Good Books About Conversion from Orthodox

[ConstantineTG]

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.

.

The obstacles lie within ourselves. Each side believes their right and the other is wrong. Both sides should be willing to apologize to the other and be willing to make concessions.

As a matter of personal opinion, I think either side should not accept someone who wishes to “convert” unless they are moving because of marriage. The reason behind this is that we believe that both sides already possess the true faith. When we can see it that way, then we are closer to unity.

 

[mardukm]

I joined the Catholic communion from Coptic Orthodoxy.

**I never converted. I have not rejected any of my beliefs as a Coptic Orthodox. The only things that I have rejected are my previous misunderstandings of the Catholic Faith.

I merely translated from one Church to another.**

When the great reunion occurs between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, there won’t be any conversions, only greater understanding among brothers and sisters.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[grandfather]

I joined the Catholic communion from Coptic Orthodoxy.

**I never converted. I have not rejected any of my beliefs as a Coptic Orthodox. The only things that I have rejected are my previous misunderstandings of the Catholic Faith.

I merely translated from one Church to another.**

When the great reunion occurs between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, there won’t be any conversions, only greater understanding among brothers and sisters.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you!

 

[Marybeloved]

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?

The divisions may have been political, but the solution is going to be spiritual: truth, christian charity, reliance on the Holy Spirit and the Lord’s promises, prayers to our mother the theotokos and efforts to resolve all the misunderstangings of each other by sincere talking and listening.

The Division has placed the church in the place of the children of Israel, groaning and sighing in wait for the promised messiah, for return home from captivity; For us in our day, it is praying and waiting for the greatest miracle since the birth of the church to occur. If the Lord could gather Israel from captivity twice or thrice and take them to the Holy Land, surely he can heal the schism- But HE alone will do it, not our politics.

 

[Marybeloved]

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.

Whatever you mean by “off-centre for the most part”, the claim is most certainly dubious, to say the least! I have learned my faith entirely from Western Doctors and Saints, my spirituality, the road to sanctity, my prayer, my understanding of the Lord’s life and sacrifice and the mystical reality of the church- all 100% fully from Western Doctors. Any claim that the theology from which their great wisdom springs is off-centre “for the most part” represents not just arrogance but great bias and prejudice.

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.

This is bizzare, to say the least- Since when did Latin theology cease to draw from the Fathers of the undivided church? How does that make the CCC or the Western synthesis of the faith “eastern” for that fact?

The Fathers taught the same faith; does the fact that something was said by an Eastern father make the thing said Eastern? Especially where there is no divide between them on the issue of Apostolic faith, or no divide that could in any way be said to be an East-West divide but rather disagreements among the Fathers from all over the church, a claim that quoting from them makes that fact of Apostolic faith quoted or taught “eastern” rather than simply Apostolic, is totally bogus, to say the least.

Peace.

 

[Marie5890]

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.

Edwin,

A bit off the topic but I was wondering if you could expand on your thought as to why the two lung metaphor is rather flawed.

I too, think its a beautiful metaphor and am just coming to understand Orthodoxy better. Im hoping that your expanding on what you see as flaws could help me even better understand.
I finf metaphors very helpful learning tools, and pointing out their flaws and limitatios is just as helpful as the metaphor itself.

Thanks.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

A bit off the topic but I was wondering if you could expand on your thought as to why the two lung metaphor is rather flawed.

I too, think its a beautiful metaphor and am just coming to understand Orthodoxy better. Im hoping that your expanding on what you see as flaws could help me even better understand.
I finf metaphors very helpful learning tools, and pointing out their flaws and limitatios is just as helpful as the metaphor itself.

Thanks.

I entirely agree with the metaphor insofar as it acknowledges the need for both forms of Christianity. But it seems to have a “separate but equal” implication. As my statements above indicate, I would go beyond this to say that on some points the West needs to learn from the East, which would really mean going back to our own early heritage and questioning some of the off-balance ways of thinking that developed when we were isolated from the rest of the Church.

