Orthodox to Eastern Catholic converts

[bpbasilphx]

It’s not so minor. The EO are in schism from the chair of Peter, and Jesus would not approve.

++++++++++

There’s a chair of St. Peter in Antioch, too.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother John,

Garry Wills (yes, that Garry Wills) came up with some statements from Cyprian closer to the “first among equals” notion, partly in response to his conflict with Pope Stephen. The above quote was altered and his made the point that other apostles were “equal to Peter”. I get the notion that Pope Stephen and Cyprian did not get along (Stephen apparently called him a “false Christ” and may even have excommunicated him). I’m not inclined to reprint them all the material here, and I guess interested parties, pro and con, can search out the Net and grab what they can.

Interesting you mentioned this. I wanted to ask brother Steve - if he had it handy - to provide the second version that St. Cyprian wrote after his disagreement with Pope St. Stephen. So we could see it side by side.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

I would say both.

When I became Eastern Catholic, I slowly “converted” to Orthodoxy but continued to defend the Papacy vigourously. The more Orthodox-leaning EC tended to disturb me.

The decision to become Orthodox was something of an epiphany, and when it happened I was more surprised than any one else. I did not change my core beliefs, I just changed patriarchs, so to say.

I never knew this about you, brother. I feel closer to you now.

Blessings

 

[John_Larocque]

Wills is a theological post-Vatican II Catholic who won’t break with the See of Rome because… well, where the Pope is, there is the Church… even if he really doesn’t like the Pope’s. So when you scan his book “Why I am a Catholic” a good chunk of the time you are asking “So, why are you a Catholic”, especially when his review of the first 1000 years of the papacy (often backed up with statements from minor theologians like Augustine and Cyprian) is coloured towards the Orthodox position, even though he barely discusses OC-specific issues such as Filioque, unleavened bread etc… But for me, Wills strength is as a historian and his weakness is his theology.

Anyway, page 88 he discusses the Primacy Text of “Cyprian’s Catholic Church’s Unity”, which heavily leans on Matthew.

“When Cyprian ascribes a primatus to Peter - and he is the earliest writer to do so -he means that Peter was the first of the apostles to be chosen, his ‘primacy’ is a priority in time and not a supremacy of jurisdiction.” (Walker, “Churchmanship” page 66)

Wills remarks:

"To emphasize this fact, under the challenge offered by Stephen’s reading of Matthew, Cyprian removed “primatus” from his second edition, and spelled out his meaning even more clearly: ‘The other apostles were exactly what Peter was… endowed with equal amounts of honor and authority… there is only one apostolic office, each aspect of which, in each individual, is ordered to the entirety [if its exercise.]’ (the last quote is from Bevenot, “Cyprian” pp 62, 64 (De Unitate 4-5)

"Or , as Cyprian put it in his Letter 55.24, .The episcopate is one, spread out in the concordant fellowship of its many bishops… (idem, p 109)

… “Bishop Firmilian of Cappadocia wrote to call Stephen 'patently ignorant… bold and insolent… a disgrace to Peter and Paul.” (Cyprian, Letter 75). Cyprian wrote to a fellow bishop in Africa, Pompeius: 'There is much that is arrogant, irrelevant, self-contradictory, ill-considered and inept in what he [Stephen] has written (Cyprian, Letter 74) Stephen for his part thundered accusations at Cyprian, calling him “a false Christ” (F 336). When Cyprian sent to Rome a delegation to discuss the matter, Stephen refused to receive it. He probably, according to J. D. Merdinger, excommunicated Cyprian. But Stephen died almost immediately after this rash act, and Cyprian was martyred a year later. Pious legend, trying to restore Stephen’s status vis-a-vis his Artican foe, said that the pope too ha d been martyred, but the early bishop lists of Rome do not rank him with the martyrs (K 21). He was nonetheless given his own feast day as a Saint."

