Good Books About Conversion from Orthodox

[MilesVitae]

Conversion stories from Protestantism to Catholicism are easy enough to find, but does anyone know of any good books about conversion from Eastern Orthodoxy to Catholicism?

It seems to me I recently heard of one - but I don’t remember the name or where I found it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why does an Orthodox want to convert to Catholicism?
We should work for unity, no need for conversion.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Conversion stories from Protestantism to Catholicism are easy enough to find, but does anyone know of any good books about conversion from Eastern Orthodoxy to Catholicism?

It seems to me I recently heard of one - but I don’t remember the name or where I found it.

This may seem to be nit-picking but it’s important to understand the status of the Eastern Orthodox. They would not convert to Catholicism. Conversion is for non-Christians becoming Christian/Catholic. The very liturgical rite itself makes this clear. An Eastern Orthodox Christian would be received in to the Catholic Church. Unlike a Protestant they wouldn’t even need to be confirmed; assuming of course the Orthodox was chrismated.

 

[Marybeloved]

Why does an Orthodox want to convert to Catholicism?

Uumh…Because they have come to believe in the papacy and the truthfulness of Catholic claims?

 

[Contarini]

Uumh…Because they have come to believe in the papacy and the truthfulness of Catholic claims?

Then they can work for reunion from the Orthodox side. That would be the proper approach, given the validity of Orthodox sacraments, surely.

I know that Marcus Grodi has had ex-Orthodox folks on his program. James Likoudis is an ex-Orthodox Catholic who has written quite a bit about his “conversion.” My own reaction to his writing on this subject is to want to make a beeline for the Orthodox Church as soon as possible, but other people’s mileage may vary.

One of the things that early on inclined me to Catholicism (and which I continue to think a very valid test) was comparing accounts of Catholics who became Protestant (including Anglican) with Protestants who became Catholic. This comparison was almost always favorable to the Catholic Church. That is not my impression when I compare Catholic-Orthodox and Orthodox-Catholic accounts. While Catholic-Orthodox converts often seem to me to have given up too easily on “Rome,” I find them far more compelling than the stories of people who went the other way.

I do not believe that the Catholic Church generally encourages individual conversions from Orthodoxy. I have heard cheering accounts (recounted dolefully by triumphalist Catholics on this forum) of priests who have actually discouraged such conversions. I wish this discouragement would become more official and more robust. Such a stance would perhaps do more than anything else to persuade the Orthodox that “Rome” really has abandoned an imperialistic model of reunion. Certainly the tone of this forum would do little to do so.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Cavaradossi]

I know that Marcus Grodi has had ex-Orthodox folks on his program. James Likoudis is an ex-Orthodox Catholic who has written quite a bit about his “conversion.” My own reaction to his writing on this subject is to want to make a beeline for the Orthodox Church as soon as possible, but other people’s mileage may vary.

If you don’t mind me asking, why is that your first reaction to James Likoudis? I’ve never read his stuff, but I would think that the purpose of apologetics would be to support one’s own side, not lend credence to the other side.

 

[TrueLight]

This may seem to be nit-picking but it’s important to understand the status of the Eastern Orthodox. They would not convert to Catholicism. Conversion is for non-Christians becoming Christian/Catholic.

So then a Protestant doesn’t convert?

Considering some Orthodox see Rome as being in schism, I don’t understand why there wouldn’t be a conversion.

 

[Marybeloved]

Then they can work for reunion from the Orthodox side. That would be the proper approach, given the validity of Orthodox sacraments, surely.

Everything you have said in your post is very interesting- But where does it leave the conscience?

Peace

 

[Trebor135]

I know that Marcus Grodi has had ex-Orthodox folks on his program. James Likoudis is an ex-Orthodox Catholic who has written quite a bit about his “conversion.” My own reaction to his writing on this subject is to want to make a beeline for the Orthodox Church as soon as possible, but other people’s mileage may vary.

What put you off about James Likoudis’s work?

One of the things that early on inclined me to Catholicism (and which I continue to think a very valid test) was comparing accounts of Catholics who became Protestant (including Anglican) with Protestants who became Catholic. This comparison was almost always favorable to the Catholic Church. That is not my impression when I compare Catholic-Orthodox and Orthodox-Catholic accounts. While Catholic-Orthodox converts often seem to me to have given up too easily on “Rome,” I find them far more compelling than the stories of people who went the other way.

Why is this? And is it really fair to draw such conclusions given how few Eastern Orthodox converts to Catholicism are out there to begin with?

