A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
I’m asking not telling - what is the difference, morally speaking, between Evangelicals trying to “Christianize” Catholics and Roman Catholics trying to “convert” Orthodox?
Alex
- Status
Alex
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I believe that was malphono’s point. There is a “canibilizing” of Christians among Christian denominations. Of course as Catholics we believe Communion with the Pope is important, but my personal opinion on it is that the Orthodox should be Eastern Catholics coming into communion, not Roman Catholics. Protestants believe that the Catholic Church is corrupt, and are thus “freeing” the prisoners of a “corrupt hierarchy” that preaches the wrong faith.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
Considering the travel, visa and building restrictions placed on Catholics in “converted” Russia, I would imagine it is considerably more difficult for Catholics to proselytize the Orthodox than it would it be for the latter to proselytize Catholics in Western countries.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I’m curious as to the state of Orthodoxy in Russia at the time of Fatima. Were they more secularized because of Communism/Marxism?
M
malphono
Guest
So? Sure, if someone approaches the Orthodox, they’ll do what they can to reel him in. So will the Catholics. That’s normal and even acceptable. It’s more catechizing than proselytizing. Now here’s a thought: maybe the proselytizing should be reserved for the heathens and the heterodox. What’s the point in orthodox Christians trying to “convert” orthodox Christians?
While I have had more than my share of Protestants (and pseudo-Protestants), along with a variety of people of other persuasions, knocking on my door and banging their bibles (or whatever they happen to use), I’ve never had an Orthodox “missionary” trying to convert me.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Because it is morally necessary to be in union with Rome for salvation - that’s why I’m an Eastern Catholic and not an Orthodox - even though Catholics and Orthodox share the same faith. Evangelicals trying to “Christianize” Catholics is case of a heretic trying to induce someone to leave the Church; the other situation is a case of someone with the fullness of truth trying to heal a mortal wound within the Church.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that Holy Orthodoxy is completely 100% Catholic and that it possesses the full means of salvation. Is communion with Rome, therefore, “morally necessary for salvation”? I was also talking with a friend last night who claims that there is another Church document (sadly he couldn’t remember which) that says something along the lines of it’s ok for Catholics to convert to Orthodoxy in situations where one cannot in good conscience remain in communion with Rome. I personally have little to no opinion on the matter. The more I study, the more I realize things aren’t as black and white as I once thought they were, at least with regards to Catholic-Orthodox relations. I totally agree with you on Evangelicals, or any other Protestants, who try to “Christianize” or “convert” Catholics or Orthodox for that matter. There it is a matter of embracing heresy.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I appreciate your sentiment
However how does this square with Pope Eugene IV’s statement in Cantate Domino below?
It [ie: the Catholic church under Papal obedience]** firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”**
And further goes on to say …
… no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
By which I am sure most people will agree he at the time meant the Catholic church under the Pope. I think that this is generally where Cecilianus is coming from in formulating his own position.
It this Bull no longer valid? Does the current catechism carry more theological weight in it’s opinion than a specific papal decree on the subject?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Those born into the Orthodox Church can not be charged with schism so it is no longer proper to call the Orthodox schismatics. Now those who leave the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church may be schismatic but, again, we can not call all of them such.I appreciate your sentiment
However how does this square with Pope Eugene IV’s statement in Cantate Domino below?
It [ie: the Catholic church under Papal obedience]** firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”**
And further goes on to say …
… no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
By which I am sure most people will agree he at the time meant the Catholic church under the Pope. I think that this is generally where Cecilianus is coming from in formulating his own position.
It this Bull no longer valid? Does the current catechism carry more theological weight in it’s opinion than a specific papal decree on the subject?
Knowing this I think it puts a little different light on the Bull.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Hesychios!!!I appreciate your sentiment
However how does this square with Pope Eugene IV’s statement in Cantate Domino below?
It [ie: the Catholic church under Papal obedience]** firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”**
And further goes on to say …
… no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
By which I am sure most people will agree he at the time meant the Catholic church under the Pope. I think that this is generally where Cecilianus is coming from in formulating his own position.
It this Bull no longer valid? Does the current catechism carry more theological weight in it’s opinion than a specific papal decree on the subject?
It’s always so nice to hear from you. I honestly wish we lived closer together as I think it’d be fun to meet in person and converse face-to-face. Again I will say that I really have no real opinion on the matter. I do know that Papal Bulls are not binding documents and the statements therein are subject to change by a Pope’s successor(s). So Pope Eugene IV can be said to simply be asserting his own theological opinion.
