Proselytism to Orthodox

[Luvs2Learn]

Hi all,
I’m asking this question in this forum since the Easten Catholics tend to be more aware of the the Orthodox and the Catholic churches relationship with the Orthodox more so then in the other foums on here.
I was recently told that as a Roman Catholic it is innappropriate and incorect to proselytis to Orthodox christians.Is this true?

 

[tomarin]

I’m surprised there’s any group which we’re not supposed to proselytize. Can you verify that this is an official Church teaching?

 

[bpbasilphx]

I’m surprised there’s any group which we’re not supposed to proselytize. Can you verify that this is an official Church teaching?

This is an issue touched upon in the Balamand Statement in the 1990’s, an agreement entered into by the various Churches of the Middle East: Catholic, Orthodox, Non-Chacedonian, and Assyrian.

Many Orthodox object to it because they believe that Orthodox should be allowed to proselitize Catholics and bring them into the true Church.

 

[gmcbroom]

While i’m not Orthodox and I can’t give you links to why one shouldn’t preach to the Orthodox. As an Maronite Catchuem I think it comes down to the fact that they believe as we do. That is in all 7 of the sacraments and having a legit apostolic succession. They have Patriarchs follow the same liturgical structure that Catholics do. They do have key arguments however as to why they chose to be Orthodox. They acknowledge the early Church councils up to certain points the Oriental and Eastern orthodox each broke away at different times in history. However, a big reason for the split was Papal supremacy infallibility and the adding of certain doctrines. The Orthodox are our brothers in faith due to our history. The other christian churches primarily came from the reformation and when they split the apostolic succession was lost so thats why we preach to them if we feel its necessary even though its somewhat rude. Personally though I adopt a different approach I don’t prach to them instead I inquire about their views and then tell them mine. If they like what I say they come over. Works for me anyway.

 

[5Loaves]

This is an issue touched upon in the Balamand Statement in the 1990’s, an agreement entered into by the various Churches of the Middle East: Catholic, Orthodox, Non-Chacedonian, and Assyrian.

There is some useful information on The Balamand Agreement here including “Balamand Explained: the defense of the Balamand Agreement by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese” and a couple critiques of that.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Is it worth pointing out that the Balamand Agreement deals with a particular pastoral situation that exists ONLY in the Middle East?

 

[Ghosty]

Is it worth pointing out that the Balamand Agreement deals with a particular pastoral situation that exists ONLY in the Middle East?

I think it’s a good point to understand, certainly. I would argue that even outside the Middle East it is most prudent not to prosleytize the Orthodox. This isn’t out of a “you’re ok, I’m ok,” mindset, but a practical matter concerning eventual Reunion.

While I wouldn’t go out of my way to discourage an Orthodox individual or family that really feels it would be better for them to become Catholic, I tend to feel that our efforts towards reunion are best served by Catholic-supportive Orthodox remaining Orthodox. If, in their hearts, they believe in unity with the Pope of Rome as a hallmark of the Church, and that the Pope does/should have certain special prerogatives, then we need their voice to remain and be heard in the Orthodox Communions to a certain extent. Men like Vladimir Soloviev are good examples of this kind of approach (he never left the Russian Orthodox Church, despite recognizing Rome’s role as essential to the Church). In the past such people have reunited with Rome on their own, leaving only the more hardened anti-Catholics to remain as the sole voice of Orthodoxy. One of the reasons, IMO, that dialogue has been so long and difficult is because the most “Catholic” of the Orthodox have often been absorbed in bits and pieces, rather than remaining as advocates for full Reunion. Men like Vladimir Soloviev are good examples of this kind of approach.

Life hasn’t always been easy for those stay in the Orthodox Communions, of course. Sometimes they’ve been arrested and persecuted, as in the case of many Orthodox bishops and even Patriarchs, and in other cases almost entire Churches have been excommunicated for making bold moves towards reunion (the Byzantine Antiochian Church, for example). I see nothing schismatical in a Catholic-leaning Orthodox person remaining in Orthodoxy, however. If someone remains in the Orthodox Communions while also accepting the Catholic perspective to a large extent, then I have no spiritual concern for them; they still have all the Sacraments and aren’t going against the Faith in any way.

Catholics often complain about not having serious dialogue partners on the Orthodox side, but this can only become worse if we constantly try and “snatch away” the very people who would make productive dialogue possible.

