"Received into Full Communion"

[mardukm]

In the following website (uspapalvisit.org/backgrounders/glance.htm), it gives these statistics in the U.S. for 2006/7.

Infant Baptism: 953,688

Adult Baptism: 62,464

Received into Full Communion: 92,975.

Does anyone know if there is a breakdown of which Churches/ecclesial communities these conversions/translations came from?

Blessings

 

[Aramis]

KNow? I don’t.

Have good reason to suspect so? Yes… it is probably in The Official Catholic Directory 2007… (cited in the footnotes at the bottom of the page… it’s a $400 book…)

 

[mardukm]

KNow? I don’t.

Have good reason to suspect so? Yes… it is probably in The Official Catholic Directory 2007… (cited in the footnotes at the bottom of the page… it’s a $400 book…)

AAAARGH!
I was really interested in seeing if the number of people translating from Orthodoxy corresponded to a growth in the Eastern/Oriental Catholic Churches, or if they were just going Latin Rite.

Oh well, maybe I can check it out at a library? Thanks a lot for the info!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

AAAARGH!
I was really interested in seeing if the number of people translating from Orthodoxy corresponded to a growth in the Eastern/Oriental Catholic Churches, or if they were just going Latin Rite.

Oh well, maybe I can check it out at a library?

I would not make any assumptions.

You list three categories. We know that no one who has received a Trinitarian baptism will be baptized again, so most Protestants will have to fit into some special category you have not listed if they do not fall into the third: “Received into Full Communion”.

In response to your question, I suspect most Orthodox in the USA who become Catholic actually convert to Latin Catholicism (and Orthodox might be about 5% of the 93,000 received). However, I have no hard statistics to back that up… good luck at the library!

 

[Joannm]

I would not make any assumptions.

You list three categories. We know that no one who has received a Trinitarian baptism will be baptized again, so most Protestants will have to fit into some special category you have not listed if they do not fall into the third: “Received into Full Communion”.

In response to your question, I suspect most Orthodox in the USA who become Catholic actually convert to Latin Catholicism (and Orthodox might be about 5% of the 93,000 received). However, I have no hard statistics to back that up… good luck at the library!

Those Orthodox who become Catholic are tecnically received into the corresponding Eastern Rite not the Latin Rite, even if they are received at a Latin Rite Church. It is basicaly only on paper, since those we have received usually register and attend liturgy at our Latin Rite parish. There is a notoation in the Register for Full Communion to this effect, I don’t have the canon # off hand.

 

[mardukm]

Those Orthodox who become Catholic are tecnically received into the corresponding Eastern Rite not the Latin Rite, even if they are received at a Latin Rite Church. It is basicaly only on paper, since those we have received usually register and attend liturgy at our Latin Rite parish. There is a notoation in the Register for Full Communion to this effect, I don’t have the canon # off hand.

I quoted them here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=367736&page=2

Blessings

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I would not make any assumptions.

You list three categories. We know that no one who has received a Trinitarian baptism will be baptized again, so most Protestants will have to fit into some special category you have not listed if they do not fall into the third: “Received into Full Communion”.

In response to your question, I suspect most Orthodox in the USA who become Catholic actually convert to Latin Catholicism (and Orthodox might be about 5% of the 93,000 received). However, I have no hard statistics to back that up… good luck at the library!

Protestants who have been validly Baptized make a valid Confession and are then Received into Full Communion by a Profession of Faith, Confirmation and First Communion. [See the Easter Vigil Ceremonies]

The only case of an Orthodox that I have been involved in was one who had been baptized Catholic as a child but then taken to an Orthodox Church by his mother after a divorce. Since he received valid sacraments in the Orthodox Church he simply went to confession and was registered into our parish. I think that one originally Baptized in an Orthodox Church might be required to make some sort of profession of accepting the authority of the Pope, but otherwise would be the same. He already has all the Sacraments.

 

[Hesychios]

… I suspect most Orthodox in the USA who become Catholic actually convert to Latin Catholicism (and Orthodox might be about 5% of the 93,000 received). However, I have no hard statistics to back that up… good luck at the library!

Those Orthodox who become Catholic are tecnically received into the corresponding Eastern Rite not the Latin Rite, even if they are received at a Latin Rite Church. It is basicaly only on paper, since those we have received usually register and attend liturgy at our Latin Rite parish. There is a notoation in the Register for Full Communion to this effect, I don’t have the canon # off hand.

