Wasn't Pope John Paul II Wrong to Reject Proselytism?

[tdgesq]

As has already been indicated, the Balamand Statement rejects ***all ***Catholic efforts to evangelize by seeking converts to Catholicism among Eastern Orthodox Christians. But no Catholic can reject such efforts to end the Eastern schism, as Vatican II confirms in Unitatis redintegratio 4 (please see the citation in post #1 on this thread).

No it doesn’t. It requires that it be done through the ecumenical process set up between the Orthodox and the RCC. And you are way off citing to Unitatis Redintegratio 4 as if it helps you:

“However, it is evident that, when individuals wish for full Catholic communion, their preparation and reconciliation is an undertaking which of its nature is distinct from ecumenical action. But there is no opposition between the two, since both proceed from the marvelous ways of God.”

There is no opposition between the two. It is expected that both will happen in the dialogue. If anything, Unitatis Redintegratio tells us exactly that:

I. The Special Consideration of the Eastern Churches
. . .
These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged.

. . .this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls. The perfect observance of this traditional principle not always indeed carried out in practice, is one of the essential prerequisites for any restoration of unity.
. . .
18. After taking all these factors into consideration, this Sacred
Council solemnly repeats the declaration of previous Councils and Roman Pontiffs, that for the restoration or the maintenance of unity and communion it is necessary “to impose no burden beyond what is essential”.[37] It is the Council’s urgent desire that, in the various organizations and living activities of the Church, every effort should be made toward the gradual realization of this unity, especially by prayer, and by fraternal dialogue on points of doctrine and the more pressing pastoral problems of our time.

And there is an entire decree on the separated Eastern churches in Vatican II that I haven’t even touched on yet.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with “uniatism,” i.e., the return of a group of Eastern Orthodox bishops and their flocks to Catholic unity by entrance into communion with the successor of Peter:

There is nothing wrong with uniatism per se. If a particular EO church wants to return, Rome isn’t going to stop it. What it will not do is actively attempt to persuade members of these churches to leave outside of the ecumenical process that is in place . We will see why when we get to your example of the Ruthenian Catholics.

***“For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained” (***CCC 816).

As if anyone here doubts this. It is how to effectively bring those EO communities into the Church that is the question.

 

[tdgesq]

One of the happiest events in Catholic history was the 1596 Union of Brest, whereby millions of separated Ruthenian Christians returned to the one true Church by establishing communion with Pope Clement VIII. Here is an interesting Catholic Encyclopedia article on this event:

Where are those millions now? According to this the entire population of the Rutherian Church is 533,000. faswebdesign.com/ECPA/Byzantine/Ruthenian.html. It is an historical fact that large portions of the Ruthenian church have broken off to rejoin the Orthodox as a result of their proselytism of our members. Sometimes by persuasion, and sometimes by brute force. This is the fruit of uniatism. We take their members and say that salvation can only be had in our Church. They take our members and say that they can only be saved as Orthodox, and many times rebaptize them. The Church through Vatican II believes that it has found a better way to evangelize.

To attack “uniatism” is to say that Pope Clement VIII and all succeeding Popes until Paul VI were seriously in error. But they were not in error.

I’m not attacking it. I’m saying that with the current state of the EO community it hasn’t worked. There is more than one way to evangelize. I don’t know how many times I’m going to have to say it. Maybe if I give you an example. The Vatican could direct Catholic clergy to go knock on doors of registered Orthodox and ask them “are you saved?” Would this be legitimate evangelization? Sure. Would it be effective? Probably not. Every Pope that I know of agrees that we need to evangelize those who are not in communion with the Church; the question is how it most effectively can be done. JPII never claimed that we should not evangelize the EO.

 

[andy120]

We reject every form of proselytism, every attitude which would be or could be perceived to be a lack of respect

I think there is a misunderstanding in the grammatical interpretation of the quotation. The second part of the sentence is necessary because from “which” to “respect” is a conditional clause, placing a condition upon “every form of proselytism.” The quotation is saying that every form of proselytism “which would be or could be perceived to be a lack of respect” is rejected.

If I said

“I reject all forms of evangelism, all forms of preaching, which lacks in respect”

I would not be saying I reject evangelism or preaching, rather I reject every form of those which lacks in respect.

God Bless.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

There is nothing wrong with uniatism per se. If a particular EO church wants to return, Rome isn’t going to stop it. What it will not do is actively attempt to persuade members of these churches to leave outside of the ecumenical process that is in place.

It’s contradictory to accept “uniatism” while simultaneously defending an unwillingness to “actively attempt to persuade members of these churches to leave outside of the ecumenical process that is in place.”

If the principle enunciated in Unitatis redintegratio 4 is correct–and it is, as centuries of Catholic tradition and the logic of the Faith bear witness–then both individual Eastern Orthodox Christians and groups of them should be encouraged to return to the Catholic Church and communion with the successor of Peter as soon as possible regardless of the state of the ecumenical dialogues.

The ecumenical dialogues can and ought to continue for the ultimate goal of a corporate return of all the Eastern Orthodox churches to Catholic unity while individuals and smaller groups among the Eastern Orthodox are urged to convert to “the true religion and the one Church of Christ” (CCC 2105).