Just my thoughts.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Madaglan]

In the past such people have reunited with Rome on their own, leaving only the more hardened anti-Catholics to remain as the sole voice of Orthodoxy. One of the reasons, IMO, that dialogue has been so long and difficult is because the most “Catholic” of the Orthodox have often been absorbed in bits and pieces, rather than remaining as advocates for full Reunion. Men like Vladimir Soloviev are good examples of this kind of approach.

Could you expand on what you mean by only the more hardened anti-Catholics remaining as the sole voice of Orthodoxy?

 

[Aramis]

Madaglan:

When the UGCC came into union, all those who believed in the petrine Role being more than simply another patriarch were identified; those who opposed union remained the UOC, those who supported it became the UGCC. And, over time, those UGCC members who reject rome tend to drift to the UOC, and those UOC members wanting reunion can find it in the UGCC.

On a smaller level, in the case of the ROC, the pro-catholic became (and still may become) RGCC parishes (under the omophor of their Roman Catholic Bishop), and those tend to divide the people; the pro-catholic tend to go to the newly catholic parish, and those uncomfortable with tend to go a little further to a still ROC parish.

That was, in fact, the whole point of the Uniate churches at their inception: to be in union with rome NOW, rather than waiting for some long-term hope of reunion.

 

[Madaglan]

Madaglan:

When the UGCC came into union, all those who believed in the petrine Role being more than simply another patriarch were identified; those who opposed union remained the UOC, those who supported it became the UGCC. And, over time, those UGCC members who reject rome tend to drift to the UOC, and those UOC members wanting reunion can find it in the UGCC.

On a smaller level, in the case of the ROC, the pro-catholic became (and still may become) RGCC parishes (under the omophor of their Roman Catholic Bishop), and those tend to divide the people; the pro-catholic tend to go to the newly catholic parish, and those uncomfortable with tend to go a little further to a still ROC parish.

That was, in fact, the whole point of the Uniate churches at their inception: to be in union with rome NOW, rather than waiting for some long-term hope of reunion.

I understand the direction from which you are coming.

Yet, I was struck by Ghosty’s attribution of “more hardened anti-Catholics” to Orthodox on the wider scale that constitutes the voice of Orthodoxy. When I read Ghosty’s comment that in the past such people have reunited with Rome on their own, I understood it as a reference to individuals and not whole churches.

I personally think Ghosty’s comment goes too far, and I would suggest that perhaps those individuals who did not go over to Rome did so more because of being pro-Orthodox than anti-Catholic.

 

[Ghosty]

I understand the direction from which you are coming.

Yet, I was struck by Ghosty’s attribution of “more hardened anti-Catholics” to Orthodox on the wider scale that constitutes the voice of Orthodoxy. When I read Ghosty’s comment that in the past such people have reunited with Rome on their own, I understood it as a reference to individuals and not whole churches.

I personally think Ghosty’s comment goes too far, and I would suggest that perhaps those individuals who did not go over to Rome did so more because of being pro-Orthodox than anti-Catholic.

I’m speaking not only about purely individual levels, but also the “Uniate” level reunions.

Saying that those who remained were simply “pro-Orthodox” implies that those who united with Rome were anti-Orthodox, which was usually not the case; in many cases they did not even break with Orthodoxy, but were instead excommunicated from it for reuniting with Rome. This was the case with those who united at Florence, with the Melkite Church, with John Bekkos’ camp, ect. The fact is that these groups that united with Rome never intended to reject anything of Orthodoxy, and in many cases remained Orthodox until excommunicated.

To put it another way, I really don’t believe that there is much that Orthodoxy has that Catholics can’t also have, which is why I say that “pro-Orthodox” is not a good term to distinguish Orthodox from Eastern Catholics (some Eastern Catholics certainly have abandoned things Orthodox, especially in the past, but that is neither universal nor necessary, especially now). What these groups and individuals I mentioned believed was that Rome was not “un-Orthodox”, and that union with Rome was imperitive; they did not abandon Orthodoxy, they did not reject any Orthodox doctrines, they simply added the broader Catholic ecclesiology to it. Bessarion, for example, did not reject the teachings of the Byzantine Fathers, he simply accepted Roman Primacy in addition to his own Orthodox patrimony.