There’s some Augustine stuff in the book as well. He cites one text, “J. E. Merdinger, Rome and the African Church in the time of Augustine”, going over conflicts with the Pope Zozimus and the African church over Pelagius, and a “troublemaking priest” Aparius. Augustine was not pleased when the Pope got involved with the Pelagiuis matter. Pope Zosimus cited a canon from the Council of Nicea as part of his investigation into the excommunication of Aparius by the African church. Augustine replied that it was not part of that council’s legislation. "The reports from Constantinople confirmed that what the pope was citing was not a Nicene canon but words form a council (Sardica, not recognized by the Eastern church that had been inserted into the Nicene record to bolster papal innovations " (Merdinger, pg 120-26)

Augustine wrote about the Matthew proof-text. “Thus Peter, so named by that rock (petra), would represent the person of the Church which is built upon the rock. He was not called petra but Peter, the petra was Christ.”

Wills also cited a passage on the Matthew text from “Interpreting John’s Gospel” (124.5): “It is founded on a Stone [Petra], from which Peter took his name Stone-Founded [Peter] - for the Stone did not take its name from the Stone-Founded, but the Stone-Founded from the Stone - as Christ does not take his name from Christians, but Christians from Christ… because the stone was Christ.”

So Augustine’s POV on the Matthew text also became the view of the Protestant Reformers several centuries down the road. Augustine didn’t accept it, neither did they.

 

[John_Larocque]

Well, a bit of Google magic found someone else who had taken up the cause of the “Vatican versus the African Church” text from “Why I am a Catholic” to bolster the Orthodox objections to papal primacy.

Big Link

Sadly that’s the only place I could find any online info on Cyprian Second Edition (minus “primatus”). Apologetics is great but I really wish these guys would cite their sources. It’s obvious he’s using the same bunch of texts I quoted above.

 

[steve_b]

It’s not so minor. The EO are in schism from the chair of Peter, and Jesus would not approve.

++++++++++

**There’s **a chair of St. Peter in Antioch, too.

True. But Rome is THE chair.

 

[steve_b]

Dear brother John,

Interesting you mentioned this. I wanted to ask brother Steve - if he had it handy - to provide the second version that St. Cyprian wrote after his disagreement with Pope St. Stephen. So we could see it side by side.

Blessings

Hi Marduk

here’s the quote in 2 forms
newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm

Marcus Grodi had used that quote also. I’ll let him explain what he learned about that quote of Cyprian.

"after the live Journey Home program, I received an email from Mark Bonocore of The Catholic Legate pointing out that I may have chosen a quote from St. Cyprian that is not the best to express his view of the papacy. This was one of the key quotes that helped me see the authority of the bishop of Rome in the early Church, but as Mark points out, there are some controversies surrounding St. Cyprian, primarily because at times he vacillated in his statements due to disagreements with the bishop in Rome. He even himself changed the wording of a later copy of the letter I quoted, which has led over the years to conflicting views of his thought.
As Mark points out below, he recommends a better quote to illustrate Cyprian’s acceptance of the authority of the papacy. I greatly appreciate Mark’s correction, apologize for any mistakes I may have made due to the haste of preparation, and rather than attempt a re-phrase, I’ll merely give you Mark’s fine explanation below:
“While Cyprian clearly did believe in the primacy of Rome, when the great bishop and martyr of Carthage spoke of the “Chair of Peter,” he usually was referring, not to the Papacy, but to the teaching authority of the Church itself, which is shared by all the bishops of the Catholic Church, just as the “Chair of Moses” (per Matt 23:1-3) was shared by all the scribes and Pharisees collectively.
“However, while Cyprian clearly believed that all bishops share in the “Chair of Peter” (that is, the teaching authority of the Church itself), he did not believe that all bishops shared in this authority equally or to the same extent. Rather, when one reads all of Cyprian, his ecclesiology essentially worked like this:
a) On the local level, the “Chair of Peter” was held by the bishop of a particular city-church, who was responsible for maintaining unity among the presbyters and laity, just as St. Peter maintained unity among the other Apostles and disciples. This was Cyprians primary objective in the quote that you read. However…
b) On the regional level, the “Chair of Peter” was held by the metropolitan bishop of a particular region, which was Cyprian’s own position as the Bishop of Carthage, and so metropolitan archbishop of all Africa and Numidia. In this role, he was responsible for maintaining unity among all the bishops throughout African and Numidia. However…
c) On the universal level, the “Chair of Peter” was held by St. Peter’s own literal successor, who of course was/is the Bishop of Rome. And the Bishop of Rome was responsible for maintaining unity and orthodoxy throughout the universal Church.
“This is how Cyprian understood “the Chair of Peter.”
“And modern Catholics can hold to this same ecclesiology today. When we commonly speak of “the Chair of Peter” in regard to Rome, what we really mean is that Rome holds the ultimate and literal “Chair of Peter.” But, in the quote that you read from Cyprian (which comes from his “On Unity”), he is not (as you incorrectly stated) referring to the primacy of Rome. Rather, he is referring to the teaching authority of the Church itself, held commonly by all bishops. Indeed, this is exactly the same concept that Jesus is referring to in Matthew 23, when he speaks of all the scribes and Pharisees holding “the Chair of Moses” –that is, the teaching authority of Israel. For, in the Jewish tradition, the “Chair of Moses” operated in the same, multi-tiered way as the early Christian concept of the “Chair of Peter.” For…