 

[Contarini]

If you don’t mind me asking, why is that your first reaction to James Likoudis? I’ve never read his stuff, but I would think that the purpose of apologetics would be to support one’s own side, not lend credence to the other side.

Of course that’s not what he intends. But it’s often the effect of apologetics, on me at least.

I went back and looked at some of Likoudis’ stuff online and didn’t have as strong a reaction. But he seems to have embraced a very traditional Latin ethos in which everything is about authority and clear-cut definitions. I just can’t see how such a picture of Christianity were correct. But this is a vague critique.

Just try reading Likoudis and Kallistos Ware together, and you may see what I mean. Admittedly that’s unfair, since Ware is a much more eminent figure than Likoudis and is an ex-Anglican, not an ex-Catholic!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Everything you have said in your post is very interesting- But where does it leave the conscience?

What difficulties of conscience would an Orthodox Christian have in desiring reunion with Rome?

Perhaps Orthodox Christians who came to believe in papal infallibility would have difficulties. But I doubt it–not if their position was genuinely rooted in the Fathers and not simply the result of their minds having been colonized by the post-schism Latin way of thinking.

Certainly there are Orthodox who “Latinize”–who accept a Latin perspective because it seems more rational or whatever. I think such people are simply wrong, though of course they have to follow their consciences, as everyone does!

I’m not speaking simply from a “two lungs” perspective here, a beautiful metaphor which I find rather flawed. I have come to believe strongly that the “Byzantine” theological approach is objectively superior, on the whole, to the Latin one. Certainly there are riches in both Eastern and Western Christianity and we need each other. But in terms of ethos and emphasis we need the East a lot more than the East needs us.

Catholics who embrace a more “Eastern” approach (and I’d say that this is true of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a document, not just of individuals), whether they become “Orthodox” or not, seem to me to have reached a richer and fuller understanding of the Faith.

Orthodox who “Latinize” do not seem to have done this.

Of course this is my perception. But I am not a relativist and do not believe that “my perception” is disconnected from objective truth. I am of course likely to err and open to being shown where I have done so, through not only rational means but experiential ones.

Edwin

 

[Marybeloved]

Perhaps Orthodox Christians who came to believe in papal infallibility would have difficulties. But I doubt it

My point was simple. Having come to believe that a certain position is the truth, one is bound to obey one’s conscience and not sacrifice it by staying in a position that one believes to be contrary to God’s will- not even the quest for unity can justify such a sacrifice on the part of any individual soul.

–not if their position was genuinely rooted in the Fathers and not simply the result of their minds having been colonized by the post-schism Latin way of thinking.

And what way of thinking are you talking about? Does this Latin “post-schism way of thinking” you refer to include the teaching and thought of the Great Western doctors and Saints of the 2nd Millennium?

Certainly there are Orthodox who “Latinize”–who accept a Latin perspective because it seems more rational or whatever. I think such people are simply wrong, though of course they have to follow their consciences, as everyone does!

And I think those who go the other way are simply wrong!

I have come to believe strongly that the “Byzantine” theological approach is objectively superior, on the whole, to the Latin one. Certainly there are riches in both Eastern and Western Christianity and we need each other. But in terms of ethos and emphasis we need the East a lot more than the East needs us.

And I disagree. I think they need the West more than the West needs them.

Catholics who embrace a more “Eastern” approach (and I’d say that this is true of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a document, not just of individuals), whether they become “Orthodox” or not, seem to me to have reached a richer and fuller understanding of the Faith. Orthodox who “Latinize” do not seem to have done this.

Of course this is my perception. But I am not a relativist and do not believe that “my perception” is disconnected from objective truth. I am of course likely to err and open to being shown where I have done so, through not only rational means but experiential ones.

I’m glad you placed the caveat that this is merely your perception, because all you have done here is give a lot of personal preferences, vanilla vs strawberry ice-cream, nothing more. You like Vanilla- we get that, doesn’t make Vanilla a superior flavor to strawberry though, :nope: just something that agrees with your own pallate more than strawberry does Myself? I definitely go with Strawberry any day.

I’ve read a lot of Western Saints from the middle ages and their understanding of the faith is what I see in the CCC. You basically equate richness with the East and poverty with the West such that any richness present in the West you want to rob The West of any credit for it- This is just bias and prejudice on your part. Nothing more. All anyone needs to do is read the great doctors and saints of the West to know that your claims are simply false. The CCC is not an “eastern” document! It’s a Catholic document and it reflects a great rich Western understanding of the faith evident in the Western Saints as much as the Eastern. What is present there that’s also present in the East is so simply because it’s the Apostolic faith, very much present in the West in the 2nd millennium, contrary to what you’re insinuating.

