Are there any Byzantine Catholics on here who where Roman Rite if so why did you switch to the Byzantine Right

I formally "changed rite" (now called a "transfer of canonical jurisdiction") some 46 years ago when marrying my wife, a Ukrainian Greek Catholic with whom I will celebrate 47 years of marriage next month.

My motives at the time were a mix of a genuine attraction to Byzantine liturgy and spirituality (with which I had become quite familiar before meeting my wife), a conviction that we both needed a shared spiritual foundation for our marriage, and a strong conviction that we shouldn't contribute to more attrition from the UGC Church.

Over the years, in a life that has taken us from the Midwest to Europe and has included a year in both Russian and Ukraine, my wife and I have been fortunate to find welcoming spiritual homes in both UGCC and BCC parishes (and, on occasion when necessary, in RC parishes where our "Byzantine-ness" was always respected, if not fully understood). We have also been welcomed by our Orthodox brothers and sisters.

The lesson I have learned from my "change" or "transfer" has been that the spiritual and liturgical riches of the Byzantine tradition are like the "treasure hidden in the field" that we hear about in the Gospel. You have to "buy the whole field" in order to reap the benefit. You can't be a "little bit" Byzantine. You have to be prepared to accept the cultural context of Byzantine worship and the history that has brought these communities to our shores. You have to be prepared to make the effort to understand, and to deepen your understanding.

I attempted to switch and then found out that my ancestral roots were Byzantine because of my French Lebanese background.

In the process of rediscovering the East through the Melkite Church, I went East and joined the Orthodox Church. It was not easy as the Priest called me to deep repentance -- a move that was very beneficial to my life and my marriage.

Elizabeth Maria:

Why did the priest call you to "deep repentance"? Can you explain?

Just before the Orthodox priest read the service of a catechumen, he showed me the ceremony of Holy Chrismation and he pointed out that I would need to make a full life confession -- all the sins I could remember from my earliest memories.

He explained that not only catechumens make full-life confessions, but also monastics upon their entrance to monasticism before their tonsure, and deacons just before their ordination to the Holy Priesthood.

And yes, the catechumenate was a call to deep repentance as I recalled sins of my infancy, when I was not quite two years old. Thank God I was allowed to live to adulthood and truly repent.

Of course, changing rites from Roman Catholicism to Eastern Catholicism does not usually involve a full-life confession, but when we thought of changing rites our Melkite priest did recommend it. So, in the end, we made two full-life confessions to Christ our God, once in the presence of a Melkite Priest and again three years later, another one in the presence of an Orthodox Priest. Both profoundly affected my life and were a source of grace.

Slava Isusu Christu!

I wanted to experience the church as the earliest Christians did. The Divine liturgy we celebrate in the Byzantine Rite is near the same as the Liturgy of the Church Fathers. Also the liturgical chant moved me as compared to the Roman Catholic mass. I never did like organs!

I posted a similar thread on this forum earlier this month, take a look: Top 10 Reasons to Become Byzantine Catholic .

Mike Lillie
http://www.byzantinetucson.com

I was a Latin Rite Catholic who went through the canonical change in Rites. I paid a visit to the local Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church. I was so impressed and moved by the Divine Liturgy, the music, the community, and Eastern theology that I decided to stay. My wife had to agree to transfer, as well. However, she wasn't too keen on the idea. In the end, she saw that it was important to me and our daugher. Our three year old daughter fell in love with the parish and vice versa. So, she did acquiesce.

I'm sad to say that some Latin bishops to this day don't permit change of ritual church. I'm sure you could try going over their head, but I have yet to see this attempted.

I am puzzled about Elizabeth Maria's statement:

"And yes, the catechumenate was a call to deep repentance as I recalled sins of my infancy, when I was not quite two years old. Thank God I was allowed to live to adulthood and truly repent."

Does the Orthodox Church teach that a not-quite-two-year-old is capable of committing sin, particularly one so serious that one would feel a need to be called to repentance for it upon reaching adulthood? I have no doubt that a two-year-old is capable of behavior that would be annoying or displeasing to adults, and that such a child might be aware, in some way, of having displeased a parent, or a relative. But is that "sin" in the sense of an offense against God?

