How "catholic" are the Orthodox churches?

[VARC]

In the case of Orthodoxy, because it doesn’t have many members in the U.S., this entire country is somewhat of a missionary land. And yes, the bishops of the Orthodox Church do seek the conversion of Americans to Orthodoxy. So that is technically missionary activity, is it not?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

What is a ‘mission parish’? Is it the result of missionary activity? Did the priests who established it come from another part of the US or from another country?

Here in Delaware a ‘mission parish’ starts when enough Catholics live in an area so a priest comes from the closest church to say mass there. Eventually, a regular parish is established there. So, for us a mission parish doesn’t necessarily mean there has been missionary activity.

Locally missions have proliferated post-schism. The Antiochians owe their presense to a split in the OCA “Mother parish”, two OCA missions outside of town owe their existence to a split in that same OCA “Mother parish”, the ethnic mission is also a split of fthat same OCA “Mother parish” when it was decided the ethnics should have their own parish.

Talk of numbers may sound crass, but being proud of a lot of bi-vocational priests with full time secular jobs starting and serving small missions that rent or borrow a place, or save up for a tiny chapel (which is of course a start) shouldn’t be over-sold as the “growth of Orthodoxy.” Locally the OCA “Mother parish” has four priests attached to it and is about the same size it has been since it moved into the storefont it bought 2 decades ago.

So if the number in the pews is a crass way to talk about or compare, lauding how many missions have been established is little better.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

In the case of the OCA, a mother parish established a mission parish some 40 miles away. That mission rents a chapel and now has a preist assigned to it by the bishop.

The Greek parish is actually an established parish but they are in between preists right now.

The Antiochian mission is a little different. About 40 disaffected episcopalians approached the Antiochian archdiocese and asked to be received into the Orthodox Church. One of them was ordained an Orthodox preist and they use a Western Rite of Liturgy (an English Tridentine Mass with some small changes).

Very interesting. This is totally off topic but did the former episcopalians have to go through any type of formation program (like we have RCIA)? And did the priest attend seminary? I know of a similar case in the Catholic church where the Protestant minister and his congregation had to attend RCIA classes and join a parish. They had to sell their former church building.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Locally missions have proliferated post-schism. The Antiochians owe their presense to a split in the OCA “Mother parish”, two OCA missions outside of town owe their existence to a split in that same OCA “Mother parish”, the ethnic mission is also a split of fthat same OCA “Mother parish” when it was decided the ethnics should have their own parish.

Talk of numbers may sound crass, but being proud of a lot of bi-vocational priests with full time secular jobs starting and serving small missions that rent or borrow a place, or save up for a tiny chapel (which is of course a start) shouldn’t be over-sold as the “growth of Orthodoxy.” Locally the OCA “Mother parish” has four priests attached to it and is about the same size it has been since it moved into the storefont it bought 2 decades ago.

So if the number in the pews is a crass way to talk about or compare, lauding how many missions have been established is little better.

Another question which is somewhat off topic, why bi-vocational priests? Is it because they have families to support or they are like St. Paul who doesn’t want to impose on the church?

 

[Alexius]

Locally missions have proliferated post-schism. The Antiochians owe their presense to a split in the OCA “Mother parish”, two OCA missions outside of town owe their existence to a split in that same OCA “Mother parish”, the ethnic mission is also a split of fthat same OCA “Mother parish” when it was decided the ethnics should have their own parish.

Talk of numbers may sound crass, but being proud of a lot of bi-vocational priests with full time secular jobs starting and serving small missions that rent or borrow a place, or save up for a tiny chapel (which is of course a start) shouldn’t be over-sold as the “growth of Orthodoxy.” Locally the OCA “Mother parish” has four priests attached to it and is about the same size it has been since it moved into the storefont it bought 2 decades ago.

So if the number in the pews is a crass way to talk about or compare, lauding how many missions have been established is little better.

