If a Protestant by virtue of religious background as a Protestant and baptism, possibly without Catholic ancestors for hundreds of years, would be asc

[NotMyOwn]

As for me… I’m not going to coerce Protestants or make them think they /have/ to become any Rite… Latin or Byzantine or otherwise! but I’ll make it clear that they have the freedom to any legitimate and curren Catholic Rite based upon their own free and human determination… and I’ll invite them and go with them (as much as I can) to experience as much as they can—from Roman Masses of various kinds and Adoration (which has great power to draw, as it influenced even me, though I am not now a Latin, nor do I think it has a place in Byzantine Churches) to the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and that of St. Basil, and Eastern Vespers… and Holy Qurbana, and other things… while informing them of the specifics of theology and obligations of each Church so that they can truly know the vast territory with great diversity of terrains that is before them as they stand on Jordan’s stormy banks to Canaan’s fair and happy land… as much as I can use to widen their eyes with amazement and blow them away with the Glory of Holy Church.

And I will not wield the Law of the Church, which is a Yoke of Freedom, as a weapon to manipulate their decision, nor to discourage or weaken our Glorious Eastern Churches. Слава Іусу Хриту, навіки слава!!! For He is Άξιος of all Δόξα and worship, everywhere and among all έθνοι!!

 

[NotMyOwn]

You’re also making this about Latin Documentation, denying that without Transfer Approvals from the Latin Bishop (a party unknown and separate to possibly both parties) any conversion from Protestantism to Orthodoxy would be both invalid and illicit. What of Protestant Converts to the Orthodox Faith? Are we to include in our demands for reunion with the Orthodox, the deposition of all married Orthodox priests from Protestant backgrounds or their cessassion from ordination of them?? I feel like the Church after the Second Vatican Council would never approve of such an egregious demand… Do you not know that a convert from Protestantism put the Orthodox Study Bible in English together?

These reasons and more are why I think you speak from ignorance… and not from knowledge of the truth as you draw from laws which you do not understand within the larger context of Church Law and the placement, function, and role of Church Law within Canonical Tradition. The Law is adapted and changed and clarified to come more into line with the Truth, not to change the Truth. And that’s why victory is claimed here. In human law, laws only hold true after they are ratified by human legislative authority… but many Church Laws and Deceees —such as the Church’s Conciliar Decrees on the Two Wills of Christ — have power to define the truth… Such that our beloved Saint Maximus the Confessor is a Saint though the whole world—even the Holy Roman See (but not according to its true Infallible Authority only applies in some cases)—was against him! And it’s why the dear Bishop Soter Ortynskyj of my Church will soon be declared a Blessed!!

I think victory is claimed in this case… No, as a crazy Charismatic Byzantine Catholic (as the UGCC lets me be), I declare victory in this situation… In Jesus Name. Because it is meet and right that such victory be for the Church. (And Good, and True, and Beautiful. [As comes from Greek φιλοσοφία in origin and not Latin Philosophic-Theology.])

 

[NotMyOwn]

Please, let’s continue to talk about this. You have yet to prove your method of proof as being a valid one. You are making an argument from the Law, but without demonstrating that your argument from the Law is even a valid application of the Law.

Here’s what’s interesting… Right now, you quote many canons and you have to draw them out and stretch them to apply them to attempt to prove your point. (And they are stretched unseemingly.) In the future, I will only have to quote one canon. No further explanation needed.

I would—if could—acquire from you some acknowledgement of the truth which I have said.

Also, entire nations were at one time Latin, but developed separately and became Byzantine, such as the Romanians. Also, the separate development of the Kyivan and Russian Churches needs again to be stated. And also, the Roman citizenship of most of those of Constantinople. Many moved from Rome, worshiped as Byzantines, no questions asked. Greece also used to be under the Jurisdiction of the Roman Church. At what point was a change in Rite approved for those who moved… all of them. If what you say is correct, then that means a lot of things… and for one, if gives Latins unquestionable domination over most of the world as far as pertains to claim… contrary to the will of its populace in the possibly hundreds of millions.

And you speak of this as a matter of paperwork… ? Of necessity, it’s more than that.

 

[Vico]

Here’s what’s interesting… Right now, you quote many canons and you have to draw them out and stretch them to apply them to attempt to prove your point. (And they are stretched unseemingly.) In the future, I will only have to quote one canon. No further explanation needed.

