How can I become Catholic and what are the steps?

[Sepp]

The Balamand Statement didn’t come from The Vatican?

Well … yes, technically you’re right, it didn’t. Does that invalidate it?

FWIW, in my years within (and at the fringes of) Eastern Orthodoxy, I rarely heard much about the Balamand Statement. Most mentions of it were not positive, either.

I can tell you that when I was Orthodox, a million mentions of Balamand would never have softened my stance towards Rome. What did it was the forthright (but charitable and fair) laying out of the Catholic case. I think there is a real danger of going too far in the opposite direction and convincing the Orthodox that Catholics don’t have the courage of their convictions. For many people, that will only drive the two churches further apart.

 

[Sepp]

Those born into the Orthodox Faith are not living in schism.

This is important to note, and a distinction that I did not fully understand until recently. I don’t know if there is less emphasis on this distinction among the Orthodox, or just that I am paying closer attention to such issues now.

But on an individual level (and maybe others can relate), I reached a point where I realized that I accepted the teachings of the Catholic Church, and no longer accepted what I had formerly believed about Rome. Once I reached that point, I would have felt schismatic if I had not sought to become Catholic. In other words, I would have felt that way not because I was Orthodox, but because I was not Catholic. I hope that makes some sense.

 

[Peter_J]

Once I reached that point, I would have felt schismatic if I had not sought to become Catholic. In other words, I would have felt that way not because I was Orthodox, but because I was not Catholic. I hope that makes some sense.

Not only does it makes sense, I should think it would be expected. I don’t mean that I would expect you to feel schismatic – not at all – but if you did, I would completely expect you to say that you felt that way not because you were Orthodox, but because you were not Catholic. (Or maybe I’m missing something in your statement. )

 

[Peter_J]

It isn’t from the Vatican? Well it’s in the Vatican website documents library within the "Roman Curia: Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity."
Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue **Between the Catholic Church **and the Orthodox Church

Is there some other Vatican?

To be honest, I don’t have any strong opinion about whether or not we count that as being “from the Vatican”, so I’ll bow out and let you and Linus work it out.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Friar_David_O.Carm:
Those born into the Orthodox Faith are not living in schism.

True. But as one matures, if one becomes aware of it there is an obligation to do something about it. Wouldn’t that be true?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is important to note, and a distinction that I did not fully understand until recently. I don’t know if there is less emphasis on this distinction among the Orthodox, or just that I am paying closer attention to such issues now.

But on an individual level (and maybe others can relate), I reached a point where I realized that I accepted the teachings of the Catholic Church, and no longer accepted what I had formerly believed about Rome. Once I reached that point, I would have felt schismatic if I had not sought to become Catholic. In other words, I would have felt that way not because I was Orthodox, but because I was not Catholic. I hope that makes some sense.

Perfect sense. We are always obliged to follow a well formed conscience. Your courage is evidence that God’s grace is at work everywhere.

 

[TrueLight]

I’m afraid I have to very strongly disagree with what you are saying here, Linus. OrthodoxGuy can of course become Catholic if he so chooses, but he does not need to become Catholic.

You should read the Balamand Statement, particularly the part that says that “Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other”.

Why does one not “need” to be in communion with Peter? So communion with Peter from a Catholic perspective, is optional?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It isn’t from the Vatican? Well it’s in the Vatican website documents library within the "Roman Curia: Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity."
Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue **Between the Catholic Church **and the Orthodox Church

Is there some other Vatican?

All kinds of groups study things at the Vatican. Their results, positive or negative, do not represent the official position of the Church. Such things are advisory at best. This occurred back during the reign of Paul VI. The press and certain dissinting Theologians publicised the results of a study group and Paul VI was obliged to issue Humanae Vitae which clarified and reinforced the Churches teaching which were opposed to the results of the results of the study. The official teachings of the Church always come from the Magisterium as opposed to opinions of Theologians how ever well stated, whether pro or con. The guidance of the Holy Spirit rests only with the Magisterium.