A similar situation arises with the Papal Bull of Pius V for the “Tridintine Mass”. Many “Traditional Catholics” will use that Bull as an argument against the changes initiated by Pope Paul VI. But the fact of the matter is that a Bull is not binding on a Pope’s successor(s) and is therefore subject to change.That being said, however, I’m sure somewhere there is a conciliar document that posits the whole “Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation” thing. The bishops, in communion with the Pope of Rome, agreed at Vatican II that this cannot be interpreted to mean that only baptized Catholics go to heaven/attain salvation (indeed I believe this was also put forward by St. Augustine). Positively the statement simply means that salvation comes to us in Christ through the Catholic Church (not necessarily to be interpreted here in the sense of “Catholic” as opposed to “Orthodox” or “Protestant” for that matter). Insofar as anyone of whatever religion lives a truly moral life, earnestly seeks after truth, and clings to that truth which they know, then they are considered to belong to the Catholic Church in some way. Traditionally this would’ve fallen under the “baptism by desire” teaching that can be found in the Baltimore Catechism.
Again, the (Roman) Catholic Church, and all the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches in communion with Rome, teaches that Holy Orthodoxy possesses the fullness of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith, and all the means of salvation. If a Catholic, for reasons of conscience, becomes Orthodox it makes sense to me that we, as Catholics, need not fear for his/her salvation. Especially if their reason for changing was because the Catholic faith was wrongly taught to them.
This is just repeating what I’ve been taught and some further speculation on my own. I retain the right to change my mind. 
But I probably won’t. 
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
One problem with the perspective that Orthodox should be in communion with Rome is . . . that Rome itself no longer subscribes to the Eastern Catholic model of church union.
Individual Orthodox could become EC’s to be sure (there is movement back and forth between EC and Orthodox Churches), but given all that has been quoted above and the fact that Rome (as the RC theologians on the RC-Orthodox ecumenical commissions reaffirm time and again), the “Unia” model is kaput from Rome’s vantage point.
That, in and of itself, speaks ill of Catholic proselytism of the Orthodox.
One Orthodox theologian quoted by Fr. John Meyendorff once wrote, “Do not argue with the Latins over the Primacy of Peter - it is good for the Church. Just ask if the Bishop of Rome confesses the faith of Peter, and if he does, then let him enjoy the privileges of Peter.”
Alex
Individual Orthodox could become EC’s to be sure (there is movement back and forth between EC and Orthodox Churches), but given all that has been quoted above and the fact that Rome (as the RC theologians on the RC-Orthodox ecumenical commissions reaffirm time and again), the “Unia” model is kaput from Rome’s vantage point.
That, in and of itself, speaks ill of Catholic proselytism of the Orthodox.
One Orthodox theologian quoted by Fr. John Meyendorff once wrote, “Do not argue with the Latins over the Primacy of Peter - it is good for the Church. Just ask if the Bishop of Rome confesses the faith of Peter, and if he does, then let him enjoy the privileges of Peter.”
Alex
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Or even if a well-educated Catholic who knows his faith simply chooses the lesser of two evils - a parish formally in schism due to a historical accident but teaching the fullness of the Orthodox (=Catholic) Faith with the fullness of Orthodoxy (right glory) in their Liturgy would seem to be preferable to a parish formally listed on a diocesan register but teaching blatant moral and doctrinal heresy within the context of an absolutely vacuous spirituality. I wouldn’t ever do this without the blessing of a Papal, or at least episcopal, document clarifying what a Catholic should do in such situations - I don’t want to be guilty of schism as I would be if I were to become Orthodox (even though none of the parishioners, all of whom were born Orthodox, could be said to be guilty of schism). But while there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, where the Catholic Church most strongly subsists isn’t necessarily along the external lines demarcated by pseudo-“denominational” institutions.Again, the (Roman) Catholic Church, and all the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches in communion with Rome, teaches that Holy Orthodoxy possesses the fullness of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith, and all the means of salvation. If a Catholic, for reasons of conscience, becomes Orthodox it makes sense to me that we, as Catholics, need not fear for his/her salvation. Especially if their reason for changing was because the Catholic faith was wrongly taught to them.
That being said, union with Rome is formally necessary for salvation, in the sense that consciously rejecting it with full knowledge and consent is the mortal sin of schism - even though the Orthodox still posses the fullness of the Catholic (=Orthodox) Faith and all the sacramental means of salvation. And this is why we need to devote all our efforts into healing the schism.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
That being said, union with Rome is formally necessary for salvation, in the sense that consciously rejecting it with full knowledge and consent is the mortal sin of schism - even though the Orthodox still posses the fullness of the Catholic (=Orthodox) Faith and all the sacramental means of salvation. And this is why we need to devote all our efforts into healing the schism.