In this sense Orthodoxy really is something “less” than Catholicism, not in a qualitative sense, but a quantitative sense. One can be Catholic and accept all of the doctrines of Orthodoxy, but one can’t be Orthodox and accept all the doctrines of Catholicism. A Catholic is absolutely free to be a Palamite and reject Thomism, but the opposite is not really true for the Orthodox. So it is not at all incorrect to say that, in a certain sense, to be Orthodox is to reject certain aspects of Catholicism without adding anything in their place.

I want to stress that this isn’t meant to say that these “Catholic additions” are better (though obviously I do believe they are), it simply means that in a very real sense that there is rejection of things Catholic in Orthodoxy, and acceptance of things Orthodox AND Catholic in Catholicism. There are certainly cases where accepting additional things would be wrong, and this is the viewpoint of Orthodox who don’t accept things specific to Catholicism; acceptance isn’t a virtue in and of itself. The fact remains, however, that it is rejection, and “anti” something, whether rightly or wrongly.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Aramis]

I understand the direction from which you are coming.

Yet, I was struck by Ghosty’s attribution of “more hardened anti-Catholics” to Orthodox on the wider scale that constitutes the voice of Orthodoxy. When I read Ghosty’s comment that in the past such people have reunited with Rome on their own, I understood it as a reference to individuals and not whole churches.

I personally think Ghosty’s comment goes too far, and I would suggest that perhaps those individuals who did not go over to Rome did so more because of being pro-Orthodox than anti-Catholic.

You can’t divorce the movement of pro-catholic and anti-catholic members of the orthodox churches from the corporate issues of uniate churches and parishes.

At the time of the creation of the system of uniate churches, it was obvious that such churches were a means to an end: reunion with a large chunk at first, then by drift of the faithful in over the generations. That is still a viable model, but what it does is cause the sorting of the faithful of a given local tradition into pro-catholic uniates, and anti-catholic Orthodox, and a lot of pressure to be very much one or the other.

 

[Madaglan]

I’m speaking not only about purely individual levels, but also the “Uniate” level reunions.

Saying that those who remained were simply “pro-Orthodox” implies that those who united with Rome were anti-Orthodox, which was usually not the case; in many cases they did not even break with Orthodoxy, but were instead excommunicated from it for reuniting with Rome. This was the case with those who united at Florence, with the Melkite Church, with John Bekkos’ camp, ect. The fact is that these groups that united with Rome never intended to reject anything of Orthodoxy, and in many cases remained Orthodox until excommunicated.

I did not write or intend *simply *“pro-Orthodox.” I meant to suggest that perhaps those who remained Orthodox based their decisions more on their adherence to Orthodoxy than to anti-Catholicism. I’m suggesting the main motivation.

I know that the Orthodox who entered into communion with Rome fully intended to keep their spiritual and liturgical traditions. I do not see their motivation itself as anti-Orthodox, .

To put it another way, I really don’t believe that there is much that Orthodoxy has that Catholics can’t also have, which is why I say that “pro-Orthodox” is not a good term to distinguish Orthodox from Eastern Catholics (some Eastern Catholics certainly have abandoned things Orthodox, especially in the past, but that is neither universal nor necessary, especially now). What these groups and individuals I mentioned believed was that Rome was not “un-Orthodox”, and that union with Rome was imperitive; they did not abandon Orthodoxy, they did not reject any Orthodox doctrines, they simply added the broader Catholic ecclesiology to it. Bessarion, for example, did not reject the teachings of the Byzantine Fathers, he simply accepted Roman Primacy in addition to his own Orthodox patrimony.

The Orthodox patrimony includes not only what Orthodoxy does accept, but also that which is not accepted.

In this sense Orthodoxy really is something “less” than Catholicism, not in a qualitative sense, but a quantitative sense. One can be Catholic and accept all of the doctrines of Orthodoxy, but one can’t be Orthodox and accept all the doctrines of Catholicism. A Catholic is absolutely free to be a Palamite and reject Thomism, but the opposite is not really true for the Orthodox. So it is not at all incorrect to say that, in a certain sense, to be Orthodox is to reject certain aspects of Catholicism without adding anything in their place.

Orthodoxy recognizes that in addition to holding to those teachings that Orthodoxy does accept, Catholicism teaches that which is not accepted.

If additional beliefs ought not have been added in the first place, why the need for Orthodox to add anything in their place? I do not see necessity here, from the Orthodox perspective.