Are you saying that the Greeks and Antiochians are schismatics from the OCA?

It seems more like they preferred their own parishes rather than they just left as in a true schism…(I wouldn’t even use that word as it doesn’t really fit what apparently happened)…

 

[Alexius]

Another question which is somewhat off topic, why bi-vocational priests? Is it because they have families to support or they are like St. Paul who doesn’t want to impose on the church?

Not really sure, but many do in fact have families to support.

 

[VARC]

So if the number in the pews is a crass way to talk about or compare, lauding how many missions have been established is little better.

I hope this isn’t directed towards me. The OP was interested in whether or not the OC was engaged in missionary activity and I told her what was happening in my area. The Orthodox may not have all sorts of missions in the the Third World but they have a lot of missionary activity in the west because of the migration of the orthodox into the more prosperous countries. They are bringing there church with them and seeking the conversion of the native population.

The success of this missionary activity is not here nor there. The OP wanted to know if it existed. The answer is yes but not in some far off lands but in your own backyard.

 

[VARC]

Very interesting. This is totally off topic but did the former episcopalians have to go through any type of formation program (like we have RCIA)? And did the priest attend seminary? I know of a similar case in the Catholic church where the Protestant minister and his congregation had to attend RCIA classes and join a parish. They had to sell their former church building.

Yes the new preist had to receive some type of clerical training and was ordained by the bishop in the byzantine rite. The entire parish had to receive an RCIA equivalent in order to be charismated.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Are you saying that the Greeks and Antiochians are schismatics from the OCA?

It seems more like they preferred their own parishes rather than they just left as in a true schism…(I wouldn’t even use that word as it doesn’t really fit what apparently happened)…

I didn’t say anything about “the Greeks” vis. the OCA Mother parish that continued to split.

“The Antiochians” if they be from Antioch, are from Antioch, GA. White post-ethnic American converts from Episcopal and Evangelical backgrounds, when there was a clash at the OCA parish that all the founders of the mission had attended, the Antiochian bishop was happy to set up a “mission” for them.

The success of this missionary activity is not here nor there. The OP wanted to know if it existed. The answer is yes but not in some far off lands but in your own backyard.

That is a start. Belonging to a church that sees roughly 200,000 people in America become Catholic each Easter, I suppose you could say in the domestic department, we are doing similar.

Plus the “third world” missions in far off lands.

 

[SiempreFiel]

Political Power figures into the historic spread of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The Orthodox (exept Russia) have historically lacked political power to spread Christianity beyond their borders because of the Muslims to their east and the germanic barbarians (Franks, Lombards, Bavarians, etc) to the west.

The height of Catholic political power was the colonial period. Spain, Portugal, and France used their power to spread catholicism to the New World. And today, the majority of the worlds catholics live in those colonized areas (Mexico, Central and South America). Catholicism has had a missionary advantage because of the politcal power of its nations not because it is more ‘catholic’ than the Orthodox Church.

You use the phrase “political power” too much!

Why don’t you give at least some credit to the Mother and Evangelizer of America, Our Lady of Guadalupe!!!

https://arb0rv1tae.typepad.com

 

[VARC]

You use the phrase “political power” too much!

Why don’t you give at least some credit to the Mother and Evangelizer of America, Our Lady of Guadalupe!!!

bookworm

Because I think that the conversion of Mexico had more to do with Spain’s conquering and ruling the natives then anything else. If Cortes hadn’t conquered Mexico there would not have been a lady of guadaloupe.

P.S. I’ll try to a more diverse vocabulary

 

[Alexius]

You use the phrase “political power” too much!

Why don’t you give at least some credit to the Mother and Evangelizer of America, Our Lady of Guadalupe!!!

bookworm

Because she appeared after the conversion of South America. Of course, if you want to argue about North America, I wouldn’t object, but it is really the Holy Spirit who is working in America, not Our Lady of Guadalupe. She may be a warrior, companion, advocate and mother, but certainly it is only GOD who changes the heart…

 

[SiempreFiel]

Because I think that the conversion of Mexico had more to do with Spain’s conquering and ruling the natives then anything else.