I know we speak about having sinned "knowingly or unknowingly" ("volnomu o nevolnomu") but I guess I had always taken that to refer to sins committed after reaching the age of reason and with a kind of careless disregard about what one was doing, not acts committed before one even had a tenuous grasp of what it meant to violate a Divine command.

I may be wrong, but I am not aware that Catholic moral theologians, Eastern or Western, would take such a rigorous position. Is the view shared widely in Orthodoxy? Can it be reconciled with what we know from secular disciplines such as child and developmental psychology?

My transfer actually did come through. Unfortunately, it sat on someone's desk at the Archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis Chancery office for quite a while before the Archbishop saw it. From what I understand, it took a couple of phone calls from the Eparchy Chancery to move it along. The whole process took about a year to complete. It was well worth the wait.

When I was in the Roman Catholic Church, we did not have to confess sins that were involuntary, unknown, not serious, or considered "venial." Indeed, what one person might judge to be only a "venial" sin, another person or a priest might consider it to a "mortal" sin because of rationalizations.

However, in the Orthodox Church, we are to confess all faults and sins whether voluntary or involuntary, known or unknown, because all sins are considered serious. And yes, this thinking confused many Catholics who converted about the same time as I did into Orthodoxy.

In the case of my childhood, the Holy Spirit enlightened me in vivid detail about sins of which I was unaware. Whether they were venial or mortal did not really matter, and I think that is why scrupulosity seems to be rare in Orthodoxy. As these sins were brought to light, I confessed them to the priest without mentioning unnecessary details, but without excusing myself either.

I respect the principle that each person's encounter with the Infinite must start with where that person is spiritually and in human terms. So it is with the greatest of respect that I press my original question:

"Does the Orthodox Church teach that a not-quite-two-year-old is capable of committing sin, particularly one so serious that one would feel a need to be called to repentance for it upon reaching adulthood?"

It seems that identifying the actions of such a child as "sin" could reflect a kind of scrupulosity. Does the Orthodox theology of sin consider a person "guilty" without any awareness of what one is doing? Does Orthodox theology see sin in the action or in the will of the actor? If an Orthodox not-quite-two-year-old can sin, what about an Orthodox of limited mental capacity?

I have been taught by solid Latin priests and they all said to confess all sins. A grave sin is different than a smaller sin but sin is sin and should be confessed.I have seen this in many Catholic sources.

Doesn't the EOC only recognize the distinction of voluntary and involuntary sins? It was my understanding that mortal and venial were strictly Latin categories.



That's gotta be a good thing!


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Praise the Lord. That is very solid orthodox teaching!



In my many years as an Orthodox Christian, I have yet to meet someone who is truly scrupulous because we are to hold nothing back from the Priest in Holy Confession. If we forget to confess a sin, we are encouraged to confess it the next time.

However, I knew many "scrupulous" Roman Catholics, especially in Los Angeles, in Oakland, and in San Francisco, who were told not to confess venial or indeliberate sins. When these "scrupulous" Catholics became Eastern Catholic or Orthodox, they found that their "scrupulosity" resolved instantly with their first full-life confession. I think that is why many or all Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Priests also encourage a full-life confession upon transfer or conversion, unless a person is truly mentally ill and incapable of doing so.

For a great source of information about this, Metropolitan Hierotheos has written many books. Orthodox Psychotherapy
and The Illness and Cure of the Soul in the Orthodox Tradition are two of his great reads. Father Thomas Hopko's little guide to confession comes highly recommended, and in it he has some recommendations for those souls who are scrupulous, mainly not to dwell on sins once they are confessed, and to have no more care for them. In fact, this is part of the absolution prayer in Orthodoxy.

Any good priest will tell the penitant that being scrupulous is wrong. Sure some folks get a little crazy but any solid priest will try to help them out of it. I know people like this but it is spite of the church that they are like this.