I also think that there are a lot more than two “lungs.” For one thing, historically there are really at least three different strands of ancient Christianity: Middle Eastern (even that is lumping together Syriac, Coptic, etc., which are distinct), Greek, and Latin. In other words, “Eastern” isn’t really just one thing–there’s huge historic diversity among Eastern Christians, and in fact one point in favor of the Catholic Church is that it has reached reunion with parts of the “Oriental” churches, preserving the diversity of Eastern Christianity much better than the Chalcedonian Orthodox not in communion with Rome (what we normally call the “Eastern Orthodox”) have done. The Byzantine Rite tended to swallow up other Eastern Rites just as the Roman Rite tended to swallow up other Western Rites, or even more so.

On the other side, historically, we have the explosion of “global” Christianity–I would argue that the Church needs to breathe with African and Latin American and Indian and Chinese and Melanesian (and many other) “lungs,” not just Latin and Greek.

That being said, the Pope’s statement was a historic reversal of Latin triumphalism and as such is to be celebrated enthusiastically!

Edwin

 

[Marie5890]

I entirely agree with the metaphor insofar as it acknowledges the need for both forms of Christianity. But it seems to have a “separate but equal” implication. As my statements above indicate, I would go beyond this to say that on some points the West needs to learn from the East, which would really mean going back to our own early heritage and questioning some of the off-balance ways of thinking that developed when we were isolated from the rest of the Church.

I also think that there are a lot more than two “lungs.” For one thing, historically there are really at least three different strands of ancient Christianity: Middle Eastern (even that is lumping together Syriac, Coptic, etc., which are distinct), Greek, and Latin. In other words, “Eastern” isn’t really just one thing–there’s huge historic diversity among Eastern Christians, and in fact one point in favor of the Catholic Church is that it has reached reunion with parts of the “Oriental” churches, preserving the diversity of Eastern Christianity much better than the Chalcedonian Orthodox not in communion with Rome (what we normally call the “Eastern Orthodox”) have done. The Byzantine Rite tended to swallow up other Eastern Rites just as the Roman Rite tended to swallow up other Western Rites, or even more so.

On the other side, historically, we have the explosion of “global” Christianity–I would argue that the Church needs to breathe with African and Latin American and Indian and Chinese and Melanesian (and many other) “lungs,” not just Latin and Greek.

That being said, the Pope’s statement was a historic reversal of Latin triumphalism and as such is to be celebrated enthusiastically!

Edwin

Thank you. I appreciate it.

 

[Hesychios]

I entirely agree with the metaphor insofar as it acknowledges the need for both forms of Christianity. But it seems to have a “separate but equal” implication. As my statements above indicate, I would go beyond this to say that on some points the West needs to learn from the East, which would really mean going back to our own early heritage and questioning some of the off-balance ways of thinking that developed when we were isolated from the rest of the Church.

I also think that there are a lot more than two “lungs.” For one thing, historically there are really at least three different strands of ancient Christianity: Middle Eastern (even that is lumping together Syriac, Coptic, etc., which are distinct), Greek, and Latin. In other words, “Eastern” isn’t really just one thing–there’s huge historic diversity among Eastern Christians, and in fact one point in favor of the Catholic Church is that it has reached reunion with parts of the “Oriental” churches, preserving the diversity of Eastern Christianity much better than the Chalcedonian Orthodox not in communion with Rome (what we normally call the “Eastern Orthodox”) have done. The Byzantine Rite tended to swallow up other Eastern Rites just as the Roman Rite tended to swallow up other Western Rites, or even more so.

On the other side, historically, we have the explosion of “global” Christianity–I would argue that the Church needs to breathe with African and Latin American and Indian and Chinese and Melanesian (and many other) “lungs,” not just Latin and Greek.

That being said, the Pope’s statement was a historic reversal of Latin triumphalism and as such is to be celebrated enthusiastically!

Edwin

Good post … good thoughts

 

[Hesychios]

Whatever you mean by “off-centre for the most part”, the claim is most certainly dubious, to say the least! I have learned my faith entirely from Western Doctors and Saints, my spirituality, the road to sanctity, my prayer, my understanding of the Lord’s life and sacrifice and the mystical reality of the church- all 100% fully from Western Doctors. .

Thus, off center.
.

 

[Marybeloved]

Thus, off center.
.

