POST--VAT.II Syndrome:Didn't proselytizing used to mean evangelization?

[duckbill]

I posted this on another thread about how post Vat. II Church is a MESS.

Nobody answered this question for me or seemed to want or how to. Why don’t we want the Orthodox to come back to the ONE True Church?

Didn’t proselytizing used to mean evangelization?

Balamand Statement #22(Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church ):

"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; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox.** It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church. Within these perspectives, so that there will no longer be room for mistrust and suspicion, it is necessary that there be reciprocal exchanges of information about various pastoral projects and that thus cooperation between bishops and all those with responsibilities in our Churches can be set in motion and develop.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/balamand_txt.aspx


I am not a traditionalist but I am frustrated with the “orthodox”/“conservative” movement in the Church because like cult members or ideologs they deny there are serious problems in the Church.( At least in public- I know many who will complain behind closed doors)
At least traditionalist are willing to admit a problem. Like “Goodbye Good Men” the writer Davies I think took a lot of heat for saying their is “purple” mafia of homosexuals running seminaries. I think he is right and the sex abuse scandals didn’t happen in a vacuum. There is something really wrong in the Church today!

 

[Genesis315]

I think the Balamand statement is definitely problematic. It contradicts even a recent document from the CDF. I think the point of the Balamand statement, though, is to focus on corporate reunion and to build trust towards that end.

As an aside, that same document from the CDF defined prosletism:

“The term proselytism originated in the context of Judaism, in which the term proselyte referred to someone who, coming from the gentiles, had passed into the Chosen People. So too, in the Christian context, the term proselytism was often used as a synonym for missionary activity. More recently, however, the term has taken on a negative connotation, to mean the promotion of a religion by using means, and for motives, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel; that is, which do not safeguard the freedom and dignity of the human person.”

It’s that definition with the negative connotation that we should avoid.

 

[duckbill]

I think the Balamand statement is definitely problematic. It contradicts even a recent document from the CDF. I think the point of the Balamand statement, though, is to focus on corporate reunion and to build trust towards that end.

As an aside, that same document from the CDF defined prosletism:

“The term proselytism originated in the context of Judaism, in which the term proselyte referred to someone who, coming from the gentiles, had passed into the Chosen People. So too, in the Christian context, the term proselytism was often used as a synonym for missionary activity. More recently, however, the term has taken on a negative connotation, to mean the promotion of a religion by using means, and for motives, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel; that is, which do not safeguard the freedom and dignity of the human person.”

It’s that definition with the negative connotation that we should avoid.

Thanks for the quote that might give some wiggle room for when we get a Church hierarchy that actually cares.

 

[Badaliyyah]

I also think that Rome has just realized that the long term goal here is not the passage back and forth of individual members between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. What we want is restoration of full communion between those bodies. Thus it is more profitable to work on discussions with Constantinople and Moscow, etc., than to try to pick off individuals and make them Catholic. The attempted conversion of Orthodox parishioners to Catholicism just breeds distrust and, in the long run, is undermining the possibility for union.

This is obviously an issue that is dear to many Melkites, as we often have very close relations with our brothers and sisters in the Antiochian Orthodox Church (and the Melkite Patriarch HQ is located very close to the Patriarch of Antioch…which, these days, is located in Damascus).

salaam.

 

[duckbill]

I also think that Rome has just realized that the long term goal here is not the passage back and forth of individual members between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. What we want is restoration of full communion between those bodies. Thus it is more profitable to work on discussions with Constantinople and Moscow, etc., than to try to pick off individuals and make them Catholic. The attempted conversion of Orthodox parishioners to Catholicism just breeds distrust and, in the long run, is undermining the possibility for union.

This is obviously an issue that is dear to many Melkites, as we often have very close relations with our brothers and sisters in the Antiochian Orthodox Church (and the Melkite Patriarch HQ is located very close to the Patriarch of Antioch…which, these days, is located in Damascus).

salaam.

Point well taken but there is the issue of salvation. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church so in a sense they are saying these pople are not worth saving. That is how I see it

 

[Badaliyyah]

Point well taken but there is the issue of salvation. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church so in a sense they are saying these pople are not worth saving. That is how I see it

Since we are probably not going to agree here, let me begin by acknowledging that there are persons on both the Catholic and Orthodox side who would agree with you: i.e., that the breach between the two is indicative of heterodoxy on one side or the other and that the members of the heterodox body is in danger of their souls.

The reality of the situation, though, I believe, is that while the body of Christ is clearly broken it makes no sense to call for the “conversion” of the Orthodox to Catholicism. What you are looking for is the reestablishment of communion between Rome and the ancient Patriarchs. Unlike what would be required, e.g., if the Lutherans suddenly decided they wanted to pack up shop, when the Ukrainians reestablished communion with Rome it was not a conversion, nor was it when the Melkites came into communion with Rome quite a bit later. We saw it as adding nothing new to what we already believed.

Schism is not heresy, I suppose is one way of saying it. Thus it is not the salvation of individual members which is at stake, but the wholeness of the body of Christ. This, I believe, is the position that is being taken.

To put it more concretely, it is not that an individual is Russian Orthodox or Roman Catholic which is scandalous, it is that Rome and Moscow are not in communion with one another. Where else should the individual be than in communion with their historic Patriarchal seat, assuming there is no heresy. The conversion of an individual Orthodox to Catholicism, or vice versa, does nothing to change that which is the real problem. Only the reconciliation of Rome and Moscow itself can effect that.

salaam.

 

[duckbill]

Since we are probably not going to agree here, let me begin by acknowledging that there are persons on both the Catholic and Orthodox side who would agree with you: i.e., that the breach between the two is indicative of heterodoxy on one side or the other and that the members of the heterodox body is in danger of their souls.

The reality of the situation, though, I believe, is that while the body of Christ is clearly broken it makes no sense to call for the “conversion” of the Orthodox to Catholicism. What you are looking for is the reestablishment of communion between Rome and the ancient Patriarchs. Unlike what would be required, e.g., if the Lutherans suddenly decided they wanted to pack up shop, when the Ukrainians reestablished communion with Rome it was not a conversion, nor was it when the Melkites came into communion with Rome quite a bit later. We saw it as adding nothing new to what we already believed.

Schism is not heresy, I suppose is one way of saying it. Thus it is not the salvation of individual members which is at stake, but the wholeness of the body of Christ. This, I believe, is the position that is being taken.

To put it more concretely, it is not that an individual is Russian Orthodox or Roman Catholic which is scandalous, it is that Rome and Moscow are not in communion with one another. Where else should the individual be than in communion with their historic Patriarchal seat, assuming there is no heresy. The conversion of an individual Orthodox to Catholicism, or vice versa, does nothing to change that which is the real problem. Only the reconciliation of Rome and Moscow itself can effect that.

salaam.

I know this is a long time since I posted but actually schism is usually heresy now. Since Vatican I declared that all Christians are obliged to submit to the Pope’s authority. To deny that authority, which the Orthodox do, appears to be heresy now. SSPX is a more proper schism since they don’t deny the Pope’s authority but say he isn’t using his authority, but again the Church is trying to confuse us by saying they are not in schism too

I am still skeptical.