One could ask, however: is it possible to consciously and with full consent reject the Catholic Faith if one has full knowledge of the truth of that Faith (and I’m not referring here simply/merely to doctrinal and dogmatic knowledge)? I would ask this particularly in the case of one who is sincerely seeking/searching the truth, not necessarily in the case of one who is either lukewarm or malicious. A particular example could be applied to the issue of Papal infallibility (a hot topic to be sure, but I’m simply using it as an example). Say there is a Catholic who is presented the teaching on Papal infallibility in such a way that that particular teaching is unacceptable. They know that they can no longer in good conscience remain within the Catholic Communion if that means embracing this teaching. In their search for truth they end up turning to Orthodoxy. Naturally they continue their search for truth as an Orthodox Christian. I would ask, in such a case can we call that person’s salvation into question simply because they have chosen to leave communion with Rome and enter another fully Catholic Church, albeit one not in communion with Rome (their choice being founded on a false or faulty presentation of Roman teaching on Papal infallibility to begin with)? Personally I don’t see how we could.
One could ask, however: is it possible to consciously and with full consent reject the Catholic Faith if one has full knowledge of the truth of that Faith (and I’m not referring here simply/merely to doctrinal and dogmatic knowledge)? I would ask this particularly in the case of one who is sincerely seeking/searching the truth, not necessarily in the case of one who is either lukewarm or malicious. A particular example could be applied to the issue of Papal infallibility (a hot topic to be sure, but I’m simply using it as an example). Say there is a Catholic who is presented the teaching on Papal infallibility in such a way that that particular teaching is unacceptable. They know that they can no longer in good conscience remain within the Catholic Communion if that means embracing this teaching. In their search for truth they end up turning to Orthodoxy. Naturally they continue their search for truth as an Orthodox Christian. I would ask, in such a case can we call that person’s salvation into question simply because they have chosen to leave communion with Rome and enter another fully Catholic Church, albeit one not in communion with Rome (their choice being founded on a false or faulty presentation of Roman teaching on Papal infallibility to begin with)? Personally I don’t see how we could.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
And that’s precisely why we are ordered to “judge not”. We can’t judge anyone’s soul (whether they are Catholic or Orthodox, or whether they are atheists or pagans) - but we must still try to bring them to the fullness of truth.One could ask, however: is it possible to consciously and with full consent reject the Catholic Faith if one has full knowledge of the truth of that Faith (and I’m not referring here simply/merely to doctrinal and dogmatic knowledge)? I would ask this particularly in the case of one who is sincerely seeking/searching the truth, not necessarily in the case of one who is either lukewarm or malicious. A particular example could be applied to the issue of Papal infallibility (a hot topic to be sure, but I’m simply using it as an example). Say there is a Catholic who is presented the teaching on Papal infallibility in such a way that that particular teaching is unacceptable. They know that they can no longer in good conscience remain within the Catholic Communion if that means embracing this teaching. In their search for truth they end up turning to Orthodoxy. Naturally they continue their search for truth as an Orthodox Christian. I would ask, in such a case can we call that person’s salvation into question simply because they have chosen to leave communion with Rome and enter another fully Catholic Church, albeit one not in communion with Rome (their choice being founded on a false or faulty presentation of Roman teaching on Papal infallibility to begin with)? Personally I don’t see how we could.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Very true.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
I also know some Melkites who use the Rosary.A great question!
Although I was never a Latin Catholic, I came from a heavily Latinized background and only slowly moved spiritually toward a more Eastern Christian perspective.
So what can we make of the Fatima devotions from this perspective then?
I found there was no need to give up the rosary at all. Acquaintances of mine who were “echt-Eastern”were very much against the rosary.
However, I found that the same devotion i.e. 150 Hail Mary’s divided into decades has been around in Orthodoxy, especially Russian Orthodoxy, for many, many years. The great Russian saint (also recognized by Rome) St Seraphim of Sarov prayed the rosary/rule of the Mother of God daily and expected his spiritual children to pray it daily as well ("Staretz Zechariah: An Early Soviet Saint"chapter six).
He even taught that the rosary/psalter of our Lady was revealed to a monk of the Egyptian Thebaid in the eighth century and that all Christians once said it etc.
St Seraphim also said that, in a vision of the Mother of God, he was told by her that the rosary is THE most important prayer to obtain her intercession and protection over our lives - ahead of any other kind of Marian prayer.