Not stretching but giving you the benefit of the content of two books on canon law that I have been using:

• Comparative Sacramental Discipline in the CCEO and CIC: A Handbook for the Patoral Care of Members of Other Catholic Churches Sui Iuris, Francis J. Marini ed., Canon Law Society of America, 2003. 258 pp., ISBN 1-932208-01-1
• Inter-Ecclesial Relations Between Eastern and Latin Catholics: A Canonical-Pastoral Handbook by Dimitri Salachas & Krzysztof Nitkiewicz, English Edition by George Dmitry Gallaro, 2009, 157 pp., ISBN 1-932208-23-2

Also see: from Fr. Gallaro now Bishop George D. Gallaro :

Your Word From The Wise: Church Ascription Upon Conversion

 

[NotMyOwn]

I’m not challenging his credentials, or anyone’s credentials. But there is more that must be considered quite frankly, and, you and these persons probably never have been a Protestant. Protestants, many of them, have blatantly and wholly rejected the Latin Rite. This rejection is terribly legitimate.

Their ignorance of the state and nature of Protestants and the work of God in them does not lessen their credentials; it only means they are attempting to write on things of which they are ignorant because they feel like it should fit within what they know. I know how Law works. In human law, it is common to go with the letter of the law. But sometimes the letter of the law produces ridiculous results if applied beyond the affected scope of the law—in these cases, things are patched up. If there were more Eastern Catholics and Eastern Catholics weren’t so darn afraid to magnificently engage Protestants who can be awed by their very existence… but maybe it takes a former-Protestant to appreciate that… which is exactly why our direct conversion from Protestantism to the Eastern Church should not be opposed by anyone. And Eastern Catholics should willingly evangelize Protestants… since they can’t licitly proselytize Orthodox… It is time for them to go to those who will listen.

Not all Protestants are the same. He speaks on the basis of ecclesiology… and familiarity. But there is nothing familiar to many Protestants about the Latin Rite… It only brings nightmares. Only through the Lens of the East was I reconciled to the Latin Church, with the help of Scripture to call out the (pardon the language) BS of the EO out of Communion with Rome, which helped me to see the BS of my own fellows in evangelicalism out of a valid Apostolic Communion.

I understand where he comes from. And I understand where you come from. But it is the application of rules for one situation for a wholly separate and entirely different case. Protestants are a terribly unique case in all of Church History. Terribly Unique. (In their brokenness as well as in what they have to contribute… some of which is actually quite exciting.)

Ecumenical details will trump this matter in the end. Trust me on that. Only wait, and see.

Our Eastern Churches will rise from the ashes of obscurity because of this. The triumph will be for the whole Church, and the Glory will be God’s own.

 

[NotMyOwn]

Is Chai Tea Asian? (I hope you see where this is going and that it can stun you to silence, or at least to flip it around in some creative way. Good luck.)

Every nation. Every nation. If there’s anything I know as a person of Southern Baptist background it’s that particular Scripture allusion accompanied by promises. Promises within Scripture. (I know the Greek words used. Quite well. I’ve been around many who have read books written on the matter, and I myself have read books on the matter.) When the Church applies biblical texts… Here it is exceedingly clear what they were saying. The Eastern Churches are global Churches, with a role in (they have members in) all the world… to every tribe (even if their ancestors split, like Ishmael from the Children of Promise… and their reconciliation, like the children of Ishmael can be of any sort.)

Baptists and many others split in Rite just as many Church and Rite changes happened outside of Communion with Rome among Apostolic Churches. These things are recognized by Holy Mother Church. They just are. Or did our lack of Bishops negate our Free Will? We didn’t care what we were—as long as we weren’t “Roman” Catholic. To deny my ancestors’ choice… (I’m talking about those even who weren’t responsible for the Schism and were still innocent of it) for generations beyond remembering… is to dishonor their memory and their human free will.

To say that their decisions do not affect me and that I pick up where they left off makes my face red (not with anger… but with heat in emotion most definitely). There is nothing to go back to. There was nothing left, not within me, not in the culture. Any remnant is but a shell. Nothing. We had Baptism, and it is valid in Mystery and effect, but we did not do so as the Church did later on (though as it was done in the early Church before Rite, did we do it.) We did not Baptize into Rite, but into Christianity.