Whatever you say, sir.:tiphat:

You’ve clearly demonstrated a very “neutral” and “unbiased” mindset in these forums before, especially with regard to your former religion. I’m sure you can be trusted with assessing just how off-centre or not Latin theology actually is.

Peace.

 

[Hesychios]

Whatever you say, sir.:tiphat:

You’ve clearly demonstrated a very “neutral” and “unbiased” mindset in these forums before, especially with regard to your former religion. I’m sure you can be trusted with assessing just how off-centre or not Latin theology actually is.

Peace.

You are the one who said you have learned your religion exclusively from latin sources, not me.

 

[Marybeloved]

You are the one who said you have learned your religion exclusively from latin sources, not me.

And I repeat it again- proudly. I also repeat that it is most certainly very much centered and Apostolic.

If your definition of not centered is not using Eastern sources, then I’m sorry- try convincing some other person about that.

Peace.

 

[ConstantineTG]

And I repeat it again- proudly. I also repeat that it is most certainly very much centered and Apostolic.

If your definition of not centered is not using Eastern sources, then I’m sorry- try convincing some other person about that.

Peace.

Hesychios is saying that Western theologians of course is talking about Western theology. Thus off centered. The same if one learns from Eastern theologians exclusively, then one appreciates only the Eastern side of things.

I’ve come across you in many Eastern threads and I can truly say that you do approach it off-centered, because you came looking for Western understanding of Eastern theology, which is wrong. It like going to China and trying to understand their culture with an American perspective. Instead of appreciation, you’d think they are weird. Same in the faith, if you put on your Western goggles and look at the Eastern praxis, it won’t make sense to you.

Off centered doesn’t mean what you believe is wrong. It just means you see the faith through one valid interpretation of it but also know that you cannot use this interpretation to look at other interpretations.

 

[Marybeloved]

Hesychios is saying that Western theologians of course is talking about Western theology. Thus off centered. The same if one learns from Eastern theologians exclusively, then one appreciates only the Eastern side of things.

I’ve come across you in many Eastern threads and I can truly say that you do approach it off-centered, because you came looking for Western understanding of Eastern theology, which is wrong. It like going to China and trying to understand their culture with an American perspective. Instead of appreciation, you’d think they are weird. Same in the faith, if you put on your Western goggles and look at the Eastern praxis, it won’t make sense to you.

Off centered doesn’t mean what you believe is wrong. It just means you see the faith through one valid interpretation of it but also know that you cannot use this interpretation to look at other interpretations.

Interesting how you like to make this false claim when this is exactly your own bad habit regarding western theology. I have noticed you (and not just I noticed, I recall and not just Latin Christians but Eastern ones also called you out on it, too) imposing your own false assumptions of Latin theology and then insisting as you falsely claim here again, that it’s the Latins correcting your misrepresentation of their theology who are imposing on Easterns!

Tell me just one example of me in this whole site trying to explain Eastern theology! Just one, not two. I’ll give you a few of You trying to force a false understanding of Latin theology and then pretending to be the one on the receiving end of this nasty habit. You seem to believe it’s your right as an eastern to say false and wrong things about western teaching, so if someone says- excuse me, what you say about the west is false- you strangely make it about “Eastern” theology and then say that we are approaching the East with the Western mind, when what we are discussing is not Eastern theology but the Western teaching misrepresented by you!

In the Eastern forums, I have had zero interest on teaching Eastern concepts- this is just your own paranoia because you want to present a false teaching of the Western side and have no one defend the Latins. I only discuss the Eastern concepts as the Easterns themselves present them and question them from that perspective, unlike you who try to to misrepresent Latin theology as if it’s your right to do so as an Eastern, or as if your faith as an Eastern involves misrepresenting the West.

Peace.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Interesting how you like to make this false claim when this is exactly your own bad habit regarding western theology. I have noticed you (and not just I noticed, I recall and not just Latin Christians but Eastern ones also called you out on it, too) imposing your own false assumptions of Latin theology and then insisting as you falsely claim here again, that it’s the Latins correcting your misrepresentation of their theology who are imposing on Easterns!