I disagree. I think that God’s Providence had more to do with the conversion of about 10 million polytheistic Aztecs in less than 20 years than political power!

If Cortes hadn’t conquered Mexico there would not have been a lady of guadaloupe.

And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

P.S. I’ll try to a more diverse vocabulary

Your problem is not that you lack a diverse vocabulary. Your problem is that you fail to recognize Our Lady of Guadalupe as the Mother and Evangelizer America!

 

[SiempreFiel]

Because she appeared after the conversion of South America. Of course, if you want to argue about North America, I wouldn’t object, but it is really the Holy Spirit who is working in America, not Our Lady of Guadalupe. She may be a warrior, companion, advocate and mother, but certainly it is only GOD who changes the heart…

Duhhh! Every Guadalupano knows that it is GOD who changes the heart!!!

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I won’t respond to the statement about Byzantine praxis being superior (seems like a poke at the Orthodox) because it goes two ways and is not what this is about.

It isn’t a poke, it is a question about why the expansion of the Catholic Church can often be reduced by some to pragmatic opportunity. There is simultaneous defensiveness there (we couldn’t go) and prgamatism (you happened to be in the right countries that went to the right colonies…) Certain parties are quick to defend and correct against any perception - accurate or not - that missiology was sometimes lackluster… But correctiong some perceptions that probably are in error (but more favorable!) just isn’t cause for speaking up as much.

Because she appeared after the conversion of South America. Of course, if you want to argue about North America, I wouldn’t object, but it is really the Holy Spirit who is working in America, not Our Lady of Guadalupe. She may be a warrior, companion, advocate and mother, but certainly it is only GOD who changes the heart…

Anyone suggesting anyone but God changed hearts?

Are you familiar with the state of Christianity and how many had yet to be baptized at the time of the appearance of OLG?

I don’t know that I can get behind pragmatic views of the conversion of Mexico and South America as being just an extension of colonialism where the natives were forced… These were HUGE countries that could have EASILY defeated the SMALL forces sent by Spain.

 

[VARC]

I disagree. I think that God’s Providence had more to do with the conversion of about 10 million polytheistic Aztecs in less than 20 years than political power

One can always attribute Cortes’ 400 conquistdors overtaking millions of Aztecs to providence as well. A muslim might say that the fact they have surpassed catholicsim in numbers is providence. Your attributing the conversion of Mexico to the lady of guadaloupe is because of your religious beliefs. I’m sure the conquered pagans of Mexico don’t see it that way at all.

And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

Because Juan Diego was already converted to Christianity by the conquistadors when he supposely saw this lady.

 

[SiempreFiel]

One can always attribute Cortes’ 400 conquistdors overtaking millions of Aztecs to providence as well. A muslim might say that the fact they have surpassed catholicsim in numbers is providence. Your attributing the conversion of Mexico to the lady of guadaloupe is because of your religious beliefs. I’m sure the conquered pagans of Mexico don’t see it that way at all.

YES!!! Divine Providence is a great mystery!!! Don’t you think?

Because Juan Diego was already converted to Christianity by the conquistadors when he supposely saw this lady.

Your argument looks like this:

PREMISE 1: Because Juan Diego was already converted to Christianity by the conquistadors when he supposely saw this lady.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, the conversion of Mexico had more to do with Spain’s conquering and ruling the natives then anything else.

