www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Protestants who convert to BC vs Orthodox

I would say that there are many different kinds of protestant converts.

I've seen that most of these conversions are closely related to the Liturgy.

A lot of Protestants who feel atracted to the Roman Church totaly agree with her in the faith and doctrine, but leave when they see that the modern Liturgy does not reflect the pureness of the christian doctrine and that there's not a big difference between protestant services and the modern masses. For example (a moderated example), a catholic would not find many differences between a Mass in Westminster and a Service in Canterbury (same mass, same anthems).

These people usually get incredibly impressed when they attend the Eastern Liturgy or the Tridentine Mass. In Britain (and I supose that the USA too) there is a high number of former protestants who join the Tridentine Mass.

The protestants who want to preserve their atractive liturgy and its dinamism, convert to the Roman Church without problems because the New Liturgy is acceptable for most of them.

There are also people who convert to Orthodoxy and not to Catholicism because they come from a background that has always been hostile to certain aspects of the Catholic Church (papal infalibility, petrine ministery, purgatory).

You people are confused as to who are the true Catholics. Everyone knows who they are: it's the Orthodox.

"I believe in One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church"

P.S. My Antiochian Patriarch is the successor of St. Peter & Paul for you that don't know that. The Saints message had to have been orthodox before spreading catholic. lol
This is a message for the cafeteria people. Happy lunch!

anastasios,

I could be wrong but I thought to be a heretic, one had to be declared one by a Bishop. And even then only after the person in question was given proper instruction and time from a Bishop.

Why I mention this to you, is because it ok in the Catholic Church not to understand everything theologicaly or even accept everything theologicaly over night. It is acceptable in the year 2002, to work things through in your own mind, as long as you remain faithful to the Church teachings - obedeince can be it's own virtue - of course there was a time in Church history (not long ago) that one knew nothing but the words that came out of the Bishops mouth. In my opinion the freedom of thought has followed Vatican II is much more mentaly healthy. The only thing too then is for the lay faithful to be self determined, in it's own virtue, not by compeling through fear, to place proper trust in the Church Bishops and remain faithful to Her teachings while one works through certain questions in their head. If that person through proper time, reflection, and study, finds the position of the Church Bishops to be wrong in said area, then that person should act accordingly for change. And history will be the judge.


Justin

Part of your problem is that you conflate the Ruthenian Metropolitan Church with Byzantine Catholicism as a whole. Certainly, you would find no problem whatsoever with your viewpoints in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. Another part of your problem is that you listen to what people say, instead of what the Holy See has been saying for the past century--and in particular what this Pope has been saying for more than twenty-five years now. It's not our problem if our bishops, our priests, and many of our bretheren either won't or can't understand what is demanded of them.

As to those who would elevate the matter of the primacy to a dogma, I remind everyone again that to reject a dogma is indeed a heresy, and there can be no communion with heretics. But the Church allows us to receive communion from the Orthodox Church, and from the Church of the East, and from the Oriental Orthodox Church, none of whom accept what was stated at Vatican I.

Latins are supposed to be the ones good at logic. Why, then, are they so illogical on this point? I suspect that Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon, one of those Protestants who chose Orthodoxy, had it right when he said, "There really is nothing that holds the one billion Roman Catholics together other than their loyalty to the Pope, and if that was disturbed in any way, the entire Church would fly to pieces".

[ 08-31-2002: Message edited by: StuartK ]

Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh, during a visit to the US, addressed the House of Representatives and later was introduced to Speaker McCormack, who was a bit puzzled about who the impressive clergyman was. His Beatitude asked the Speaker, "You know, before Peter went to Rome, he was bishop in Antioch?" "Yes", said the Speaker. "Well", replied His Beatitude, with a twinkle in his eye, "If he had died in Antioch instead of going on to Rome, I'd be the Pope".

My dearest Stu,

You wrote:


Stuart, now you know that I have many many times worshipped in the Melkite parish of Holy Transfiguration in McLean, VA, with which I have no problem whatsoever (in fact that is my favorite parish, both of Catholics and Orthodox).

Therefore I'd have to say that I am aware of the fact that Ruthenian does not equal all Byzantine. But look at the people there, too: many of those Arabs are really only there due to the fact that the Church is Arab. Look at many of the RC's there: there because they don't like Western stuff anymore. Who are the Orthodoxofiers? The converts for the most part! Now remember, for the record I love that parish and the people there, but we're talking about the basic facts of: "do we believe in Orthodoxy in communion with Rome?"



What does it matter what the Pope says? I don't go to his parish every week! I don't worship with 60 other popes! I deal with people who do not share our view of what is the Church. How can I maintain communion with people who do not believe what I believe? Now please keep in mind that I am asking somewhat rhetorical questions here, as I have not made up my mind either way as of yet.

Also I find many of the statements coming out of Rome, even the ones coming from the Pope himself, to be somewhat contradictory. I am going to have to take time to find one document in particular that bugged me--I will post it later.


A good point, but they don't give us communion. So what's the point of being in communion with people who I don't ever visit (Latins) and not being in communion with the people who I visit all the time (and at whose seminary I am studying!) (ie the Orthodox).

In Christ,

anastasios

"There really is nothing that holds the one billion Roman Catholics together other than their loyalty to the Pope, and if that was disturbed in any way, the entire Church would fly to pieces".

This could be viewed as a beautiful testimony to the importance of the Bishop of Rome in maintaining the Catholic Communion. What is it about the Pope which earns such loyalty?

