When Orthodox convert to Catholicism (redux)

[Diak]

The Council of Chalcedon deposed the former Patriarch Dioscorus and installed Proterius as the new Patriarch of Alexandria. This was not an imperial decision so much as a decision of the Church through an Ecumenical Council.

One will be very challenged to provide a compelling argument that the hand of the Emperor was not involved in the deposition of Dioscorus - which the Copts argue was uncanonical as his own Church of Alexandria did not do it, and on a purely Cyprianic level of ecclesiology they may have an argument.

This opens up another interesting point that was made earlier that the Orthodox Churches were truly autocephalic. In the case of Alexandria this was not the case as his own Church apparently wished him to stay as Patriarch and did not depose him.

The objective facts remain - a parallel jurisdiction made up of non-native clergy using quite a different liturgical tradition was imposed on a Church with a much longer-standing liturgical and cultural tradition. Civil force was used to attempt to make more of the population accept that foreign hierarchy.

It really did not make much success for itself, either, in terms of numbers of who remained Copt. Like Catholic movements of unity, the Alexandrian example of uniatism never really took hold over the larger parts of Coptic church and is certainly a valid example of how the Orthodox have used a uniatistic approach themselves.

Regarding Antioch - the Byzantine/Constantinopolitan “era” came centuries after the Syriac churches were well established and they certainly did not elect any representative of the Emperor as the Patriarch.

Yes, while a Macedonian may have founded Antioch, we know Peter was the first of the Apostles visit there and call them Christians. So it’s really Rome’s after all…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

All of the Orthodox arguments against “uniatism” should be compared in the light of such historical developments as the establishment of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, as well as others such as Antioch that have ancient non-Constantinopolitan liturgical traditions that were supplanted by “uniate” hierarchs. Rome is certainly not the only one to have engaged in such activities.

What about the Western Rite Orthodox in the Russian and Antiochian Orthodox Churches?

Do not they count as reverse “uniatism”?

 

[Diak]

Absolutely - I was only illustrating that this sort of thing is long-established a millenium before more recent examples such as the “Western Rite” or even one less known, the “Assyrian Mission” amongst the MP with a hybrid Russian liturgy using Aramaic.

 

[malphono]

The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, which did not exist prior to its creation by order of the Emperor. …

Thanks. Excellent point.

Absolutely - I was only illustrating that this sort of thing is long-established a millenium before more recent examples such as the “Western Rite” or even one less known, the “Assyrian Mission” amongst the MP with a hybrid Russian liturgy using Aramaic.

Another excellent point.

I’ve said this before in a different thread but it bears here, so I’ll allow myself to be redundant: the Orthodox (these days mainly the MP) are constant in their criticism of Rome on this issue when they themselves are equally guilty of the exact same thing.

 

[Madaglan]

Thanks. Excellent point.

Another excellent point.

I’ve said this before in a different thread but it bears here, so I’ll allow myself to be redundant: the Orthodox (these days mainly the MP) are constant in their criticism of Rome on this issue when they themselves are equally guilty of the exact same thing.

Name one Latin Catholic bishop who brought his entire diocese to Orthodoxy by separating from Rome and adopting WRO. I know of none. The economic, social and political considerations in the case of Eastern Orthodox becoming Eastern Catholics are largely absent from the WRO.

The persons who become WRO do so voluntarily. Historically, the greater number becoming WRO have been former Anglicans/Episcopalians, not Latin Catholics in communion with Rome. Unlike the Eastern Catholic Churches, which have their own bishops and jurisdictions parallel to those of the Orthodox, the WRO generally are without their own WRO bishops but instead are under the jurisdiction of a Byzantine/Russian bishop.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello brother David,

What about the Western Rite Orthodox in the Russian and Antiochian Orthodox Churches?

Do not they count as reverse “uniatism”?

I don’t know why you think so.

Every case without exception has been a Protestant congregation converting to Orthodox theology and wishing to associate with Holy Orthodoxy, or sometimes (particularly in Europe) of an Old Catholic congregation likewise.

