Orthodox friend joining the Church

[malphono]

Since I’m Greek Orthodox, will I need to contact a Greek Orthodox Bishop, or a Catholic Bishop? I will be converting in a different diocese from the one I’m in now (moving), and a Catholic Bishop I met over the summer who is in the diocese I will be converting in knows of my situation, which I why I’m asking for clarification.

Since you are GO, you would automatically translate into the Greek GCC. Now, the Greek GCC has no presence in the US, which means that someone who translates would fall under the jurisdiction of the local Latin bishop.

If your intent is to be join the Latin Church, what **5Loaves, Aramis, and MorEphrem ** have already posted should be helpful. That said, though, if your intent is to remain Eastern, it should be possible to be ascribed to say, the Melkite Church (being the closest in usage to the GO having a jurisdiction in the US). This process would involve both the Latin and Melkite bishops. The canonical transfer could, in theory at least, be arranged to be concurrent with your reception. But keep in mind that it’s pretty much a one-shot deal, meaning that it would be difficult to transfer to another Church at a later time.

 

[Peter_J]

Since I’m Greek Orthodox, will I need to contact a Greek Orthodox Bishop, or a Catholic Bishop? I will be converting in a different diocese from the one I’m in now (moving), and a Catholic Bishop I met over the summer who is in the diocese I will be converting in knows of my situation, which I why I’m asking for clarification.

I see you already gotten a bunch of responses to this, but I’ll chime in anyhow: You don’t need permission from your Greek Orthodox bishop to become Catholic. (Getting permission from your old bishop only applies for bishops in communion with each other.) That’s just a part of the reality of our division from each other (Catholic and Orthodox).

 

[babochka]

If you don’t mind me asking, was your friend told she could never become a Roman Catholic? I don’t mean to sound rude, but I’m just curious. I was told by an Apologist Priest on CAF that I could, which is what spiked my curiosity.

No, she was not told that she could not become Roman Catholic, but, as others have said, it would require a canonical transfer. For the time being, she’s going to remain a Melkite who attends a Ruthenian Church.

 

[mardukm]

In Orthodox (“an Eastern non-Catholic Church”) coming into full communion need not contact any bishops. They are received by a simple profession of faith, once they have sufficient “doctrinal and spiritual preparation”.
That was my exact experience. I never had to approach any bishop, nor was told to do so – just the local Catholic priest (when I was in Egypt).

But I think it is conceivable that those Orthodox who wish to translate into or enter the Catholic communion would approach the Catholic chancery or bishop directly, just to “make sure.” But it really is not necessary.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[thequietsinger]

I see you already gotten a bunch of responses to this, but I’ll chime in anyhow: You don’t need permission from your Greek Orthodox bishop to become Catholic. (Getting permission from your old bishop only applies for bishops in communion with each other.) That’s just a part of the reality of our division from each other (Catholic and Orthodox).

That’s where I got confused. I was told that I didn’t need to contact a GO Bishop before, along with only needing a canonical transfer, and I thought that I was being told to contact a GO Bishop. My mistake! And in reply to one of the posters, I do not wish to remain Eastern, as I am discerning a religious vocation, and for other reasons, as well. I’m very sorry for the inconvenience everyone, and I really do appreciate all of your answers!

 

[Peter_J]

That’s where I got confused. I was told that I didn’t need to contact a GO Bishop before, along with only needing a canonical transfer, and I thought that I was being told to contact a GO Bishop. My mistake! And in reply to one of the posters, I do not wish to remain Eastern, as I am discerning a religious vocation, and for other reasons, as well. I’m very sorry for the inconvenience everyone, and I really do appreciate all of your answers!

Oh don’t be sorry, I’m sure many readers of this thread have wondered the same things.

I don’t know if this has very much to do with it but in my experience I have found that, among Catholics who encourage Orthodox to become Catholic, some call it a “translation”; but it seems to me that that could mislead. (After all, your old bishop is certainly not going to give you permission to “translate” to Catholicism.)

 

[malphono]

I don’t know if this has very much to do with it but in my experience I have found that, among Catholics who encourage Orthodox to become Catholic, some call it a “translation”; but it seems to me that that could mislead.

I hope you didn’t mean me. I certainly never suggested that, and never would. But in any case, it’s not a “conversion” (although most RCs would consider it such) and it’s certainly not a “transfer” (which implies from A to B from within rather than from without) either, so what is it if not a “translation” (being like to like from one Church (in this case GO) to another (in this case RC)) ?

(After all, your old bishop is certainly not going to give you permission to “translate” to Catholicism.)

Of course the GO are not going to give permission for this, and in reverse, the RC wouldn’t do it either.

 

[Zekariya]

I call it, being received into full Communion with Rome. The Orthodox Churches are valid Churches with valid Sacraments and are certainly catholic and apostolic (as the Creed says) but they lack full Communion with Rome.