1. On the local level, the “Chair of Moses” was held by the local rabbi of a synagogue, but…
2. On the regional level, the “Chair of Moses” was held by the presiding rabbi of a particular Jewish sect or school (e.g. ben Zakkai or Akiba at Jamnia). But…
3. On the universal level, the “Chair of Moses” was actually held by the High Priest in Jerusalem, who was the ultimate arbiter of world Jewry (see Acts 28:21, where the Jewish rabbis in Rome speak of not yet receiving formal instructions from the High Priest and the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. See also Acts 9:1-2, where the High Priest gives letters authorizing Saul to arrest Christians in the synagogues of Damasus, which was in Syria –an entirely different country from 4 Judea).
   “So, in short, it is very important to make this distinction in St. Cyprians’ writings and theology. You were only incorrect in detail, not in overall truth, for indeed, St. Cyprian was unquestionably a “Papist.” The better quote for you to have used would have been from his “Epistle LIV ad Cornelius on Fortunatus and Felicissimus: “With false bishops appointed for themselves, they dare even set sail and carry their letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity (priestly unity) has its source; nor do they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the Apostle, to whom heretical faith cannot have access.” “This quote, rather than the one you used (read: misapplied) reveals Cyprian’s belief in the primacy and ultimate authority of Rome. Elsewhere, he also calls Rome “the womb and root of the Catholic Church,” thus illustrating Rome’s ultimate and universal authority.
   God bless and keep you
   Mark Bonocore
   The Catholic Legate”

Looks like the 2nd quote is better to use.

 

[John_Larocque]

a) On the local level, the “Chair of Peter” was held by the bishop of a particular city-church, who was responsible for maintaining unity among the presbyters and laity, just as St. Peter maintained unity among the other Apostles and disciples. This was Cyprians primary objective in the quote that you read. However…
b) On the regional level, the “Chair of Peter” was held by the metropolitan bishop of a particular region, which was Cyprian’s own position as the Bishop of Carthage, and so metropolitan archbishop of all Africa and Numidia. In this role, he was responsible for maintaining unity among all the bishops throughout African and Numidia. However…
c) On the universal level, the “Chair of Peter” was held by St. Peter’s own literal successor, who of course was/is the Bishop of Rome. And the Bishop of Rome was responsible for maintaining unity and orthodoxy throughout the universal Church.
“This is how Cyprian understood “the Chair of Peter.”
“And modern Catholics can hold to this same ecclesiology today.

There’s a bit more here:

geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/rock.html

[15:4] For what do you ask from the Lord’s mercy which you do not deserve to obtain? — you who have thus observed the Lord’s commands, who have maintained the Gospel discipline with the simple vigour of your faith, who, with the glory of your virtue uncorrupted, have stood bravely by the Lord’s commands, and by His apostles, and have confirmed the wavering faith of many by the truth of your martyrdom? Truly, Gospel witnesses, and truly, Christ’s martyrs, resting upon His roots, founded with strong foundation upon the Rock, you have joined discipline with virtue, you have brought others to the fear of God, you have made your martyrdoms, examples.