I don’t know of any instance where Orthodox have targeted Latin Catholic dioceses or attempted to set up alternative Latin Catholic hierarchies in the traditional west.

You are probably also aware that the Western Rite Orthodox in North America have no bishops, and the congregations were accepted on a case by case basis at their own request.

They are also rather recent phenomena. There was no poaching on the Latin church, no political coercion and no wish to present the public with a replacement Latin Catholic church.

Do not they count as reverse “uniatism”?

Does using quotes make that word OK around here?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Diak,

For all your posts regarding the Coptic Orthodox Church, I have several things to say:

,

:bowdown2:

:hug1:

and,

.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

Hello brother David,
I don’t know why you think so.

Every case without exception has been a Protestant congregation converting to Orthodox theology and wishing to associate with Holy Orthodoxy, or sometimes (particularly in Europe) of an Old Catholic congregation likewise.

I don’t know of any instance where Orthodox have targeted Latin Catholic dioceses or attempted to set up alternative Latin Catholic hierarchies in the traditional west.

You are probably also aware that the Western Rite Orthodox in North America have no bishops, and the congregations were accepted on a case by case basis at their own request.

They are also rather recent phenomena. There was no poaching on the Latin church, no political coercion and no wish to present the public with a replacement Latin Catholic church. Does using quotes make that word OK around here?

I am more inclined to agree with brother David’s analysis, for the very simple fact that Protestants are the children (wayward though they are) of the Latin Church.

Many Protestants have come to Catholicism with, and sometimes because of, a better appreciation for Liturgy. Offering Protestants a novel Western-style Liturgical setting seems more condemnable according to the complaints of those who think that the Catholics are setting up Liturgies to attract the Orthodox. What Catholics are setting up in Orthodox lands is nothing new - in the first millenium, there were always Churches in those lands in whatever liturgical setting that recognized and honored the bishop of Rome in their diptychs. “Western” Orthodoxy, however, is something completely novel, wouldn’t you say?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[rad]

Soloviev was quite convinced one could be in communion with Rome and not abandon Orthodoxy. I completely agree, in spite of the sometimes unfortunate and uncharitable actions of individual men.

Soloviev was evidently mistaken since entering into communion with Rome resulted in being denied communion in Orthodoxy.

Roman Catholic sources say that after his reception into the Catholic Church he was refused Orthodox communion.

Please see the article by Father Ray Ryland on the Catholic Answers site.

“Which was Soloviev’s church? Was he “Orthodox”? Was he Catholic? The data we have are confusing. Soloviev was raised in the Russian Orthodox Church. In 1896 he made a profession of faith in the Catholic Church before an Eastern-rite priest. That priest received him into the Church and gave him Communion. A year later Soloviev became ill and asked a Russian priest to give him Communion. Knowing that Soloviev had earlier been received into the Catholic Church, the priest refused.”

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea2.asp

He was in a position the same as our contemporary of Vassoula Ryden. She claims to be both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox and used to receive communion in both Churches. However the Greek Orthodox Church issued a statement of her excommunication and she cannot have communion in Orthodox churches. But she still receives communion in Catholic churches.

 

[Hesychios]

Dear brother Michael,

I am more inclined to agree with brother David’s analysis, for the very simple fact that Protestants are the children (wayward though they are) of the Latin Church.

Yes, Protestantism is certainly an outgrowth of the Latin church (no argument from me). But this is not in any way poaching the flock of the Papacy. That issue was settled nearly five hundred years ago when their priests taught them new doctrines and led them in a new direction.

These former Protestants who became Orthodox not only did not belong to the Latin church, they do not believe modern Latin church doctrines. We are discussing a very small group here, by the way, I would be surprised if there were as many as two thousand in North America, enough to fill one or maybe two Masses in a typical suburban Latin Catholic parish around Chicago.

Are we to turn them away when these non-Catholic lost sheep come to Apostolic Christianity seeking Christ?