And now we all have choices before us. And we should not be bound by laws which are not found in Sacred Scripture which our ancestors rejected a long time ago which are not necessary for our reception into the Unity of Holy Mother Church—the Catholic Church, which is neither Roman nor Greek nor Syriac yet has all Three and more still… It is wrong. Plain wrong.

And I have confidence the Church will agree. These codes do not apply to Protestants without Ancestors of Rite and who were not baptized by Catholics of Rite after generations beyond memory even of those long sleeping in the earth.

 

[Vico]

I’m not challenging his credentials, or anyone’s credentials. …
And Eastern Catholics should willingly evangelize Protestants… since they can’t licitly proselytize Orthodox…

I did not think you were challenging anyone’s credentials.

Catholic’s are not to proselytize anyone. We invited and have had many visitors to our Byzantine parish, some were non-Catholic Christians and subsequently came into full communion. However others that were Byzantine Catholic started worshiping with the Eastern Orthodox instead.

 

[NotMyOwn]

Do you think that Protestant converts should be told that they must transfer Rites as if they had been brought up in the Latin Church? (Do you think it makes a difference? Does 300 or 400 years make a difference… or are they all the same and should be regarded the same?) (I do believe they should certainly be encouraged to check out a whole host of the Rites the Church offers, including the Roman Rite… telling them the different expectations they would have on them given their choices, and them doing some serious examination and discernment to figure out what God has for them, and walking with them through that… You can tell them they ‘might’ be more comfortable at the Latin Church, and they might be expected to check it out… but we shouldn’t be surprised if they say, “no, we’re more comfortable here (or, this feels like where God is calling us [because they may or may not feel ‘more comfortable’ and yet God may be calling them there (to any Tradition) nonetheless for their own objective spiritual good in their unique personal circumstances or calling])… this is our home.”)

And do you think it is right that converts from Protestantism should be denied the married Priesthood to keep the discipline of some third party Church? Because writing ‘Latin’ next to their baptism can do injustice to these people if they’re automatically ‘flagged’ as possible canonical issues that aren’t worth it… or even ‘Protestant’ instead of ‘Baptist’ or ‘Episcopalian’—or better yet instead even more specific like ‘Southern Baptist…’ or ‘Reformed Southern Baptist’… or Presbyterian (PCA)… or ‘Methodist (Wesleyan Covenant)’ because kind of Protestant makes all the difference… Most Eastern Seminaries are afraid to touch married Protestants in this context like they’re some sort of taboo. Are we truly Orthodox? Because the quote-unquote real Orthodox have no problem with this. And they’re better, and stronger, and greater, for it.

 

[Vico]

Do you think that Protestant converts should be told that they must transfer Rites? …
And do you think it is right that converts from Protestantism should be denied the married Priesthood to keep the discipline of some third party Church? …
Are we truly Orthodox? …

We are Catholic not Orthodox because they do not profess full communion.

The norm for the Latin church is not the married priesthood but it is allowed sometimes with non-Catholic ministers coming into full communion.

It is a transfer of sui iuris church. For Ritus:

“Ritus in classical Latin in means primarily, the form and manner of any religious observance, so Livy, 1, 7: “Sacra diis aliis albano ritu, græco Herculi ut ab Evandro instituta erant (Romulus) facit”; then, in general, any custom or usage.”

Griffin, P. (1912). Rites. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm

You use the phrase “transfer Rites” so do you mean sui iurus church? Do you mean the ritual practice, such as the use of the Common Book of Prayer for the Anglicans?

CCEO Canon 35 - Baptized non-Catholics coming into full communion with the Catholic Church should retain and practice their own rite everywhere in the world and should observe it as much as humanly possible. Thus, they are to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the same rite with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions.

Non-Catholic Christians coming into full communion must be told that they should abandon their incorrect beliefs and practices, for example the rite of symbolic communion instead of the Real Presence.

Catholic church should exercise preservation of sui iuris church membership.

Do you mean to say that a sui iuris church is a “third party” church? Keep in mind that there are not equivalents for some so it is not possible to match them up (e.g., Maronites, Byzantines of Italy).

 

[NotMyOwn]

I used third party to describe the Latin Church when Protestants convert to the Catholic Church into any Church that isn’t the Roman Church.