 

[steve_b]

There’s a bit more here:

geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/rock.html

I’ve seen what this site is trying to do played out lots of times on these forums. They try and create contradiction between who/what is the Rock.

Jesus is the Rock. We know that. No need to argue it
Jesus renames Peter, Rock. We know that. No need to argue it.
And if someone wants to say it’s Peter’s statement, is Rock, that’s a stretch but hey I’m cool with that. I won’t argue.

Therefore, It’s not eithr/or but And And And

Bottomline, all the massaging of scripture that goes on by antagonists to the Catholic Faith misses one massive point

Peter is the Father’s choice, period dot end of sentence.

Jn 5:19
the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

Jn 12:49
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

Jn 12:50
whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."
Jn 14:10
The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Jn 14:31
I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

When Jesus said to Peter

• I give you Peter (singular) the keys of the kingdom of heaven , who is really saying this
• Whatever you (singular) bind and loose) will be bound and loosed in heaven. who is really saying that
• After Satan has sifted you all I have prayed for you(singular) so that your faith will not fail. When you have turned back after the sifting, you are the one to strengthen and confirm your brothers after they have been sifted as well. Who is really saying that
• Feed and rule my sheep (Church) who is it that really said that

John:

I read a few months ago in the margin notes of the “Eastern Orthodox Bible” that the traditional Orthodox interpretation of the Matthew text is that this applied not only to St. Peter (and by extension his successors), it applies to all the bishops

Properly understood

as it pertains to regions under the bishops control, that’s true

John:

and even your local priest.

As it pertains to his parish under the bishop, that’s true

However, there is a universal Peter, who is over ALL. That is the pope. No one is to be apart from him. That’s how Jesus established it.

 

[elizaveta]

Officially the RCC teaches that the EOC is schismatic. The EOC teaches that the RCC is both schismatic and heretical. I just don’t see how they can be “in communion” in these circumstances. Both will allow the giving of the Sacraments to the other, but only in dire emergencies (like imminent death)

The Churches parted ways at the Great Schism in 1054 and that breach has never been healed. Just take a look at the reaction of the EOC to Pope John Paul II’s visit to Greece a few years ago. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1310347.stm , and that’s just one example.

That said, this is all very sad to me since there are many more similarities than differences in my experience. I am a convert from the RCC to the EOC and have been struggling for a long time with my increasing desire to go back to the RCC. There is much about the RCC that I miss, but there is also much about the EOC that I would miss if I left to return to Rome. It would be wonderful to be able to participate in both with a clear conscience, but unfortunately that’s not possible. At least for me.

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

Officially the RCC teaches that the EOC is schismatic. The EOC teaches that the RCC is both schismatic and heretical. I just don’t see how they can be “in communion” in these circumstances. Both will allow the giving of the Sacraments to the other, but only in dire emergencies (like imminent death)

The Churches parted ways at the Great Schism in 1054 and that breach has never been healed. Just take a look at the reaction of the EOC to Pope John Paul II’s visit to Greece a few years ago. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1310347.stm , and that’s just one example.

That said, this is all very sad to me since there are many more similarities than differences in my experience. I am a convert from the RCC to the EOC and have been struggling for a long time with my increasing desire to go back to the RCC. There is much about the RCC that I miss, but there is also much about the EOC that I would miss if I left to return to Rome. It would be wonderful to be able to participate in both with a clear conscience, but unfortunately that’s not possible. At least for me.

Are there no Eastern Catholic parishes where you live? I would think that would be the best of both worlds, the Eastern Traditions and Communion with Rome.

 

[elizaveta]

Unfortunately, no.

There are none in the immediate area and when I checked on byzcath.org it looks like the closest is about 350-400 miles away.

 

[querying]

Unfortunately, no.

There are none in the immediate area and when I checked on byzcath.org it looks like the closest is about 350-400 miles away.

You could always attempt an early Sunday morning start then.

 

[Ghosty]

Unfortunately, no.

There are none in the immediate area and when I checked on byzcath.org it looks like the closest is about 350-400 miles away.