Many Protestants have come to Catholicism with, and sometimes because of, a better appreciation for Liturgy. Offering Protestants a novel Western-style Liturgical setting seems more condemnable according to the complaints of those who think that the Catholics are setting up Liturgies to attract the Orthodox. What Catholics are setting up in Orthodox lands is nothing new - in the first millenium, there were always Churches in those lands in whatever liturgical setting that recognized and honored the bishop of Rome in their diptychs. “Western” Orthodoxy, however, is something completely novel, wouldn’t you say?

Blessings,
Marduk

So then, what is your argument…liturgical, geographical or the diptychs?

You are comparing apples and oranges here. But you will believe what you will.

The Orthodox are not using some form of subterfuge to steal Catholic souls as you imply, and there has been no attempt to exploit divisions within the Latin church, or lure their bishops away. These non-Catholic converts to Holy Orthodoxy have sometimes asked for permission to serve the liturgy St Tikhon or St Gregory, perfectly Orthodox liturgies, and the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchal church has allowed them the use of that liturgy, nothing more really. They are still theologically Orthodox with no additional doctrines. Far more Protestant parishes have converted and taken up the Liturgy of St Chrysostom/St Basil, as theologically Orthodox with no additional doctrines.

Honoring a bishop in the diptychs is fine so long as he is Orthodox, but that is not done at the parish level. The parish names it’s own bishop, Metropolitan or Patriarch. It is the Patriarch which includes other Patriarchs in his diptychs.

So at the parish level, Orthodox parishes in the east did not name the bishop of Rome during liturgy. Orthodox Patriarchs and Metropolitans would be happy to do so some day, and even concelebrate with him, provided the Bishop of Rome is Orthodox.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

The persons who become WRO do so voluntarily.

And you know for sure that Orthodox who translate to Catholicism are automatically being coerced? So you’re saying that Orthodox who wish of their own free will to come into communion with Rome do not have a right to worship in the form that their fathers before them worshipped?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

Yes, Protestantism is certainly an outgrowth of the Latin church (no argument from me). But this is not in any way poaching the flock of the Papacy. That issue was settled nearly five hundred years ago when their priests taught them new doctrines and led them in a new direction.

I hear you, but I think a valid case can still be made that high-Church Lutherans and Anglicans who convert to Orthodoxy are being “poached.” Mind you, I don’t believe in all this “poaching” hoopla. But if the Orthodox are going to claim it, in all fairness, the Catholics can claim it too.

Are we to turn them away when these non-Catholic lost sheep come to Apostolic Christianity seeking Christ?

As I asked brother Madaglan, is it not the right of an Orthodox who translates of his/her own free will to Catholicism to be able to worship in the form that his fathers before him had worshipped? Should the Catholic Church turn them away?

So then, what is your argument…liturgical, geographical or the diptychs?

I mention the diptychs because I assume that is the only difference between an Orthodox liturgical rite and its analogous Catholic Eastern liturgical rite.

The Orthodox are not using some form of subterfuge to steal Catholic souls as you imply, and there has been no attempt to exploit divisions within the Latin church, or lure their bishops away. These non-Catholic converts to Holy Orthodoxy have sometimes asked for permission to serve the liturgy St Tikhon or St Gregory, perfectly Orthodox liturgies, and the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchal church has allowed them the use of that liturgy, nothing more really. They are still theologically Orthodox with no additional doctrines. Far more Protestant parishes have converted and taken up the Liturgy of St Chrysostom/St Basil, as theologically Orthodox with no additional doctrines.

As I said, I don’t believe the poaching argument is valid in any scenario, but if the Orthodox make the claim, then the Catholics have a valid one to make as well.

Honoring a bishop in the diptychs is fine so long as he is Orthodox, but that is not done at the parish level. The parish names it’s own bishop, Metropolitan or Patriarch. It is the Patriarch which includes other Patriarchs in his diptychs.

Is it only the patriarchal Church that would include the Pope in its diptychs, or also the local bishop’s Church? As I recall, in the Fifth Ecumenical Council, the Emperor asked all the bishops to remove the Pope’s name from their diptychs (which they did not do, thank God). I’m sure all those bishops present were not just patriarchs.

