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

Dear friend,

God bless your grandmother. It is a wonderful passage. I wonder how it applies to the events of 1054? I'm not trying to be cute but am bedeviled by the schism and by the events that intentionally or unintentionally keep it going.

Dan Lauffer

Someone earlier posted that the Roman Mass and the Protestant Mass are not much different. My husband and I attended an Episcopalian Mass several years ago. We just looked at each other in amazement that it was 99% the same, word-for-word. Growing up in Catholic school we were taught being Catholic was special, the Church was special, everything was special. When I read Catholic theology it is still special because it declares the Truth. I just wonder what happened to the western Mass. But I also believe Orthodox theology declares the Truth.

On those occasions I attend a Roman Mass I submit myself to the authority of Jesus. "Take eat.... Drink.... Do this in remembrance....." (I just pray we never move where there are no Byzantine churches; they are far and few between down here in the South).

Although the beauty of the West's theology and the modern Mass do not seem to match, I have to submit to the church's authority that it is still a valid consecration. I wonder sometimes what a St John of the Cross or a St Francis of Assissi would say if they were to attend a modern Mass, at least the Mass as celebrated in some of the churches down here. Maybe it is different up North, but from what others have posted here, it is a similar concern.

But when I see a Mass or gathering at St Peter's in Rome, on television, I want to remain with the universal church. It is a wonderful thing to see Catholics from every country and corner of the world gathered together as one big family, even if they have different expressions in Liturgy.
I espcially remember televised Christmas mid-night Mass couple of years ago where they were opening a particular door (one of you probably remembers the significance of this door). There were Catholics from various countries coming up to the Pope, I think they were presenting gifts.
My point is, the universality of the Catholic Church: Jesus said "Go baptize all nations...."

So let us not get too bogged down in what I call
being "schizoprenic". I don't mean schizophrenic as negatively as it may sound. It is a term I apply to myself whenever I am feeling pulled both ways.
I see it as a hazard of having one foot in the East and one in the West. As much as everyone argues for their own viewpoint, you know you will not change anyone else's mind. Only the Holy Spirit can do that... and the Spirit "blows where it will".
denise

Or it could be viewed as a damning testimonial to the inability of the Latin Church to fully receive and integrate the faith liturgically, requiring, therefore, the imposition of an extrinsic institutional magisterium to provide a focus of loyalty as well as an agency for adjudicating the conflicts that emerge when theology is divorced from spirituality and liturgy. Khomiakov was not that far off the mark about the role the Pope plays in the Latin Church. Schmemann thought as much when he commented on the deconstruction of the Latin Church in the early 1970s. What, I wonder, will the Latin Church do if the new Bishop of Rome lacks the personal charisma that characterized the pontificate of John Paul II?

You don't believe in the TRUTH of Orthodoxy? Pray tell, what is it that you do not believe? Because you pray the same liturgy as they do, you share the same spirituality that they do, you have the same theology that they do, you (should) follow the same discipline that they do. You are called to be Orthodox in all things save communion with the Church of Rome.

Myself, I take my stand with Kyr Elias Zoghby, Patriarch Gregorios III and the rest of the Melkite bishops who said, "I believe everything that the Orthodox Church believes, and I am in communion with the Church of Rome, as that communion was understood by the Churches of the East in the first millennium, before the separation".

Comes really close to panglossian naivte ("Everything is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds"). Did God then allow the various heretical councils to occur "for a reason"? How would He keep them from occuring without deeply violating man's free will? This also ignores those councils which occured, and were then forgotten or repudiated, and those that were repudiated and then remembered. Reception is a messy process, taking hundreds of years in some cases. And what can be received can still be unreceived, if the reception is incomplete or imperfect. A council that took place without the presence of half the Church. A doctrine that was imposed without the consent or reception of half the Church. A vision of Church that repudiated the sources of most Christian doctrine. All of these leave wide open the question of whether Vatican I can be recognized as ecumenical, and whether it will continue to be received as such, even within the Latin Church.

Ok so you are not in communion with Rome then....correct? To me it sounds very much like the "Trad" issue within the RCC.

Why is the Armenian Church separate from Rome?

Thanks,

LaRae

Petrus,

It is out of obedience that I submit to the Pope.

You explaination about why the Eastern Church submits sounds very much like the reasons that most Catholics I know submit to Rome.

I don't think we are all that different.