 

[Alexius]

At this point, I am starting to question the whole direction of the thread. It’s almost like going to the Orthodox and shoving victory signs in their face. I fear that this “victory” will be short lived in much of the West. At the rate of growth by Islam, you’ll soon be trying to hide from this topic…Besides, with all the circumstances in the Orthodox countries, I can’t believe you’re still pushing this topic. I am so happy Western Europe was able to send out missionaries. You had better thank the Kings and Queens of Spain, France and Portugal when you see them–without their money and zeal, South Americans and many others might be Protestant…

P.S. Have you ever wondered how many of the proported 1.1 billion are truly worshipping GOD and obeying Him? Look at the countries in Europe and then tell the bishops to start re-evangelizing.

 

[SiempreFiel]

It’s almost like going to the Orthodox and shoving victory signs in their face.

I categorically deny your charge!

I fear that this “victory” will be short lived in much of the West. At the rate of growth by Islam, you’ll soon be trying to hide from this topic…

I’m not scared!!! Jezu Ufam Tobie!!!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I am so happy Western Europe was able to send out missionaries. You had better thank the Kings and Queens of Spain, France and Portugal when you see them–without their money and zeal, South Americans and many others might be Protestant…

Thanks be to God for all those who promoted and promote the knowledge of the Gospels!!!

Look at the countries in Europe and then tell the bishops to start re-evangelizing.

AMEN!!!

May God touch the heart of every Catholic so that we may repent and believe in the Good News!!!

 

[mardukm]

When I think of the Orthodox churches, they seem local to me. The Catholic church has much missionary activity. We consider that the faith is meant to be universal, for all people. In other words, ‘catholic’. How do the Orthodox churches implement the command to go and teach all nations?

I’m sure I’m biased, but I believe the only missionary Orthodox Church in modern times is the Coptic Orthodox Church.

In any case, to answer the original question (which I don’t think anyone has yet answered), the reason the Orthodox Churches (particularly the Eastern Orthodox Churches) are not Catholic is not because of missionary activity or lack of it. Being Catholic has nothing to do with missionary activity. “Catholic” refers to the universality of the Faith, NOT the universality of a theological system, nor to the geographical extent of Christendom. “Catholic” means the Faith is for all people at all times at all places - it is the MIND of the Church which is Catholic, informed by the Holy Spirit. It is for this latter reason that particularly the Eastern Orthodox Church is not Catholic. It is confined within the"East" in its choice, mind and demeanor, not accepting the fullness of the apostolic Christian Tradition all over the world. Certainly it is Christian, certainly it is orthodox, but certainly it is not Catholic.

Now, in response to the current debate, I would like to point out that, despite the canard that there is a mere one-to-one relationship between political imperialism and the spread of the Latin Catholic faith, it is a fact that:

1. the Catholic Church has always sided with the common people whom they evangelized when there was conflict between the interests of the imperial government and the rights of the common folk. IOW, the Catholic Church was never the tool of the imperial government. Rather, it was the other way around - the Catholic Church (particularly the Latin Church) utilized the government as a vehicle to get its missionaries out there.
2. The Latin Catholic Church always operated OUTSIDE the bounds of the imperial conquests - as mentioned, the Catholic Church USED the State merely as a vehicle to get around. In contrast, Eastern Orthodox (particularly the Russian Church) has always worked WITHIN the bounds of the Empire or legate territories (such as in Japan). I have not seen any evidence otherwise (though I’d love to hear some). In terms of Catholicism, the Church has often come first, and then the government follows (which is why there are so many Catholic MISSIONARY martyrs - they did not have the protection of the State in those mission fields). In terms of Orthodoxy, the government always comes first, and then the Church follows.

And someone mentioned about the lack of missionary efforts of the Eastern/Oriental Catholics. Actually, there were numerous times when Eastern and Oriental Catholics were regarded as being in “enemy territory.” That her numbers increased within those territories in the early years is testimony to their/our missionary spirit. In any case, it is silly to dichotomize the Latin Church from the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. There is only one Church that evangelizes, not different Churches. And the Catholicity of that Church is evident because her members can experience the breadth and depth of Christian Tradition (Eastern, Western and Oriental) within that one Church.

Blessings,
Marduk