FYI, if you’re talking about the Find-a-Parish page at ByzCath, it only shows a small fraction of the Byzantine-rite parishes/missions. Where do you live? We might be able to point you towards something much closer.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Hesychios]

Are there no Eastern Catholic parishes where you live? I would think that would be the best of both worlds, the Eastern Traditions and Communion with Rome.

If this were a better world, it could be.

But it’s not.

 

[JW55]

From what I have seen scanning this and other forums it would appear that there are more people who are converting to Eastern Orthodox from Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic than the other way around.

What do you think it is that draws these folks away from the RC or EC to the EO? What do they find lacking in their faith to make that choice? What advice to might be offered to a person contemplating such a move?

 

[John_Larocque]

There’s a thread at Byzcath.org right now and one of the reasons for EC to EO is that the latter has the fullness of the Orthodox praxis. Not all EC parishes have Vespers or Matins. Some use pre-cut Lamb and don’t distribute prosphora etc…

 

[Judefrancis]

I know that many Roman Catholics are tired of the Novus Ordo Mass. The post Vatican II Mass lacks the mystical majesty of the TLM, which had greater “links” to an Orthodox sensibility. Just look at how “Protestant” the Novus Ordo Mass has become! Eucharistic ministers and women distributing communion–and they are not dressed in vestments; bad liturgical hymns with secular overtones, such as ‘On Eagles Wings.’ There’s communion-in-hand, the lack of incense in most RC parishes, the redesign of churches–the destruction of high altars and the removal of sacred art to appear more “modern.” I could go on and on. But check out Orthodox Answers and tap into the ICON radio shows and there you will hear interviews with former Roman Catholics who switched to Orthodoxy because they saw Catholicism as becoming Protestant, with rock guitar Masses, as well as the things I have mentioned above. Until the Catholic Church rejects Vatican II, Orthodoxy will continue to win over Catholics who have had enough of the pedestrian, bland new Mass.

 

[John_Larocque]

For those who are interested in the OC, this link is worth a read, it’s from a Catholic convert who is now an Orthodox priest:

pravmir.com/article_736.html

One is that in most converts there is a profound sense of gratitude: after years of searching they have found a place that seems right; they have experienced a kind of homecoming. That sense of “a place that seems right” can be found in almost all converts, but in a significant number it does not involve gratitude so much as a form of fleeing, a refuge, a need for the feeling of certainty which s arguably neurotic. It is one thing to sing, as the church does at the end of the liturgy, “We have seen the true Light! We have received the heavenly Spirit! We have found the true Faith, worshipping the undivided Trinity, who has saved us.” It is another thing to add, “And the true faith means only what I say it means, and any questions about this, or disagreements with me, are heretical.”

The problem here is that some people do not convert to a belief so much as they convert away from another. There is a certain sort of Catholic who, by becoming Orthodox, has joined the church that did not go through what is often called “the chaos” following Vatican II. They are sometimes disappointed when they meet bishops who are not as authoritarian as they think bishops should be, and they are especially upset at any notion that Orthodox liturgy might undergo any change of any sort in any way. There is a certain sort of Episcopalian who in joining Orthodoxy joins the church that does not ordain women, and the idea that the subject might be discussed leaves them furious, as if the thought alone meant a betrayal of Orthodoxy.

My approach to this has been to tell any potential convert to take some time, to hang around the church for a year or so, seeing what it is like to be Orthodox, and finally to make sure it is Orthodoxy they are coming to, and not something else they are fleeing from. Baron von Hugel told an Anglican niece who wanted to become Catholic that she should learn the strengths of Anglicanism, and not become Catholic until it would be clearly a sin for her to remain in her own tradition, until it was completely necessary for her to convert. This seems about right. People who move from one tradition to another for negative reasons bring all those negative reasons with them.

Pravmir is a great resource for Russian Orthodoxy.

 

[Harpazo]

For those who are interested in the OC, this link is worth a read, it’s from a Catholic convert who is now an Orthodox priest:

That boldened part is dead on! You will never, ever hear this Orthodox Christian say that the Methodists or Roman Catholics are “graceless.”

In Christ,
Andrew