Above all, however, in keeping with the message of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fátima, we should implore the Holy Father and the bishops to perform the collegial consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The Blessed Mother has promised us that this will result in the conversion of Russia to the one true Faith.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I think there is a misunderstanding in the grammatical interpretation of the quotation. The second part of the sentence is necessary because from “which” to “respect” is a conditional clause, placing a condition upon “every form of proselytism.” The quotation is saying that every form of proselytism “which would be or could be perceived to be a lack of respect” is rejected.

If I said

“I reject all forms of evangelism, all forms of preaching, which lacks in respect”

I would not be saying I reject evangelism or preaching, rather I reject every form of those which lacks in respect.

God Bless.

Popes, like Catholic apologists, must choose their words carefully, and, in so doing, they must take into account their audience. John Paul II was making a joint statement with Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I. It’s a good bet that Dimitrios I believed that every kind of Catholic proselytism, even the kind that does not at all lack respect, is wrong.

If a Catholic apologist, intending to refer only to *divine *honor, were to tell a Protestant audience that he rejects “every form of honor paid to Mary,” all the Catholic apologists on this forum would rightly criticize his statement as erroneous and scandalous.

By the same token, Pope John Paul II’s statement rejecting every form of proselytism is erroneous and scandalous.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[andy120]

Popes, like Catholic apologists, must choose their words carefully, and, in so doing, they must take into account their audience. John Paul II was making a joint statement with Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I. It’s a good bet that Dimitrios I believed that every kind of Catholic proselytism, even the kind that does not at all lack respect, is wrong.

I would disagree. I see your point, but I think it was understood in the way it was written. I do not think it is for us to assume the Pope meant something contrary to the Catholic faith. Unfortunately I am not fluent in Italian, but I would assume the grammar matched up correctly to show the conditional clause I mentioned. If there is a Latin version of the document I might be able to see if that sheds any light on the situation.

On the example with Mary and honor…if the apologist said “every form of honor paid to Mary” he would have to add a conditional clause (as is present in the Proselytism case). The line “I reject every form of honor paid to Mary that is of divine honor,” would no longer be in error.

 

[tdgesq]

It’s contradictory to accept “uniatism” while simultaneously defending an unwillingness to “actively attempt to persuade members of these churches to leave outside of the ecumenical process that is in place.”

Lol! It appears that way because I was responding to your deficient definition of it here:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with “uniatism,” i.e., the return of a group of Eastern Orthodox bishops and their flocks to Catholic unity by entrance into communion with the successor of Peter:

I should have just corrected you at the outset. But since I didn’t, my view still is that uniatism isn’t in itself wrong, just ineffective when it comes to the EO. There is no contradiction, even if defined correctly.

If the principle enunciated in Unitatis redintegratio 4 is correct–and it is, as centuries of Catholic tradition and the logic of the Faith bear witness–then both individual Eastern Orthodox Christians and groups of them should be encouraged to return to the Catholic Church and communion with the successor of Peter as soon as possible regardless of the state of the ecumenical dialogues.

If you want to pick a sentence out of Vatican II and essentially ignore the extensive treatment (portions of which I cited) of ecumenism with the Eastern Churches that are not in communion, that’s your business. Vatican II has decided to deal with them differently, despite your protestations.

The ecumenical dialogues can and ought to continue for the ultimate goal of a corporate return of all the Eastern Orthodox churches to Catholic unity while individuals and smaller groups among the Eastern Orthodox are urged to convert to “the true religion and the one Church of Christ” (CCC 2105).

Your solution has been tried and has failed. There will be no ecumenical dialogue between the two if the Church starts doing what you suggest. I mean, look at the Russian Orthodox. You do what you suggest and it will set back prospects for unity in which the ROC really does accept Rome 1000 years. Your method of evangelization is not dogma. It’s a tradition of men that works sometimes and sometimes doesn’t. It isn’t the only way to evangelize.

If anything, I hope this thread has demonstrated to many how important it is to distinguish between Traditions of the Church and traditions of men.

 

[Tigerhawk]

Please see post #25, which also refers to section 22 of the Balamand Statement:

“Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Oriental, 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.”

The above is a specific definition of proselytism: persuading the faithful of an Eastern Orthodox church to pass over to the Catholic Church. Please note that there is no mention of coercion or deception in this definition. In it, all Catholic efforts to end the Eastern schism by persuading Eastern Orthodox Christians to convert to the Catholic Church are rejected.

Keep and spread the Faith.

Proselytize is not defined anywhere in the Balamand Statement. However section 10 and only section 10 give some attributes of it as it is understood in the statement. It is then used in section 18 and section 22.

By siting only section 18 and 22 you are taking the word out of context.

I have asked you several times very directly about section 10 of the statement and you have responded with misdirection.

Unless there is a section somewhere between 10 and 18 that states proselytize will now be used to mean “simply the endeavor to gain converts to one’s religion” all of your statements about its meaning in section 18 and 22 and then later in “DICHIARAZIONE COMUNE DI PAPA GIOVANNI PAOLO II
E DEL PATRIARCA ECUMENICO DIMITRIOS I” are false.

Then your attack on Pope John Paul II is also false, your charge of blasphemy is false and your accusation that anyone defending the statement is fostering diabolical disorietation is false.

God Bless and may the Holy Spirit guide us to The Truth.