I want to stress that this isn’t meant to say that these “Catholic additions” are better (though obviously I do believe they are), it simply means that in a very real sense that there is rejection of things Catholic in Orthodoxy, and acceptance of things Orthodox AND Catholic in Catholicism. There are certainly cases where accepting additional things would be wrong, and this is the viewpoint of Orthodox who don’t accept things specific to Catholicism; acceptance isn’t a virtue in and of itself. The fact remains, however, that it is rejection, and “anti” something, whether rightly or wrongly.

Peace and God bless!

You know the Orthodox position on these additions, so I will no restate it.

I appreciate your statement that acceptance isn’t itself a virtue.

On the Orthodox being “anti” something. Yes, the Orthodox do reject what are understood as illegitimate additions in Catholicism; and you could even say that it is “anti” something. However, this “anti” something is determined and given shape by Orthodoxy that precedes it. It is not anti-Catholicism that defines the Orthodox but Orthodoxy that defines what is to be opposed in Catholicism. By the same token, Catholicism is not defined by anti-Protestantism (pay no attention to Jack Chick), but rather Catholicism is the the touch stone according to which particular Protestant beliefs are proclaimed anathema and to be fought against.

And that brings me back to my main contention: that rather than being by definition anti-Catholic, the Orthodox who have not entered into communion with Rome act on their Orthodox patrimony, even though it may seem to some Catholics that they are being anti-Catholic.

This is not to say that there are not Orthodox who indulge in anti-Catholicism, but this can be said of any religion.

 

[Ghosty]

Madaglan: I appreciate what you’re saying, and I agree with the substance of it, but we differ in the words we’re using and how they’re being used. Again, when I say “anti-Catholic” I’m referring specifically to rejecting Catholic propositions, not any kind of irrational hatred. On that count I would actually assert that Catholics ARE anti-Protestant, at least with regards to certain foundational doctrines of Protestantism, like Faith-alone and Scripture-alone. I have no problem in saying that I’m against these positive elements of Protestant tradition.

Likewise, the Orthodox who rejected Reunion were “anti” certain Catholic propositions. Whether they were loving or polemical really has no bearing on the terms I’m using. In your terms there have certainly been anti-Orthodox Eastern Catholics who reunited with Rome, but not in the sense that I am using the terms.

So as I said, this is more a disagreement over how terms are being used, not a disagreement over what is meant on either side.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ignatios]

I did not write or intend *simply *“pro-Orthodox.” I meant to suggest that perhaps those who remained Orthodox based their decisions more on their adherence to Orthodoxy than to anti-Catholicism. I’m suggesting the main motivation.

I know that the Orthodox who entered into communion with Rome fully intended to keep their spiritual and liturgical traditions. I do not see their motivation itself as anti-Orthodox, .

The Orthodox patrimony includes not only what Orthodoxy does accept, but also that which is not accepted.

Orthodoxy recognizes that in addition to holding to those teachings that Orthodoxy does accept, Catholicism teaches that which is not accepted.

If additional beliefs ought not have been added in the first place, why the need for Orthodox to add anything in their place? I do not see necessity here, from the Orthodox perspective.

You know the Orthodox position on these additions, so I will no restate it.

I appreciate your statement that acceptance isn’t itself a virtue.

On the Orthodox being “anti” something. Yes, the Orthodox do reject what are understood as illegitimate additions in Catholicism; and you could even say that it is “anti” something. However, this “anti” something is determined and given shape by Orthodoxy that precedes it. It is not anti-Catholicism that defines the Orthodox but Orthodoxy that defines what is to be opposed in Catholicism. By the same token, Catholicism is not defined by anti-Protestantism (pay no attention to Jack Chick), but rather Catholicism is the the touch stone according to which particular Protestant beliefs are proclaimed anathema and to be fought against.

And that brings me back to my main contention: that rather than being by definition anti-Catholic, the Orthodox who have not entered into communion with Rome act on their Orthodox patrimony, even though it may seem to some Catholics that they are being anti-Catholic.

This is not to say that there are not Orthodox who indulge in anti-Catholicism, but this can be said of any religion.

Very well put and very well said, I back it up a 1000% :tiphat:

GOD bless you †††

 

[Madaglan]

Madaglan: I appreciate what you’re saying, and I agree with the substance of it, but we differ in the words we’re using and how they’re being used. Again, when I say “anti-Catholic” I’m referring specifically to rejecting Catholic propositions, not any kind of irrational hatred. On that count I would actually assert that Catholics ARE anti-Protestant, at least with regards to certain foundational doctrines of Protestantism, like Faith-alone and Scripture-alone. I have no problem in saying that I’m against these positive elements of Protestant tradition.