Father,

"If submission in fear is a too common Western misperception of papal authority, then fear of submission is too common an Eastern misperception. The Pope cannot unilaterally "proclaim the truth." For by doing so, he would be separating himself from us, his authority would no longer derive from communion, from love itself, and he would therefore not be speaking the truth. He would be speaking for himself and not for the church. His Petrine authority would have been abrogated."

If we are in communion with Rome from the perpective of the Eastern Christian we seem to be heretics not only from the common "Western misperception" but from Vatican I itself. Despite what Zoe has suggested concerning Matthew's point of view it is precisely at this point that we disagree. I do not know yet whether we can perceive VI in an Eastern light or not and still honestly remain in communion with Rome. I'm not sure the dogma will allow it. If it will not I don't see why we exist. Can you help me understand this conundrum? I'm more and more convinced that VI was a mistake based upon Western chauvism. Can you show a reasonable alternative to my understanding? I really would like to believe that we can be "Orthodox in communion with Rome" because it is very difficult to stomach the practical application of theology in the West. If I were going to be a Western Catholic I am fully convinced that the only fully honest option is the Trads. But then there would still be no room for the East.

In response to your specific question:

"Would it be so bold as to claim that your "decision" of BC as opposed to Orthodox was based on a personal relationship with an authentic witness. That is, your choice was not based on polemics but on personally interacting with one or several individuals of the faith?"

Indeed so. Father Andrew, a faithful Orthodox priest, gave a bold and generous witness for Orthodoxy. I completely accepted it except for his resistance to communion talks. I've tried to shut myself off from that witness so that I can give myself wholly to the BC dream which I see as "Orthodox in communion with Rome". I do believe that I am fully Orthodox except for my desire to be "in communion with" not "under" Rome.

Father Tom, a faithful BC priest, is a wonderful and generous witness. If I could I would combine both men into one and single handedly eliminate this foolish schism. But Rome despite its words does not seem willing to seriously modify VC I. That is, as I see it, the major block to East-West communion.

The Holy Father will never be accepted as the Eastern Jurisdictional patriarch, IMO. He already is admired for his primacy of love as an elder brother but not as the Eastern Church's boss. I have great difficulty with that latter concept as well.

What is one to do when the West views us as Western as long as we are called Catholic? Can we honestly view the Pope in the manner you describe and still remain Catholic as long as VC I stares us in the face?

Dan Lauffer

[ 08-31-2002: Message edited by: Dan Lauffer ]

Anastasios, if you feel so strongly about this, then why not just do it? Sounds as if you have already convinced yourself of the
"TRUTH" of Orthodoxy? Maybe you need to get off the fence and jump to the other side. But, once you get there you might find that the grass really isn't greener on the other side. Don

Or it could be viewed as a very sad tyranny. But nevertheless, I cannot think of another person who could carry the Christian message to the UN or to any global court of opinion. So, it is clear to me that honoring the Pope of Rome is something more profound than slavish buckeling under. The position is holy. But VC I is a stumbling block I believe.

Dan Lauffer

Rum-Orthodox, which Antiochian church are you referring to?

The original one which had its own unique Syriac liturgical tradition?

Or the one that capitulated to the Greeks who came in with their own form of Uniatism over 1000 years before the Greek Catholics were accused of this, and turned them into Byzantine, Hellenized Arabs, for which they only in the last century were able to have their own Arab hierarchy?

Or the Melkite church descended from the Patriarch of Antioch, Cyril the VI(I), who was consecrated in the cathedral of Damascus and who accepted communion with the Catholic Church in 1725?

Just wondering.

Don,

Before you run Anastosios off would you help me understand exactly how you would define the BC position? Does it reflect Deacon Father's or does it reflect LaRae's and Zoe's? Is it possible, as opposed to Anastasios position, to be "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" unless Rome allows it?

Dan L

Dear Don,

Why the "TRUTH" in all-caps? I am not some wacky fundamentalist. The reason I am still Catholic is because I love the Catholic Church, and think the Pope is the best example of Christian living (but not the best example of how to run a church).

Your comment about "the grass greaner on the other side" is another reason why I am not Orthodox at this time. I know they have a lot of problems. Really, both sides have problems. But in my view at least the Orthodox are consistent in their theology.

Perhaps you would like to offer a more constructive commentary instead of basically telling me "well you should just jump ship, but you'll regret it later!"

In Christ,

anastasios

Dear All:

A poster on another forum, an evangelical Methodist, has been studying apostolic Christianity for about five years now. He started out considering the claims of Orthodoxy, but lately he has switched to focusing on Catholicism. I asked him why. Here is his response. I find it telling.

Here goes...

I said:

This could be viewed as a beautiful testimony to the importance of the Bishop of Rome in maintaining the Catholic Communion. What is it about the Pope which earns such loyalty?

Dan replied:
Or it could be viewed as a very sad tyranny.

reply: Obviously the writer meant something negitive by his comment, hence my trying to show it can also be viewed positively.

you said:
But nevertheless, I cannot think of another person who could carry the Christian message to the UN or to any global court of opinion. So, it is clear to me that honoring the Pope of Rome is something more profound than slavish buckeling under.

reply: I agree, seems very clear to me.

you said:
The position is holy. But VC I is a stumbling block I believe. -Dan Lauffer

reply: I don't think it has to be. Believing in Providence, I have to believe that God allowed that Council to take place for a reason. Trusting in that Providence, I think that it was allowed for the good of the Church, even if a lot of us don't understand how that could be. As my Medz Mayreeg (Grand-mother) had me memorize when I was little, "...All things work together for good to them that love God to them who are the called according to His purpose (Rm 8:28)."