This I know.

But in my opinion most Orthodox who become Catholic (in North America) do so because they become interiorly Latin. They embrace the thinking and faith of Augustine, Aquinas and Anselm. It seems a more natural fit for them.

Although some may be less particularly religious altogether and change because of marriage.

As you state, the ascription to an EC church is all on paper, and this has little real impact on the convert or the corresponding Eastern Catholic church, whose bishop may never know them… and whose spirituality, calendar of Saints and devotions may be forgotten or neglected.

This is important in one sense because canonically they are bound to follow the calendar (Holy Days of Obligation) of the church they actually belong to, not the church they actually attend. Most will never realize this and their children will not learn this. In fact, converts usually do not care (or have the conviction) to perpetuate the practices of their old church, except perhaps out of nolstalgia, and the children have none of that.

It does not matter that they are not required to be baptized, redo any other sacraments or attend RCIA, they are undergoing a real conversion. For all intents and purposes most of these people are converting to Latin Catholicism.

 

[johnnykins]

This I know.

But in my opinion most Orthodox who become Catholic (in North America) do so because they become interiorly Latin. They embrace the thinking and faith of Augustine… For all intents and purposes most of these people are converting to Latin Catholicism.

Hmmm. I always thought Augustine of Hippo was Catholic in it’s broadest sense, i.e., before the schism of the East. He is a saint of the Orthodox churches as well. I also note that the Holy Spirit worked in the Western Fathers every bit as much as in the Eastern Fathers. I suggest they become catholic because they finally become Catholic. I don’t see how anyone could claim that a conversion to the faith of Augustine is in any meaningful way anything other than a conversion to Catholicism - no modifier.

 

[Nine_Two]

Hmmm. I always thought Augustine of Hippo was Catholic in it’s broadest sense, i.e., before the schism of the East. He is a saint of the Orthodox churches as well. I also note that the Holy Spirit worked in the Western Fathers every bit as much as in the Eastern Fathers. I suggest they become catholic because they finally become Catholic. I don’t see how anyone could claim that a conversion to the faith of Augustine is in any meaningful way anything other than a conversion to Catholicism - no modifier.

St. Augustine is accepted as a Saint in both the East and the West, however he not considered a major saint in the east, largely because he lived at a time when the interchange of language and ideas between the East and West was nearing its lowest point, and thus much of what he wrote was never translated in the East, so his influence was minimal. It should also be kept in mind that around the same time there were many future saints in the East who had very little impact on the West, but who are accepted as Saints by the West.

The general rule is that if a Saint lived before the Great Schism, they’ll be recognized universally. There are probably exceptions to this, but I’m not aware of any.

 

[Hesychios]

St. Augustine is accepted as a Saint in both the East and the West, however he not considered a major saint in the east, largely because he lived at a time when the interchange of language and ideas between the East and West was nearing its lowest point, and thus much of what he wrote was never translated in the East, so his influence was minimal.

That’s exactly right.

In fact, there was a great imbalance between the east and the west in the number of patristic authors up until that time. Tertullian and Augustine stand out in the west, both were converts but highly influential North Africans.

By this time the Roman church had changed it’s liturgy (it was not called a Mass until later) from Greek to Latin. As a result most candidates for the priesthood in the west were not studying Greek, and the demand for original Greek manuscripts dropped off, making them relatively rare and expensive in the west. The liturgical switch to Latin also meant that the scriptures needed a good new Latin translation (resulting in Jerome’s Vulgate). Greek patristic authors were sometimes available in translation, and the less popular ones became general unavailable.

Into this void steps Augustine, one of the most prolific authors of his time, or any time. He did not read Greek, and did not write Greek. His works circulated widely in the west, but not very much in the Greek speaking east, where there were so many other more familiar patristic authors available for reading. He was essentially crowded out in the east, much like a popular author in Germany today might be almost unknown in the USA, with few of his works actually translated.

He was not “Catholic in the broadest sense”, he was as parochially Latin as any author could be.

Anyway, Augustine is only one part of a whole series of authors who shaped religious thinking more in the west than the east, but it would be unfair to deliberately not mention him just because he was early.

If I were making a list of authors who influenced the east more than the west I would include but not limit the list to Origen, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint John Cassian and Saint John of Damascus even though these are all pre-schism authors. To leave them out would be unrealistic.