Likewise, the Orthodox who rejected Reunion were “anti” certain Catholic propositions. Whether they were loving or polemical really has no bearing on the terms I’m using. In your terms there have certainly been anti-Orthodox Eastern Catholics who reunited with Rome, but not in the sense that I am using the terms.

So as I said, this is more a disagreement over how terms are being used, not a disagreement over what is meant on either side.

Peace and God bless!

Thank you for your clarification.

 

[Aramis]

Madaglan: I appreciate what you’re saying, and I agree with the substance of it, but we differ in the words we’re using and how they’re being used. Again, when I say “anti-Catholic” I’m referring specifically to rejecting Catholic propositions, not any kind of irrational hatred. On that count I would actually assert that Catholics ARE anti-Protestant, at least with regards to certain foundational doctrines of Protestantism, like Faith-alone and Scripture-alone. I have no problem in saying that I’m against these positive elements of Protestant tradition.

Likewise, the Orthodox who rejected Reunion were “anti” certain Catholic propositions. Whether they were loving or polemical really has no bearing on the terms I’m using. In your terms there have certainly been anti-Orthodox Eastern Catholics who reunited with Rome, but not in the sense that I am using the terms.

So as I said, this is more a disagreement over how terms are being used, not a disagreement over what is meant on either side.

Peace and God bless!

Very Well said, Brother!

And I happen to agree with you on use of the terms.

 

[Ghosty]

Thank you for your clarification.

And thank you for being so gracious in raising your concerns, and for hearing me out.

Aramis:

Very Well said, Brother!

And I happen to agree with you on use of the terms.

Good to know that even when I’m sticking my foot in my mouth I’m mumbling with moral support!

Peace and God bless!

 

[DavidKays]

Hi! I am Greek Orthodox and I will like to respond to this forum’s question. To my knowledge the Orthodox and Catholic Church are just beginning to enter into full Communion with each other. You must understand that the 2 Churches are in fact united. There has been no split at all. What occured some 1000 years ago was unfortunate. It should not have happened. What occured 1000 years ago was a big and I mean BIG heated arguement. That is what took placed. Period! I read the language used by each side especially by the 2 cardinals and believe me today you will call it hate language. There was no need for that language or the behaviour of thoses 2 cardinals. Let me explain that in reality this huge heated arguement was the cause of the two Churches to on there seperate ways. But in God’s eyes the 2 are still united. I have a brother and when I argue with him I cannot severe my relationship with him. I may not want to see him but that would only hurt me. As long as I wish not to see him I continue the arguement.But he is still my brother no matter what. When I come to my brother let us not bring up the arguement. Let me say I sam sorry for I need my brother because he is as part of me as I am of him. Some Catholics say the Orthodox do not adhere to the Primacy of the Pope. I disagree. It was the Eastern Churches at the time of the first ecumenical councils alongside the Church of Rome that decided to put on paper some decrees of which the Pope in Rome has primacy. If the Orthodox do not adhere to this they are not accepting their own council decrees and believe me there is no one who obeys the early councils like the Orthodox. If they do not today accept Papal claims it is because in my opinion they were hurt.There was alot of hurt imposed. His Holiness Paul VI and then His Holiness John Paul II have formally apologized for Rome’s actions. Now it is up to the Orthodox to receive the apology and receive their brother into that same relationship they had before that great heated arguement. Do you see my point! The 2 are united no matter what. Heated arguements cannot severe the relationsahip. Apologies and accepting apologies can! I am in the process in writing a book on this topic as well as many other topics. The Popes have made the first steps so let us continue to follow the Holy Father’s example and let us bury this arguement forever. There is no need but to accept each other as brothers. We have the power to heal wounds. Pray that God will enable us to see us as He sees us and to realize that God desires this healing so we can see in each other this unity which still exists and which can never be severed. It is to that relationship that I pray for that the Pope His Holiness John Paul II also desires and to which every Orthodox and Catholic will embrace. God Bless! and by the way thank you for these forums because I have now a primer for my book and I hope I can clarify more of this in the book.

 

[Mickey]

You must understand that the 2 Churches are in fact united.

In reality, they are not in communion.

It was the Eastern Churches at the time of the first ecumenical councils alongside the Church of Rome that decided to put on paper some decrees of which the Pope in Rome has primacy.

The Orthodox disagree with supremacy/infallibility.