Many interesting and thoughtful posts on this subject. But I have not seen anything that addresses the question I raised, which was prompted by the very specific recollections of the person posting:

In Orthodox teaching, is a child below the age of reason (say, 7 years) capable of committing a sin of any kind? More specifically, is a less-than-two-year-old child capable of committing a sin of any kind? If the answer is yes, is such a child capable of committing both a voluntary and an involuntary sin? If such a child commits a voluntary sin, what are the immediate spiritual consequences for that child? If such a child commits an involuntary sin, what are the spiritual consequences for him/her?

If such a child cannot be said to have committed one or the other, or either, kind of sin, of what would the adult individual repent if he/she later called the "non-sin" to mind (setting aside the difficulty of recalling clearly in later years either the action, or the failure to act, and its context)?

If a person contemplates the thoughtless acts of early childhood, should it not be for the purpose of thanking God for having grown in wisdom, age and grace to the point where such acts will not be repeated, and if repeated culpably, will be the object of sincere repentance and absolution? Is not Christian maturity a call to "put away the things of a child"?

I know an Orthodox Christian Priest who made his first confession at 3.5 years old. His grandmother took him to the priest and said that he knew that he had sinned. The priest questioned the toddler and agreed that the child had reached the age of reaso, heard his confession, and then gave him absolution.

In 2000, I witnessed a four-year-old girl make her first confession. Her mother seemed very pleased and said that she was a good girl now.

I was not always of the "age of reason," when I was two years old, but I do remember some very lucid moments when I knew what was right and chose the wrong. And I remember being spanked too and becoming very angry at my parents. Oh, those terrible twos.

However, I daresay that many adults do not always act the age of reason either. In fact, some regularly become inebriated so that they will not think clearly or feel so guilty .

p.s. My priest said that he has heard many confessions and that people do tell him sins from infancy, especially when in the terrible twos.

p.p.s. Come to think of it, I was two or slightly over the age of two.

Tim, you have jogged a lot of memories.

I remember seeing this little boy who was under the age of three and quite in his terrible twos.

When he approached the Orthodox Priest at communion time, he screamed and would not open his mouth to receive Holy Communion. His godmother was insistent that he receive communion and tried to coax him, but the toddler continued to resist. Finally the Priest wisely said, "Do not force the child. He will come to Communion when he is ready."

Afterwards the Priest told us that some children know that they should not receive Holy Communion. Then he told us that when the parents come to confession, he asks the parents to bring the child along too and he will say some edifying words to the child and give him absolution too. If the priest determines that the child is of the age of reason, he will encourage the child to make his first confession, even if he admits only one sin.

I don't think that's the Orthodox Church per se, but just a more rigorous strain of it.

There have been rigorists like that in the Catholic Church too - remember that St. Augustine (among others) thought unbaptized babies would burn in Hell.

The theory of "Limbo", which is sometimes ridiculed today, was actually a rather humane attempt to counter this idea that God would allow babies to be physically punished for eternity.

That's an overstatement of Augustine.

He wrote of the absolute need for baptism, but in the margin (the "limbus"), he left a note to the effect of, "what about unbaptized infants?"

Discussion of the limbus note led to the notion of Limbo.

hawk

From what I have read in Orthodox books, we are to confess any sins of which we are aware, even if that sin was committed when we were only two.

Don't Eastern Catholics believe the same?

Oh, and I have known others who were aware of things before the so-called "age of reason." My own dad clearly remembered incidents when he was two year old too. Oh, the things that some kids can remember. Will not repeat what he told me. However, adults should be more careful around children. Children do see more than they can describe at that age.

My difficulty with the idea of confessing "sins" committed as a two-year-old is that it assumes (a) that the two-year-old was capable of true sin (which I seriously doubt) and (b) that the adult can accurately and honestly recall that "sin" and evaluate it through the eyes of the two-year-old rather than adult eyes. As I wrote before, if there is a place for revisiting childish misdeeds it would seem to be for the purpose of looking at one's present conduct to determine whether such simple childishness has been supplanted by genuine fault, and expressing gratitude for the grace that has enabled one to grow away from childish selfishness.