 

[johnnykins]

St. Augustine is accepted as a Saint in both the East and the West, however he not considered a major saint in the east, largely because he lived at a time when the interchange of language and ideas between the East and West was nearing its lowest point, and thus much of what he wrote was never translated in the East, so his influence was minimal. It should also be kept in mind that around the same time there were many future saints in the East who had very little impact on the West, but who are accepted as Saints by the West.

The general rule is that if a Saint lived before the Great Schism, they’ll be recognized universally. There are probably exceptions to this, but I’m not aware of any.

Actually, I think it is far more accurate to say the current orthodox churches do not accept Augustine as a “major” saint because his writings create problems in their anti-Catholic post-schism world view. It’s somewhat self-serving for a current Orthodox member, especially converts as has been seen before on this forum, to somehow claim the that Augustine is in any way not “major” when we all know they do so because he is problematic for them. The fact remains, the Holy Spirit spoke through Augustine every bit as much as He spoke through Saint John Chrysostom, Saint John Cassian and Saint John of Damascus and to try to claim otherwise is simply post-schism revisionism.

Interestingly, the Catholic Church is the Church that accepts all of them as “major” while the East tries to pretend Augustine doesn’t make the grade - an absurd position, but perhaps necessary if one wants to claim that Catholic claims are not supported by the Fathers. One reason that “catholic” applies more aptly to the Catholic Church than to the Orthodox churches is that Catholicism accepts all of them and reconciles them in a complementary understanding of the Church, etc.

 

[John_Larocque]

Given the extensive quotations of his used by Calvin, Luther and others, as well as a more negative soteriology than that of the Scholatics, it’s hard for me not to view St. Augustine as the patron saint of the Protestant Reformation. If the See of Rome was the church founded by Ss. Peter and Paul, then you could view medieval papalism as Peter without Paul, and the Reformation as Paul without Peter.

It’s hard for me to get warmed up over the Saint of Hippo (Pope Benedict’s title for him), even after reading his confessions. I have much warmer and fuzzier feelings towards St. Thomas Aquinas, although some Orthodox types aren’t happy with him either. My view of the Reformers, is once they decided the Roman Church was in error, they threw out everything, including the Scholastic deviations from Augustinism, and went back to Augustine.

BTW this blog amused me - it placed Seraphim Rose (and Theodora’s Toll houses vision) in the Augustine camp.

 

[Addai]

Given the extensive quotations of his used by Calvin, Luther and others, as well as a more negative soteriology than that of the Scholatics, it’s hard for me not to view St. Augustine as the patron saint of the Protestant Reformation. If the See of Rome was the church founded by Ss. Peter and Paul, then you could view medieval papalism as Peter without Paul, and the Reformation as Paul without Peter.

It’s hard for me to get warmed up over the Saint of Hippo (Pope Benedict’s title for him), even after reading his confessions. I have much warmer and fuzzier feelings towards St. Thomas Aquinas, although some Orthodox types aren’t happy with him either. My view of the Reformers, is once they decided the Roman Church was in error, they threw out everything, including the Scholastic deviations from Augustinism, and went back to Augustine.

That is only true (somewhat) in terms of Soteriology. They abandoned most of his Ecclesiology that affirmed Tradition, Magisterium, Apostolic Succession, the primacy of Peter etc. One of the most affective rebuttal’s to Protestantism is Augustine’s “Debate with Maximinius”

matt1618.freeyellow.com/unity2.html

 

[Addai]

Actually, I think it is far more accurate to say the current orthodox churches do not accept Augustine as a “major” saint because his writings create problems in their anti-Catholic post-schism world view. It’s somewhat self-serving for a current Orthodox member, especially converts as has been seen before on this forum, to somehow claim the that Augustine is in any way not “major” when we all know they do so because he is problematic for them. The fact remains, the Holy Spirit spoke through Augustine every bit as much as He spoke through Saint John Chrysostom, Saint John Cassian and Saint John of Damascus and to try to claim otherwise is simply post-schism revisionism.
.

That is very true. I was surprised years ago when I found members of my Coptic Sunday School speaking so highly of Augustine when we eventually covered him (After reading EO naysaying for years). That was my first big tip off regarding some of Mardukm’s talking points that OO are not the same as the EO (even though they try very hard to give that impression.)