Peace.

 

[Contarini]

My point was simple. Having come to believe that a certain position is the truth, one is bound to obey one’s conscience and not sacrifice it by staying in a position that one believes to be contrary to God’s will

We are all in positions contrary to God’s will, as long as we are divided from fellow Christians. The question is: what actions on a particular Christian’s part are called for in order to move toward what God wants?

And what way of thinking are you talking about? Does this Latin “post-schism way of thinking” you refer to include the teaching and thought of the Great Western doctors and Saints of the 2nd Millennium?

Yes, though that’s a very broad category of people, and I’m certainly not saying that second-millennium Latin theology is worthless. Just a bit off-center for the most part.

And I disagree. I think they need the West more than the West needs them.

You really mean “the West,” even leaving the Papacy out of it?

I’m glad you placed the caveat that this is merely your perception, because all you have done here is give a lot of personal preferences, vanilla vs strawberry ice-cream, nothing more. You like Vanilla- we get that, doesn’t make Vanilla a superior flavor to strawberry though, :nope: just something that agrees with your own pallate more than strawberry does Myself? I definitely go with Strawberry any day.

With all due respect, this is pop-culture relativism and doesn’t make rational sense. Perceptions of flavor are not susceptible of the categories “true” or “false” because of the nature of the perceiving organ and the nature of the thing being perceived. Applying this to other perceptions is just bogus–it’s a popular thing to do in our culture, but frankly it’s a sign of the shallowness of our culture and its unwillingness to think.

We are talking about perceptions of truth and goodness here, not perceptions of pleasing flavor on the tongue.

I’ve read a lot of Western Saints from the middle ages and their understanding of the faith is what I see in the CCC.

The CCC certainly draws on both East and West.

You basically equate richness with the East and poverty with the West such that any richness present in the West you want to rob The West of any credit for it- This is just bias and prejudice on your part. Nothing more.

I am not trying to rob the West of credit. It’s easy to see from the footnotes in the CCC that it quotes the Eastern Fathers quite a bit, and this gives it a different tone from more traditional Latin documents. That’s not to say that everything good in the CCC comes from the East–not by any means.

The Orthodox often exaggerate the East/West divide. I have no interest in doing so. But there is a difference, and the Orthodox are right that the West does go for more of a “legal” approach to things.

Just one specific example: the West’s emphasis on the precise moment of the consecration (identified with the phrase “hoc est corpus meum” or its equivalent in the Eucharistic Prayer) vs. the East’s emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit as invoked in the “epiclesis.” There’s a real theological difference here: and I am convinced that the Eastern approach is not just different but better. I am happy to debate that point specifically, perhaps in another thread.

More broadly, take the Roman Canon and the Anaphora of St. Basil and set them side by side. There’s a clear difference. The latter embodies a fuller expression of Biblical and Traditional themes compared to the former. Both are valid, both are holy, both are beautiful. But the Byzantine prayer expresses the central doctrines of the Tradition more adequately. I’m not calling for a rejection of the West, but for a re-centering of Christian theology.

Edwin

 

[Marybeloved]

You really mean “the West,” even leaving the Papacy out of it?

I honestly don’t get what you mean to ask here.

With all due respect, this is pop-culture relativism and doesn’t make rational sense. Perceptions of flavor are not susceptible of the categories “true” or “false” because of the nature of the perceiving organ and the nature of the thing being perceived. Applying this to other perceptions is just bogus–it’s a popular thing to do in our culture, but frankly it’s a sign of the shallowness of our culture and its unwillingness to think.

I just interpreted what you wrote, that the East and West have richness, but Byzantine approach is superior to the West iyo…sounds like vanilla/strawberry preferences to me .

The Orthodox often exaggerate the East/West divide. I have no interest in doing so. But there is a difference, and the Orthodox are right that the West does go for more of a “legal” approach to things.

So does the fact that it’s rational and more specific make it wrong?

Just one specific example: the West’s emphasis on the precise moment of the consecration (identified with the phrase “hoc est corpus meum” or its equivalent in the Eucharistic Prayer) vs. the East’s emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit as invoked in the “epiclesis.” There’s a real theological difference here: and I am convinced that the Eastern approach is not just different but better. I am happy to debate that point specifically, perhaps in another thread.