Some children and adults can recall early events. I think that the age of reason is a misnomer, but that it is not a magical age where bingo you start understanding right from wrong. Instead, it is a gradual process whereby the toddler begins to understand right from wrong and also starts believing in God. This process, I believe, continues even in adulthood. It is called Theosis.

Perhaps. But this is the Internet, after all. And I used Augustine simply as an example.

Do you disagree that there are (or at least, have been) theologians in the Catholic Church, as well as in the Orthodox, who held these viewpoints?

I am reluctant to belabor this point, but I cannot see how the ability to recall acts of childhood or infancy (even assuming that the recollection is accurate, which I seriously doubt from the standpoint of developmental psychology) can justify imposing the guilt of sin for those acts. I suppose I might understand the motives of a confessor who encouraged such recollections in order to assist a penitent in growing spiritually, but I cannot understand a moral theology that encourages an adult Christian to see sin in the thoughtless acts of an infant barely past the stage of "mewing and puking in his/her mother's arms."

Dear Tim,

I am not going to mention the priest's name because that would not be right. This priest was a gifted confessor and many of us were greatly saddened when he was transferred.

However, he and his wife bore several children. He mentioned that children at the early age of two (his children also) are quite capable of sinning and knowing right from wrong. He spoke from experience as he counseled many parents and children. In addition, he prayed every day with his wife and children. As a result, his children were well behaved for the most part.

Again, this so-called age of reason is arbitrary and is not consistent even at the magical age of seven. However, as the child grows older, he/she can becomes more aware of God and morality. Nevertheless, the age of reason is not automatically attained, especially if the parents do not instruct the child in the ways of the Lord.

Therefore, some adults still do not seem to know the difference between right and wrong, for example, pathological liars and psychopaths. In fact, according to psychologists, our prisons are filled with these types of people.

Tim,

I think the problem here is that you are judging from a Western view of sin, which sees it primarily as the guilt of transgression. While not denying that aspect of sin, Eastern theologians are more likely to view sin as primarily a sickness of the soul. From this perspective, the goal in recalling such past acts is not so much to "find guilt" as to heal a wound, no matter how small.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I would be interested in reading the words of the Eastern theologians who take this view. This seems not to be a matter of the perspective of theologians (Eastern or Western) but of sensible and compassionate pastoral practice. Even if sin is viewed as a sickness, I have difficulty with a spiritual physician's encouraging an adult to view the illnesses of infancy as if they were the same as the diseases of adulthood. As I wrote earlier, "When I was a child ... ."

Tim,

Deacon Richard is right. The Orthodox view sinners as those in need of a Spiritual Physician -- Christ our God. You might enjoy reading Metropolitan Hierotheos' The Illness and Cure of the Soul in the Orthodox Tradition.

I'm going from the Latin Rite to the Ukranian Greek Catholic Church.

Excellent post, Fr. Deacon, explaining very succinctly the Eastern approach to Confession.

Oh. In that case . . .

[/quote]
And I used Augustine simply as an example.

Do you disagree that there are (or at least, have been) theologians in the Catholic Church, as well as in the Orthodox, who held these viewpoints? [/quote]

Oh, they definitely exist. And Protestants, too. But they get there in such a way that the Augustinian attribution is meaningless.

hawk

I have transferred from the Latin Church to the Byzantine-Ruthenian Church.

I had left the Church completely in my 20's for fundamentalism. After burning out in that, I wound up at a moderately evangelical Methodist Church. Through the pastor I met a Greek Orthodox priest, who made the ancient faith very attractive. I almost joined the Orthodox Church, but then I thought, "I might as well go back to the Catholic Church. The Churches are so similar." But I never lost my interest in the Eastern Church, and after attending a Latin Cathedral on and off for a few years, I found my way to the local Byzantine Catholic Church.

I am more at home in Byzantine theology and Spirituality, although I greatly value my Latin Church upbringing. I also am a Benedictine Oblate, so I suppose one could argue I still have one foot in the Western Church, although Benedict belongs to the Church Universal.

I have among my Icons Benedict & Scholastica, representing the Western Patrons of Europe, and Cyril & Methodius, representing the Eastern Patrons of Europe.

Blessings,

Lance

A Byzantine Christian in a Postmodern World