They are not Roman Catholic, and they have a Rite not to be. Quite a few of them, to be exact.

I used the word ‘Rite’ that way because you seemed to be using it that way. I would much prefer to speak of Church sui juris, since not only is it the language that the Church prefers, it is quite plain and easily demonstrable that Baptists whose ancestors left the Latin Church hundreds of years ago are not members of the Roman Church sui juris. If you say otherwise… well. It’s a decently cooky position to hold there… That must be stated if no one else will say so.

 

[NotMyOwn]

Where there is not an equivalent, as is the case with those whose practices are ordered without place for the Sacraments, they must be given a choice of Rite. Just like all others without legitimate Rite… the rest of which aren’t Baptized Christians. They are Baptized into an Extraordinary Circumstance. The Extraordinary has become Ordinary through the sins of Christians… but it is best that they be brought into a Church sui juris… because that’s what the Church calls those who know the Truth of the Catholic Faith towards.

The argument that Protestants are Latin Church and Rite is not clearly and plainly stated by Canon Law with direct reference to them, using the word Protestants, or clearly and explicitly discussing the matter of Protestants (not referring to those with Catholic Parents or Grandparents, or who were baptized by a Catholic Priest)—clearly referring to them and their descendants. (The possible undertones of the Law are not to be read into too far… and can often lead astray. People doing the same thing with other texts can become Feeneyites and fall into other things that the Church has gone on to more plainly repudiate.)

Not all Protestants are lapsed Roman Catholics… which is what you’re equating them to.

You may not be Orthodox—but I am! And I consider myself subject to the See of Constantinople as second in the whole Church in as much as they do not conflict with the Holy See of Rome as it speaks Dogmatically or Authoritatively and as first among the Sees in the larger Byzantine Tradition. And I live with view to Reunion. Do you not?

 

[NotMyOwn]

Here’s some of my story. I hope that you read it. I want you to know that I am a real person, and some my story and that of my family.

I don’t think you understand… Roman Catholics… They killed my ancestors and scattered them to the four winds. I do have to forgive them and reconcile with them, but I don’t have to become one of them. Becoming Byzantine Catholic, I receive Communion with them, but I do not become a Catholic in a way that betrays my heritage, but rather which continues it in the fullness of life in the Catholic Church. My becoming Catholic and coming into Communion with them reconciles me with them and them with me, but I needed not to—nor am I expected to—become one of them.

Of course, I came to discover that persecution went both ways… But there is still a separation. When they killed my people, and you tell me that they were not a people… If they had not been a people, they would not have been killed as aliens in such days, without rights. Of course persecution went both ways, and I bear that… and I dare not seek to override that obligation to bear it by becoming one of them. I rather, coming into Communion with them without becoming one of them find a truer and more meaningful reconciliation than otherwise.

 

[NotMyOwn]

———————

It is very important that we not attack the legitimacy in God’s working among the Orthodox, namely with how they’ve seen many Protestants brought into the Mysteries of the Church… We ought to rejoice in this, and I think we can and should learn a lot from it. The Orthodox Church in my city is actually mostly made up of former Protestants and the Priest is a married former-Pentecostal (who was not a pastor before his becoming Orthodox). I wanted what they had, but I also saw the necessity from the Fathers and practically (and so morally [I’m remembering the Bosnian Genocide…]) of being in Communion with and accountable to Rome.

You appeared—and you got it from others, who in turn got it from others (the Eastern Catholic Churches have only recently come to be recognized as being that which we are)—to have an elitist attitude in a part of what you said…pertaining to the very ones we ought to imitate in all things things save xenophobia and factionalism, anti-Papal sentiments, and wholesale rejection of Western Theology… The Catholic Church will not reject the work of God. Not truly. It is canonically impossible for this to actually be the case, with the Catholic Church here meaning Authoritatively.

 

[Vico]

I used third party to describe the Latin Church when Protestants convert to the Catholic Church into any Church that isn’t the Roman Church.

They are not Roman Catholic, and they have a Rite not to be. Quite a few of them, to be exact.

I used the word ‘Rite’ that way because you seemed to be using it that way. I would much prefer to speak of Church sui juris, since not only is it the language that the Church prefers, it is quite plain and easily demonstrable that Baptists whose ancestors left the Latin Church hundreds of years ago are not members of the Roman Church sui juris. If you say otherwise… well. It’s a decently cooky position to hold there… That must be stated if no one else will say so.