Brother, I think you have expressed in the past that the “poaching” argument is not really valid. I don’t view your arguments here as supporting the Orthodox “poaching” argument, but only as rhetoric against the Catholic “poaching” argument. Can we leave it at that, or do you now believe that there is actual “poaching” going on by the Catholic Church?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Diak]

Soloviev was evidently mistaken since entering into communion with Rome resulted in being denied communion in Orthodoxy.

Roman Catholic sources say that after his reception into the Catholic Church he was refused Orthodox communion.

Please see the article by Father Ray Ryland on the Catholic Answers site.

“Which was Soloviev’s church? Was he “Orthodox”? Was he Catholic? The data we have are confusing. Soloviev was raised in the Russian Orthodox Church. In 1896 he made a profession of faith in the Catholic Church before an Eastern-rite priest. That priest received him into the Church and gave him Communion. A year later Soloviev became ill and asked a Russian priest to give him Communion. Knowing that Soloviev had earlier been received into the Catholic Church, the priest refused.”

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea2.asp

He was in a position the same as our contemporary of Vassoula Ryden. She claims to be both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox and used to receive communion in both Churches. However the Greek Orthodox Church issued a statement of her excommunication and she cannot have communion in Orthodox churches. But she still receives communion in Catholic churches.

I would posit respectfully that indeed Soloviev was correct; I would further suggest Fr. Ryland read and become more familiar with Unitatis Redintegratio and other documents, as well as writings and histories of Soloviev in Russian and Ukrainian that he obviously is not familiar with.

A case in point with inaccuracies in this specific article is his selective historical memory, seemingly implicating that only the Eastern emperors and hierarchs upheld heresy (here specifically mentioning monothelism, monophytism, etc.). He completely ignores the adherence of many Western hierarchs and civil leaders to Arianism that extended well beyond Carolingian times. It works both ways. His article is not a Magesterial teaching and is nothing more than Fr. Ryland’s personal opinions.

Let’s look at his closing statements.

What is that thesis? You can sum it up in three propositions. The universal jurisdiction and teaching authority of the papacy are divinely instituted. Apart from the papacy, the Eastern churches will remain simply ethnic, national churches. Only in union with Rome can the Eastern churches be truly "catholic."

First of all looking specifically at the Antiochians and to a lesser extent the OCA and ROCOR, I would say he is dead wrong about “simply ethnic, national churches”. This belies a serious lack of knowledge of what is actually going on in Orthodoxy.

Now let’s look at the Magesterial position documented in Section 17 of *Unitatis Redintegratio *:

All this heritage of spirituality and liturgy, of discipline and theology, in its various traditions, this holy synod declares to belong to the full Catholic and apostolic character of the Church. We thank God that many Eastern children of the Catholic Church, who preserve this heritage, and wish to express it more faithfully and completely in their lives, are already living in full communion with their brethren who follow the tradition of the West.

It is this sort of misrepresentation of Catholic teaching in a polemic way without respecting the ancient traditions of the Christian East (as is DEMANDED by Magesterial teaching) that will keep me from ever subscribing to This Rock. I have more problems reconciling Fr. Ryland’s position with this Council document and historical truth than understanding Soloviev’s position.

 

[rad]

I would posit respectfully that indeed Soloviev was correct

If Soloviev were correct, would we not be seeing Catholic and Orthodox Bishops and priests celebrating and communing in each other’s churches. After all this intercommunion and dual church membership is the basis of the claim that Soloviev was correct.

I posit that he is not correct, from the view of either side of the fence, because it is our bishops who image for us what is normal and canonical in the Church and they do not exemplify what you seem to be claiming for Soloviev’s claim of similtaneous membership in both Churches.

If memory serves this was addressed recently when a mistaken claim was made that the Patriarch of Constantinople had spoken of the Orthodox being able to exist in a dual unity with the Catholic Church. Statements were issued very quickly denying this possibility. Does anybody remember this? Only a few months ago.

 

[rad]

I would posit respectfully that indeed Soloviev was correct; .

