relation to the “Body” and, through the Body, to the tri-personal life of God. Where concern for the solidarity and spiritual health of the community as a whole is absent, the exercise of “freedom” and “liberty” can lead all too easily to the fragmentation of society and to the alienation of persons from each other and from God.
- Important in this connection is the Balamand Document’s rejection of the premise that only one of our churches is the unique possessor of the means of grace in such a way that conversion to that church from the other is necessary for salvation. The Document asserts that “on each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to his Church . . . cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our churches.” (13) To be sure, there may be cases in which conscience leads an Orthodox or a Catholic Christian to enter the other church (cf. 14). This, however, does not mean that our churches should set out to “win converts” by cultivating inappropriate fears and anxieties.
Knowing what you know, could you leave the CC and become Protestant with no grave consequences to your soul? That’s really the question
I don’t think I can answer that with 100% certainty; but I can say that I have no plans to leave Catholicism (either for protestantism or Orthodoxy).