This is very important to keep in mind. The Documents of Vatican II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church cover this clearly.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Those born into the Orthodox Faith are not living in schism.

And it is a violation of the rules of this forum to label them as either heretics or schismatics.

You mean we can’t acknowledge the true situation? I suppose if it was said in a pergorative sense you might have a point. But I don’t think anyone used it in that sense, certainly not me. After all, to ignore the differences between communions would mean, in effect, that there was no Church founded by Christ or that no one was able to determine which one it was and therefore it was fine to follow any denomination and in effect to believe whatever one wanted to in faith and morals and worship.

 

[TrueLight]

You mean we can’t acknowledge the true situation? I suppose if it was said in a pergorative sense you might have a point. But I don’t think anyone used it in that sense, certainly not me. After all, to ignore the differences between communions would mean, in effect, that there was no Church founded by Christ or that no one was able to determine which one it was and therefore it was fine to follow any denomination and in effect to believe whatever one wanted to in faith and morals and worship.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Sounds contradictory to Light of the World and Benedicts own words.

I’ve heard the Universal, early original See, visable/invisable, arguements, sounds loosey goosey to me from Pope Benedicts XVI own recent words.

Here is the paragraph by Pope Benedict 2010 which reflects Vatican II.

"What I defend is the heritage of the Second Vatican Council and the Entire History of the Church. The Eastern Church’s are genuine particular Church’s although they are NOT in communion with the Pope. In this sense unity with the Pope is not constitutive for the particular church. For the particular church is ordered to membership with the whole.

Nevertheless, the lack of unity is also an intrinsic lack in the particular church, as it were. It remains a cell. In this respect non-communion with the Pope, is a defect in the living cell, its is legitimately called a church, but the cell is lacking something, namely its connection with the whole." (pg 89 Light of the World)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Those born into the Orthodox Faith are not living in schism.

And it is a violation of the rules of this forum to label them as either heretics or schismatics.

Turns out you are absolutely correct, so I am bowing out of this forum. Much too dangerous.

 

[TrueLight]

Sounds contradictory to Light of the World and Benedicts own words.

I’ve heard the Universal, early original See, visable/invisable, arguements, sounds loosey goosey to me from Pope Benedicts XVI own recent words.

Here is the paragraph by Pope Benedict 2010 which reflects Vatican II.

"What I defend is the heritage of the Second Vatican Council and the Entire History of the Church. The Eastern Church’s are genuine particular Church’s although they are NOT in communion with the Pope. In this sense unity with the Pope is not constitutive for the particular church. For the particular church is ordered to membership with the whole.

Nevertheless, the lack of unity is also an intrinsic lack in the particular church, as it were. It remains a cell. In this respect non-communion with the Pope, is a defect in the living cell, its is legitimately called a church, but the cell is lacking something, namely its connection with the whole." (pg 89 Light of the World)

Thanks Gary.

One thing I find concerning with some of the posts on this forum is the implication that both choices are equally fine (to choose Orthodoxy or Catholicism). This causes confusion for the faithful. We Catholics can show respect for the Orthodox faith, as it is apostolic, without pretending that Catholicism is just another option.

 

[Peter_J]

Why does one not “need” to be in communion with Peter? So communion with Peter from a Catholic perspective, is optional?

No, you’ve got the wrong idea there, I would not say “optional”. I don’t regard myself as free to leave Catholicism, unless I had some strong reason to do so.

On the other hand, that’s not to say that those who are born into Catholicism can absolutely *never *leave for Orthodoxy – nor do I want to say that those who are born into Orthodoxy can absolutely never leave for Catholicism – but it isn’t something to be done lightly.

In the particular case that this thread was (originally) discussing, I believe that OrthodoxGuy is justified in “switching sides” (but even then, I wouldn’t push him to do so if he didn’t want to become Catholic of his own volition).