Tell me just one example of me in this whole site trying to explain Eastern theology! Just one, not two. I’ll give you a few of You trying to force a false understanding of Latin theology and then pretending to be the one on the receiving end of this nasty habit. You seem to believe it’s your right as an eastern to say false and wrong things about western teaching, so if someone says- excuse me, what you say about the west is false- you strangely make it about “Eastern” theology and then say that we are approaching the East with the Western mind, when what we are discussing is not Eastern theology but the Western teaching misrepresented by you!

In the Eastern forums, I have had zero interest on teaching Eastern concepts- this is just your own paranoia because you want to present a false teaching of the Western side and have no one defend the Latins. I only discuss the Eastern concepts as the Easterns themselves present them and question them from that perspective, unlike you who try to to misrepresent Latin theology as if it’s your right to do so as an Eastern, or as if your faith as an Eastern involves misrepresenting the West.

Peace.

Okay, I don’t want to turn this thread into an evaluation of one poster and another. I never said you tried to teach Eastern theology or try to explain it. Can you point to my post where I said you did? You completely misunderstood what i said. Whenever you come onto Eastern-themed threads, you are trying to understand Eastern theology in a Western context. That will never work. That is what off-centered means. You learned from the Western praxis and see the faith from the Western praxis. When you ask about (not teach, not explain, ASK, I hope that is clear now) the Eastern praxis, you still try to see it as Western. That is why many of the threads you join are long, drawn out conversations going in circles because you won’t accept a uniquely Eastern understanding to faith because you’re trying to view it with Western eyes.

 

[Marybeloved]

Okay, I don’t want to turn this thread into an evaluation of one poster and another.… That is why many of the threads you join are long, drawn out conversations going in circles because you won’t accept a uniquely Eastern understanding to faith because you’re trying to view it with Western eyes.

How consistent of you- say in one breath that you don’t want to evaluate each others’ posts then give that “generous” little comment about threads in which I participate in- Your problem is the same- you throw things out there and then want to turn around when you can’t answer questions and try to pretend that you didn’t say what you’ve put out there in the public in black and white and call it “Eastern praxis”- You’re not the first Eastern I’ve debated or entered discussions with here, but this is uniquely your style. Call it whatever “Praxis” you want, it’s not Eastern- just plain intellectual dishonesty.

You don’t have to read my “long drawn out threads”, I certainly don’t require your permission to debate and discuss with others interested in intellectually stimulating topics on the faith. Not everyone turns to accusations when they place things out there that they cannot back up with reasoned arguments when others join in the conversation. But anything false you present, if I have time, I will correct it. These are after all, public forums, and like I said, I don’t require yours or anyone else’s permission. And PS- It was you who has started this evaluations here of other thread, which you’re now trying to pretend otherwise.

Peace.

 

[Bezant]

Oh, brotha…

 

[Hesychios]

And I repeat it again- proudly. I also repeat that it is most certainly very much centered and Apostolic.

If your definition of not centered is not using Eastern sources, then I’m sorry- try convincing some other person about that.

Peace.

I am not advocating an off-centered ‘Byzantine’ approach, if that is what you think. I am surely not alone in thinking that this sort of one-sidedness is bad for the community of Christians everywhere.

"Since, in fact, we believe that the venerable and ancient tradition of the Eastern Churches is an integral part of the heritage of Christ’s Church, the first need for Catholics is to be familiar with that tradition, so as to be nourished by it and to encourage the process of unity in the best way possible for each.

“Our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are very conscious of being the living bearers of this tradition, together with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. The members of the Catholic Church of the Latin tradition must also be fully acquainted with this treasure and thus feel, with the Pope, a passionate longing that the full manifestation of the Church’s catholicity be restored to the Church and to the world, expressed not by a single tradition, and still less by one community in opposition to the other; and that we too may all be granted a full taste of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church which is preserved and grows in the life of the Churches of the East as in those of the West.”
Orientalie Lumen Pope John Paul II

 

[ConstantineTG]

How consistent of you- say in one breath that you don’t want to evaluate each others’ posts then give that “generous” little comment about threads in which I participate in-

And what do you call throwing out venoms like this one then signing your comments with “Peace”?

Anyway, don’t worry, this will be the last you’ll hear of me. Say hello to my ignore list.