What I posted about ascription for coming into full communion is from the sources that I gave, not personal opinion. I can add that sui iuris church is more than liturgical rite including also circumstances and hierarchy. Sui iuris chuch is a juridical definition. The sister churches and ecclesial communities that arose from the Latin church (Latin tradition) are derived from those jurisdictions, vs those in the eastern sister churches (Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean, and Constantinopolitan traditions). The second concept is that ascribed membership in the Church of Christ is per baptism alone (which means confirmation is not a determining factor).

The various ways of Catholic sui iuris church ascription are by:

• choice at adult baptism,
• choice at marriage (can revert),
• parental choice for infant at marriage (can revert),
• infant baptism,
• full communion,
• grant upon request.

 

[Vico]

…You appeared – and you got it from others, who in turn got it from others …

Best to avoid drawing conclusions on appearances. It is easy to ask.

 

[NotMyOwn]

Full Communion. You said it. Unless I’m mistaken.

The Anglicans preserved more than some trace of the Latin Tradition, however. Many Protestant denominations appear no more one than another.

Ascription is done by baptism in a great many cases. I am not denying that. But that Ascription outside of the Church often does not result in an ascription at all. I know you would like to believe, because it makes things simple… That ascription to a particular Church sui juris always happens at Baptism, and that Protestants would need to go through Latin Bishops to become Eastern Catholic, but that is overly simplistic and wrong in really weird and unnatural ways and denying of larger organic realities.

Also, calling you out here, I saw what you said on that thread about that deaf person going to confession. It was highly insensitive and non-constructive, and you should probably take it down.

I don’t think that the current Pope and the possible future Popes think as you do, but are more compassionate and understanding, and able to spot the reality of brokenness and just how far it can go in people and communities, and the possible ecclesial consequences, and are more likely to recognize it.

I am basing my position on a large number of factors. My position is proven by a great many factors, and proven mightily even without all of them. Your position is chosen by choice few factors, many of them superficial and not acknowledging of the deepest realities, which have often shown forth in Church history as normative, regardless of unnatural ecclesial action where it has happened.

 

[NotMyOwn]

Context is important. You tend to take things out of context to be witty, and seem right. I acknowledge context, but I see some parts of context which could seem to go counter to my position if understood in a certain way as redemptive.

That Protestants have a history in the Western Tradition of Thought ultimately works for the benefit of reconciling Western ways of thinking to the Eastern, and the Eastern ways to the Western through them within their own person… while redeeming much of Protestantism through the Eastern Tradition. I see all of these things as connected. The East the West, the Schism, the Reformation… They’re all connected.

I choose to believe this on ascription because I trust Romans 8:28, and I see the great good that can come of this. It, like our Lady’s sinlessness, Ever-Virginity, and Assumption, is too good not to be true.

 

[NotMyOwn]

Would you impose the letter of the Law to hinder the Lord’s work? (And plus, it seems to me and to many that you are doing so inappropriately.)

 

[NotMyOwn]

The sources you gave. Right. But they are incorrect in this particular matter—which is unsurprising, but they stretch the law beyond its proper cases. I can see how it is that they came to those conclusions, but they’re rather short-sighted on this issue. Which is not surprising, given how Eastern Churches have been regarded for the past few hundred years… The Catholic Church is just now getting out the rut of regarding our Churches as lesser.

Maybe you care about getting our people back from the Latin Rite where they are perfectly happy, but my sight is towards the glorious future of our Churches.

 

[NotMyOwn]

I can’t edit my posts for a couple more hours due to the settings of the page but here’s an addendumPlease Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

My hope is for the future… I’ve contacted this parish to see what they’re doing about it. (And as a warning, I’m going to let you know that if you contact them to frighten them or threaten them directly or indirectly, or that happens as a result of you contacting them, the wrath of God will be poured out exceedingly upon you. I will get back to you when they get back to me.) Maybe they can help clarify what they did. I’ll post on here when they get back to me. This was fairly recent. Maybe they’re working to figure these things out as we speak.
http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/pentecostals-come-home-to-rome-eastern-rome-that-is#.Wk6VVytMGEc