And I’m convinced that they are both right! The Church is after all the very body of Christ, the Priest, a representative of Christ and the Holy Spirit lives in the church and is responsible for all the church’s action and power. Removing Christ from the miracle of a sacrament which is in fact himself or the Holy Ghost from the central activity of the church over which he is ruler both appear equally preposterous to me. I’m not sure how people can go about assigning specific “duties” to the individual persons of the Trinity (to the exclusion of the other two persons) with regards to Divine action in the Church. Especially with regard to Christ and the Holy Ghost who we know live in and rule the Church in time.

More broadly, take the Roman Canon and the Anaphora of St. Basil and set them side by side. There’s a clear difference. The latter embodies a fuller expression of Biblical and Traditional themes compared to the former. Both are valid, both are holy, both are beautiful. But the Byzantine prayer expresses the central doctrines of the Tradition more adequately. I’m not calling for a rejection of the West, but for a re-centering of Christian theology.

Like I said, sounds like the vanilla/strawberry preference to me- You think the Anaphora expresses the faith better, not that the Roman Canon teaches anything wrong. Someone else might disagree.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Uumh…Because they have come to believe in the papacy and the truthfulness of Catholic claims?

I think both sides should stop taking in “converts” and put more effort into unity.

 

[Marybeloved]

I think both sides should stop taking in “converts” and put more effort into unity.

I agree that they should stop any type of proselytizing and switch full gear into unity-efforts mode with all the attendant sacrifices.

But preventing individuals who have come to believe that one side is the fullness of the faith from joining what they see as the true church in whose fold they must live is another type of crime, IMO. Conscience is primary. For an individual soul, it could mean Hell or Heaven. No one has any right to require anyone to make such a sacrifice.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I agree that they should stop any type of proselytizing and switch full gear into unity-efforts mode with all the attendant sacrifices.

But preventing individuals who have come to believe that one side is the fullness of the faith from joining what they see as the true church in whose fold they must live is another type of crime, IMO. Conscience is primary. For an individual soul, it could mean Hell or Heaven. No one has any right to require anyone to make such a sacrifice.

The more Orthodox who believe in the Primacy of the Pope and the more Catholics who believe in the authority of the Patriarchs over their own Churches means the closer we are to unity. If all Orthodox who recognize the primacy of the Pope move over to the Catholic Church, who is left on the Orthodox side to foster unity when all that is left there are those who believe the Pope is merely a first among equals?

 

[Marybeloved]

The more Orthodox who believe in the Primacy of the Pope and the more Catholics who believe in the authority of the Patriarchs over their own Churches means the closer we are to unity. If all Orthodox who recognize the primacy of the Pope move over to the Catholic Church, who is left on the Orthodox side to foster unity when all that is left there are those who believe the Pope is merely a first among equals?

You make an excellent point. But I disagree. The unity we are all striving for is not a political endeavor, and it certainly will fail if approached that way. It’s something that must be pursued in naked openness and honesty and full reliance on the Lord and God the Holy Spirit to bring it about.

A stance that would prevent Christians from obeying their own consciences in order to create a strong support base is too political for my taste and sacrifices both truth and Love in the effort to foster them! Like I said, no one has any right for any reason to require anyone to disobey their conscience.

 

[grandfather]

I think both sides should stop taking in “converts” and put more effort into unity.

Where do you think the obstacles to unity lie? Which side do you think desires unity, or desires it most? What should the Orthodox do when approached by a Catholic who wishes to convert, or vice versa? It seems you are saying both groups should prohibit this. I would not presume to know what the hierarchy should do, or to tell them what they should do, but if they stopped receiving converts who convert of their free will and desire, because that is the wrong thing to do in the cause of unity, then that would imply that receiving converts over the past centuries was also wrong.

Turning away someone who knocks on the door and says I want to belong to your Church, because I believe its doctrines and that it is the true Church wiould be a pretty drastic thing to do, and it is dubious that this would do anything towards esteblishing a broader unification, resolving the disputes of the hierarchy.

.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You make an excellent point. But I disagree. The unity we are all striving for is not a political endeavor, and it certainly will fail if approached that way. It’s something that must be pursued in naked openness and honesty and full reliance on the Lord and God the Holy Spirit to bring it about.

A stance that would prevent Christians from obeying their own consciences in order to create a strong support base is too political for my taste and sacrifices both truth and Love in the effort to foster them! Like I said, no one has any right for any reason to require anyone to disobey their conscience.

For the most part, it is political. Because there is one Christ, one Church. We cannot divide the Body of Christ, which is the Church. But we sure have wounded it severely with our petty differences. There is no Catholic Jesus or Orthodox Jesus, there is no Catholic heaven or Orthodox heaven. We both have Jesus in our Eucharist. So if the problem is not political, what is it?