 

[John_Larocque]

Well, if you’re looking for Augustinism with the Pope, look no further than Jansenism. You can see hints of them in some of the post Vatican I and II splinter movements, and even the Feeneyists, as was pointed out in an two-part essay in Fidelity a few years ago on a Latin Mass conference. What made me laugh was one of the Old Catholic groups, having embraced a form of Calvinism, started thinking about rejecting the Council of Trent and its rejection of Calvinist ideas.

 

[Nine_Two]

Actually, I think it is far more accurate to say the current orthodox churches do not accept Augustine as a “major” saint because his writings create problems in their anti-Catholic post-schism world view. It’s somewhat self-serving for a current Orthodox member, especially converts as has been seen before on this forum, to somehow claim the that Augustine is in any way not “major” when we all know they do so because he is problematic for them. The fact remains, the Holy Spirit spoke through Augustine every bit as much as He spoke through Saint John Chrysostom, Saint John Cassian and Saint John of Damascus and to try to claim otherwise is simply post-schism revisionism.

Pot calling the kettle black? You accuse us of being anti-Catholic when nothing against the Catholic Church has been posted, then go on to attack the Orthodox Church. I’ll be the first to admit I was at one time quite anti-Roman Catholic, the Orthodox Church played a big part and curing me of that.

Interestingly, the Catholic Church is the Church that accepts all of them as “major” while the East tries to pretend Augustine doesn’t make the grade - an absurd position, but perhaps necessary if one wants to claim that Catholic claims are not supported by the Fathers. One reason that “catholic” applies more aptly to the Catholic Church than to the Orthodox churches is that Catholicism accepts all of them and reconciles them in a complementary understanding of the Church, etc.

It has nothing to do with “making the grade” a Saint is a Saint. As Hesychios said it has nothing to do with what he wrote, it has everything to do with the language he wrote in and the time he wrote it. He is a major saint, he just hasn’t had much of an impact on the East. You’d be lying if you tried to claim St. John Chrysostom had the same impact on the West as he did on the East.

You can claim it’s an Orthodox conspiracy against Roman Catholics if you want, but that’s not really true. There are several Orthodox Churches who hold him as their patron saint, and if you look at the Orthodox Wiki article on him you get something quite favourable.

 

[Addai]

Nine of two, there has been considerable anti-Augustinism among the EO. He is an official saint no doubt about that. But for many in your communion he is a “gateway drug” into the filioque and all the other “heresies of the West”. Which is why essay’s like this one in recent times have been written.

"Saint Augustine in the Greek Orthodox Tradition

Rev. Dr. George C. Papademetriou

For the last several decades, not just his theology but Augustine himself has been regarded as heretical by some theologians in the Orthodox Church. An attack on his person has been made by several theologians, excluding him from the list of saints. Meanwhile, others have called upon Orthodox theology to reevaluate and reinstitute Augustine to his rightful place as a great theologian*-philosopher of the universal Church."

goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8153

 

[Harpazo]

There is actually a great book on the subject of Saint Augustine’s in the Orthodox Church. It’s by Blessed Seraphim Rose. Here’s a link to it on Amazon. My church has a copy of it in their library. I plan on reading it once I get more of my biology and chemistry readings out of the way.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Nine_Two]

Nine of two, there has been considerable anti-Augustinism among the EO. He is an official saint no doubt about that. But for many in your communion he is a “gateway drug” into the filioque and all the other “heresies of the West”. Which is why essay’s like this one in recent times have been written.

"Saint Augustine in the Greek Orthodox Tradition

Rev. Dr. George C. Papademetriou

For the last several decades, not just his theology but Augustine himself has been regarded as heretical by some theologians in the Orthodox Church. An attack on his person has been made by several theologians, excluding him from the list of saints. Meanwhile, others have called upon Orthodox theology to reevaluate and reinstitute Augustine to his rightful place as a great theologian*-philosopher of the universal Church."

goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8153

I do agree with you on that, St. Augustine is quite misunderstood in the context of the Orthodox Church. Much of the doctrine he wrote down is considered heterodox. He is considered major by the Western Rite of the Orthodox Church, who are in full communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church, which at the very least indicates that the Church does not consider him to be the heretic that some claim he is, even if we don’t accept some of his teachings as hard doctrine.