 

[RyanBlack]

You mean we can’t acknowledge the true situation? I suppose if it was said in a pergorative sense you might have a point. But I don’t think anyone used it in that sense, certainly not me. After all, to ignore the differences between communions would mean, in effect, that there was no Church founded by Christ or that no one was able to determine which one it was and therefore it was fine to follow any denomination and in effect to believe whatever one wanted to in faith and morals and worship.

How is calling someone names like “schismatic” and “heretic” not offensive or pejorative? I’m baffled that you can’t see that. Furthemore, how is it even remotely following the leadership of our Church with respect to their efforts to engage the Orthodox in a fraternal spirit as they work towards restoring communion? Also, I reject your implication that those who don’t speak about the Orthodox as being in schism don’t acknowledge the “true situation” or that they ignore differences between the communions. Finally, not accentuating the differences to a degree that satisfies you triumphalistic approach towards the Orthodox (what you call ignoring "the differences between communions) most certainly does not mean that there is no Church founded by Christ.

 

[Vico]

Thanks Gary.

One thing I find concerning with some of the posts on this forum is the implication that both choices are equally fine (to choose Orthodoxy or Catholicism). This causes confusion for the faithful. We Catholics can show respect for the Orthodox faith, as it is apostolic, without pretending that Catholicism is just another option.

Especially in light of ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM (and later documents regarding communicatio in sacri):
26. Common participation in worship (communicatio in sacris) which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, of scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law.[32] On the other hand, pastoral experience shows clearly that, as regards our Eastern brethren, there should be taken into consideration the different cases of individuals, where neither the unity of the Church is hurt nor are verified the dangers that must be avoided, but where the needs of the salvation of souls and their spiritual good are impelling motives. For that reason the Catholic Church has always adopted and now adopts rather a mild policy, offering to all the means of salvation and an example of charity among Christians, through participation in the sacraments and in other sacred functions and things. With this in mind, “lest because of the harshness of our judgment we be an obstacle to those seeking salvation” [31] and in order more and more to promote union with the Eastern Churches separated from us, the Sacred Council lays down the following policy.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Furthemore, how is it even remotely following the leadership of our Church with respect to their efforts to engage the Orthodox in a fraternal spirit as they work towards restoring communion?

Such has been the chain of events which transpired last week which must be ignored entirely to proceed on a schismatic/heretic path. Its counter-productive and incorrect.

Its not difficult for a point of contention to occur as is the case with “I” or “We” in the creed which I notice you correctly addressed elsewhere. Here we see a situation where the shoe is easily on the other foot for example.

Certainly there is no all right all wrong situation, this is a give and take situation and for the most part to correct misunderstanding which as with the creed became history. No different than with the difficult aspects of V-II being examined today.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The first step is to contact a parish near you and ask to speak to the person in charge of RCIA (Roman Catholic Initiation of Adults). .

**Rite of Christian Initiation **for Adults.

 

[Peter_J]

It isn’t from the Vatican? Well it’s in the Vatican website documents library within the "Roman Curia: Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity."
Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue **Between the Catholic Church **and the Orthodox Church

Is there some other Vatican?

I know I said I was going to bow out on this ^^ issue, but I’d like to chime in again to say that the statement in question (“Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other”) has not completely taken root among Catholics. (Notwithstanding that I hope it will quickly.) That, to me, is the important point.

 

[jmcrae]

**Rite of Christian Initiation **for Adults.

Members of Orthodox Churches do not require RCIA, and there are no Rites established for them in the Blue Book.

There are Rites for those who have never been Baptized, for those who are coming from various Protestant denominations with baptism completed, and for baptized Catholics who have not received any of their other Sacraments of Initiation. But there is nothing for those coming from Orthodox Churches - probably because they have validly received all three Sacraments of Initiation.

My recommendation would be to locate your nearest Eastern Rite Church that is in full communion with the Church, and set an appointment to see the priest. If there is none near by, go to the nearest Latin Rite parish, and discuss it with their priest - but be prepared that he might not know very much about how to help you make the transition. your Diocese also has an Office of Liturgy, though, so what you can do is, together with your priest, consult with them on proper procedures.

It should be quite painless.