The Old Believers of Russia have always had a “Theotokos Lestovka” with 150 small notches divided into decades by larger ones. I have one of these myself and the Old Believers teach that anyone who has prayed the rosary/rule with Hail Mary’s daily will be accompanied by the Most Holy Mother of God after death to each of the toll-houses our souls will visit . . .
So, from an unashamedly Eastern chauvinist point of view, our Lady at Fatima was simply reminding Western Catholics about her beloved Eastern rosary prayer . . .
As for the scapular - this represents, first and foremost, the Holy Protection of the Mother of God which is a great devotion in the East (i.e. when the Mother of God extended her mantle of protection over people in various crises).
The West also has pictures of Our Lady of the Mantle (aka a form of Our Lady of Mercy).
But nothing like what the East has . . .
Interestingly enough, there is an actual Orthodox icon of Our Lady of Mount Carmel in an Orthodox Ukrainian monastery in the town of Horodyshenske called the Mother of God of the Scapular (sic) and listed in Prof. Poselianin’s monumental work “Bogomater” or “the Mother of God” where he lists hundreds of miraculous and locally-venerated Orthodox icons and festivals.
The problem with Fatima from the Eastern point of view is not with its devotions, but with how Fatima was and is used by certain Catholic groups to convert/proselytise Orthodox. The phrase 'Russia will be converted" has been taken to mean by these “Fatimist” groups as meaning “converted to Roman Catholicism.”
I know an Orthodox priest who accepts Fatima and says that her prophecies have been fulfilled in Russia since the churches there are full and the Mother of God is highly, highly venerated (more than in the West).
Alex
Most Melkites I know, though, would rather One Use Prayer Ropes and The Jesus Prayer.
NOT set in stone, apparently.
H
Hesychios
Guest
That pretty much describes me.
I reject communion with the Pope fully. If you want you could consider me damned, because I fit the profile.
I could not in good conscience continue to receive in the eastern Catholic church. As far as I am concerned to remain a Byzantine Catholic would have been the sin of schism and I fully believe this.
However I don’t consider other Catholics to be in any danger themselves, because they are following their consciences as best they can (and they could after all do much worse).
In fact, my whole family is Roman Catholic, and my daughter is just getting back into the church. I have encouraged her, given her one of my NAB Bibles and gone to her parish with her. It’s just that I could not in good conscience present my self for communion there and really have no desire for it at all, which kind of surprises me.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
I would hope no one here would consider you to be damned, Hesychios. The Orthodox (and Eastern Catholics) have a wonderful saying that I think most Romans should learn: “We know where the Church is. What we don’t know is where it isn’t.” That being said, however, I certainly hope and pray that the day will come when Catholicism and Orthodoxy are once again united. We really do need each other.That pretty much describes me.
I reject communion with the Pope fully. If you want you could consider me damned, because I fit the profile.
I could not in good conscience continue to receive in the eastern Catholic church. As far as I am concerned to remain a Byzantine Catholic would have been the sin of schism and I fully believe this.
However I don’t consider other Catholics to be in any danger themselves, because they are following their consciences as best they can (and they could after all do much worse).
In fact, my whole family is Roman Catholic, and my daughter is just getting back into the church. I have encouraged her, given her one of my NAB Bibles and gone to her parish with her. It’s just that I could not in good conscience present my self for communion there and really have no desire for it at all, which kind of surprises me.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
I Personally Don’t Consider You Damned, Hesychios.That pretty much describes me.
I reject communion with the Pope fully. If you want you could consider me damned, because I fit the profile.
I could not in good conscience continue to receive in the eastern Catholic church. As far as I am concerned to remain a Byzantine Catholic would have been the sin of schism and I fully believe this.
However I don’t consider other Catholics to be in any danger themselves, because they are following their consciences as best they can (and they could after all do much worse).
In fact, my whole family is Roman Catholic, and my daughter is just getting back into the church. I have encouraged her, given her one of my NAB Bibles and gone to her parish with her. It’s just that I could not in good conscience present my self for communion there and really have no desire for it at all, which kind of surprises me.
Merely “Temporarily Unavailable For The Truth.”
Great Of You To Not Want Your Loved Ones To Automatically Believe What you Believe. Many Folks I know who have Left the RC are Not Quite Like That.
May God Bless You For It.Sincerely.
I WILL BET How You Arrived At The Position You Hold After Decades In The RC Would Be Fascinating And Enlightening To Learn About for Us All Here In The Forum.
You’re Not Obligated To Tell Us, Of Course. Probably “Too Long Of A Story.”
Would BE Fascinating IF You were To Choose to Share, Though. No Pressure.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
Second That Hope. The Two Lungs Should Breathe In Unison Once Again------THAT Is My Devout Wish.
- Status