Here is a top level denial that the kind of dual unity/dual communion of Soloviev is correct…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3893688&postcount=56

 

[Diak]

I think we may be misunderstanding each other. Full Eucharistic communion has not been reestablished so on a hierarchal level for those non-Catholic Eastern Churches, full intercommunion is not yet possible. It has happened, most recently with a Romanian Orthodox bishop. He was not only not excommunicated by his Church, but fully pardoned. I frequently see Ukrainian Orthodox communing at our services. So it does occur, and as Eastern Catholic clergy we are not to refuse any Orthodox who have prepared for communion and approach voluntarily.

The Anathemas of 1054 have been mutually renounced (twice) by both the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Pope. While this does not restore full Eucharistic communion it is a huge first step to realize each church does not consider the other anathemitized.

Soloviev’s position was that one could come into full communion with Rome and not abandon anything of Orthodoxy. He also saw the need for a universal primacy - perhaps you are missing this aspect of his position. I do not see how that position is not possible with Eastern Catholic clergy who, like the Russian Catholics, are fully representative of their authentic Orthodox heritage in communion with Rome.

Some in the Latin hierarchy, such as Cardinal Biffi and the late Holy Father, have indicated assent to Soloviev’s positions. The late Holy Father on more than one occasion referred to him as the “Russian Newman”, a title given to Soloviev earlier by Michel D’Herbigny.

St. Pius X reiterated this possibility as well in a witnessed audience with Mdme. Ushakova, a student of Soloviev and a member of the Russian Greek Catholic Church. Mdme. Ushakova asked St. Pius X what more was needed for the Russian Catholics other than to be in communion with Rome. His reply is famous - nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter.

While I most certainly do accept the concept of primacy, like the fathers of the Council of Brest I do believe I can continue to practice the fullness of the Kyivan tradition I have received in full Eucharistic communion with the Catholic Church.

For none other than Von Balthasar to consider him one of the most influential theologians in history, calling his work “the most universal speculative creation of the modern period” and seconding him to Aquinas in his own phisophical/theological formation is no small praise.

And as with Aquinas and many of the other mystical Fathers, it may be years or centuries before the full effect, beauty and depth of Soloviev is manifested.

 

[Diak]

Here is a top level denial that the kind of dual unity/dual communion of Soloviev is correct…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3893688&postcount=56

This is a public correction of a rumor. I don’t see any mention of Soloviev and no connection to this thread but rather a public response to several ultra-Orthodox protests that were made to the Ecumenical Patriarchate regarding a series of letters exchanged between himself and Patriarch Lubomyr (those contacts, by the way, continue).

 

[rad]

This

Dear Father,

I completely fail to understand your position, I think. Are you saying that Soloviev was correct or incorrect in his claim to be in communion with both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches?

Are you also saying that you are receiving communion in both Churches?

 

[Diak]

Reread my post of 8:01 yesterday morning.

 

[Abbendis]

Hello brother David,
I don’t know why you think so.

Every case without exception has been a Protestant congregation converting to Orthodox theology and wishing to associate with Holy Orthodoxy, or sometimes (particularly in Europe) of an Old Catholic congregation likewise.

I don’t know of any instance where Orthodox have targeted Latin Catholic dioceses or attempted to set up alternative Latin Catholic hierarchies in the traditional west.

You are probably also aware that the Western Rite Orthodox in North America have no bishops, and the congregations were accepted on a case by case basis at their own request.

They are also rather recent phenomena. There was no poaching on the Latin church, no political coercion and no wish to present the public with a replacement Latin Catholic church. Does using quotes make that word OK around here?

Profane words, like “******” or “pollack” are usually put in quotes to let the reader know the writer dose not endorse the use of such vocabulary, at least from my experience.

Several Old Believer communities in Russia in the early twentieth century came into communion with Rome out of their own free will (until the Soviets exterminated them) and with no bishop, the the local Latin ordinary served for them (there were several Catholic dioceses in Russia before the Reds liquidated them by force)

Like Western-Rite Orthodox and Latin Catholicism these Old Believers had no connection with the Russian Orthodox Church save (like Anglicans) a similar liturgy and history, at least until 1666, so by your definition would you call these Old Believer Greek Catholics uniates?