I am an Antiochian Orthodox Christian who came into full Communion with Rome in 2012. I did not “become” Catholic since I already was part of an Apostolic Church. I am now a Melkite because they are the Eastern Catholic Byzantine Church of Antioch that corresponds to the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

 

[Peter_J]

I hope you didn’t mean me.

No. Why? Guilty conscience or something?

I certainly never suggested that, and never would. But in any case, it’s not a “conversion” (although most RCs would consider it such) and it’s certainly not a “transfer” (which implies from A to B from within rather than from without) either

You’re right, I meant “transfer”.

Of course the GO are not going to give permission for this, and in reverse, the RC wouldn’t do it either.

Absolutely, when someone leaves Catholicism for Orthodoxy, he/she does so without his/her old bishop’s permission.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I certainly never suggested that, and never would. But in any case, it’s not a “conversion” (although most RCs would consider it such) and it’s certainly not a “transfer” (which implies from A to B from within rather than from without) either, so what is it if not a “translation” (being like to like from one Church (in this case GO) to another (in this case RC)) ?

But it is a conversion, because the two faiths are different. In one, submission to the Pope and to second millennium Latin dogmas is mandatory under pain of anathema, in the other, it is not.

 

[malphono]

But it is a conversion, because the two faiths are different. In one, submission to the Pope and to second millennium Latin dogmas is mandatory under pain of anathema, in the other, it is not.

I don’t deny the submission thing (which nauseates me too, BTW) and the unilateral 2nd millennium Western doctrinal “development” (as they like to call it), but I’d still prefer to look at the fact that FAITH itself isn’t different. Let me put it this way: if I were to go knocking on the OO’s door (sorry but as a true cradle Oriental, I have no interest in the EO), I wouldn’t consider it a “conversion” by any means.

And I suppose I should add, so that’s it’s abundantly clear, I do NOT advocate anyone translating from Orthodoxy (OO or EO) to union with Rome. Never have and never will.

 

[malphono]

No. Why? Guilty conscience or something?

Guilty of what? Don’t start, Peter …

 

[Peter_J]

And I suppose I should add, so that’s it’s abundantly clear, I do NOT advocate anyone translating from Orthodoxy (OO or EO) to union with Rome.

Hey, stop stealing my line!

Well … okay, but I should get some royalties.

 

[malphono]

Hey, stop stealing my line!

Well … okay, but I should get some royalties.

What??? You have it copy-righted now?

 

[Peter_J]

But it is a conversion, because the two faiths are different. In one, submission to the Pope and to second millennium Latin dogmas is mandatory under pain of anathema, in the other, it is not.

Well, yes and no. It is, in the way “conversion” is *commonly *meant; but *technically *it shouldn’t apply because the person was already a Christian.

What would you think of a middle-ground usage like “intra-Christian conversion”?

 

[malphono]

Well, yes and no. It is, in the way “conversion” is *commonly *meant; but *technically *it shouldn’t apply because the person was already a Christian.

What would you think of a middle-ground usage like “intra-Christian conversion”?

I realize the question wasn’t posed to me, but I’m piping up anyway.

Anyway … I, personally, don’t buy it because of Protestantism (including such hybrid oddities as the Marthomite Church, etc). Protestantism does not share Apostolic succession, nor the same FAITH, so for a Protestant to go either to “union with Rome” or to Orthodoxy would involve conversion in the true sense of the word. Of course that doesn’t apply among the OO/EO/RC (and, by extension EC/OC) Churches. The whole post-conciliar ecumenical “we’re all christian” thing doesn’t mean that we’re all of the the authentic Apostolic Tradition.

 

[Peter_J]

I realize the question wasn’t posed to me, but I’m piping up anyway.

Well, upon reading this I was going to say “Oh course you should pipe up”; then I read your next paragraph,

Anyway … I, personally, don’t buy it because of Protestantism (including such hybrid oddities as the Marthomite Church, etc). Protestantism does not share Apostolic succession, nor the same FAITH, so for a Protestant to go either to “union with Rome” or to Orthodoxy would involve conversion in the true sense of the word. Of course that doesn’t apply among the OO/EO/RC (and, by extension EC/OC) Churches. The whole post-conciliar ecumenical “we’re all christian” thing doesn’t mean that we’re all of the the authentic Apostolic Tradition.

which didn’t make sense to me; but I guess I’m glad you piped up anyhow.

 

[Zekariya]

But it is a conversion, because the two faiths are different. In one, submission to the Pope and to second millennium Latin dogmas is mandatory under pain of anathema, in the other, it is not.

Obviously EOs will consider it a conversion (or even apostasy). From the Catholic point of view (which can be quite nuanced regarding what you call mandatory Latin dogmas as I am sure you have seen here) no conversion happens when one enters into Communion with Rome.