LaRae

Hey all,

I am a (Methodist) Protestant who will convert to the Catholic Church. I will either be a traditional Roman Catholic or an Eastern Catholic. I would choose Eastern Catholicism over Orthodoxy because of the Papacy, which I believe is absolutely necessary for the Church. *May I cordially remind everyone to be respectful of our Western Catholic brethren, as their doctrine and theology are just as valid as the East's. Frankly, there seems to be a lot of "Roman Catholic bashing" on these fora, whether intentional or not.*

Glory to God in the highest,
ChristTeen287

[Because you pray the same liturgy as they do, you share the same spirituality that they do, you have the same theology that they do, you (should) follow the same discipline that they do.]

[You are called to be Orthodox in all things save communion with the Church of Rome.]

A Communion which requires you to accept the final authority of the so called 'Vicar of Christ on Earth' and therfore recoginize all the dogma he upholds and protects. Which invalidates your claim to Orthodoxy.

OrthoMan

Orthoman,

That isn't fully true that Byz. Cath. must accept all dogmas or doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church simply because we are in communion with Pope of Rome.

For example, Byz. Cath. are not required to accept the doctrine of purgatory as viewed by the RCC. Also, about Original Sin, we don't perceive it as that as the RCC, but rather perceive as the Orthodox way...regarding to the fall of Adam and Eve.

There are a lot of theological differences between RCC and BCC...the differences are ONLY WHAT WE PERCEIVE OR UNDERSTAND...variations of theology doesn't contradict but rather compliments it. Just like two different sides of the very same coin. Different expressions (understandings) of the very same faith.

May God preserve all the Orthodox Faith and the Orthodox Christians unto ages of ages!

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

"May I cordially remind everyone to be respectful of our Western Catholic brethren, as their doctrine and theology are just as valid as the East's. Frankly, there seems to be a lot of "Roman Catholic bashing" on these fora, whether intentional or not.*"

Christteen,

I appreciate your sensitivity. I'm a convert from Methodism to the BC Church. However, I have yet to see any RC bashing at all. We are discerning what it means to be "in communion with" as opposed to "under" the Pope of Rome. If there is no difference we might as well all go back to the Orthodox Church that is not in communion with Rome. If there is a difference let us prove it and define it.

Dan Lauffer

I agree with SPDundas.
Rather than try to do mental gymnastics -- or be schizophrenic -- regarding differences between BC and RC theology, I called my parish priest and asked him about a couple of issues. One being the difference between the Catholic (Roman) view and the Orthodox view of original sin. I couldn't understand how as Byzantines we could accept the Orthodox teaching, yet remain Catholic.

He explained that the dogma we have to believe as Catholics (all churches) is that there is original sin. It is how we view it that may differ from one church to another. The interpretation may be different. Yet, at the bottom, we all believe and understand what is meant by original sin.

It was the same thing with a couple of other issues I was confused about.

I don't know how to say this diplomatically, but I think alot of what is discussed on the forum would be better addressed by individuals with their parish priests. A whole lot of mental gymnastics was cleared up for me in a very brief time with someone who knows me, knows my history.

catholic and orthodox
denise

Hi guys --

Fascinating thread. I like reading both the testimonies and the discussions of eclessological history. I am an Eastern Catholic, but I don't have the grasp of history that you folks do.

My conversion:

Raised ECUSA [before they went NUTZ and apostatized] by my parents, my mother being a Latin who left the Church over a marriage issue. Loved going to worship as a child, but fell away after high school. Declared myself an atheist and did the hippie thing of the '60's with ALL THE FRILLS. [Damn near killed myself except for the grace of God].

Got "saved" by a Fundamentalist street preacher. Sadly, I discovered Chick tracts and Bob Jones style anti-Catholic bigotry and made it a steady diet for the next 20+ years.

After 13 years, went to the PCA [Conservative-Presbyterian-Calvinist]. While I was there, I developed a fondness for the Calvinist [read: legal and warped] brand of "covenant theology".

Three years ago I was just cruising the Internet out of boredom [Isn't it funny how so many of the major directional changes in our lives start with such insignificant things as a hot link and curiousity] and wound up in a RC forum. I charged in there and began breathing all the usual Calvinist fire and brimstone --

They were totally unimpressed.

And apologetically, they handed me my head and invited me to THINK!!! Man, that was really strange!! All the Catholics I had ever met in my Thursday nite witnessing as a good l'il Fundamentalist were theological idiots who barely knew the Bible, much less what they believed and why. That was the picture I had of ALL Catholics everywhere. Boy, was THIS ever different!!

In the meantime, an article by Dr. Michael Horton in ModernReformation magazine had made me begin to think in Eucharistic terms. So much so that I began to refer to the Lord's Supper [not knowing about such things as valid and licit ordination] as the "Body and Blood of the Lord". Boy, was I ever ripe for the pickin'!!

A friend of mine convinced me that his Anglican body was the "true Church" of the first century, so I gladly started going there, happy that I could get the true Body and Blood of the Lord without becoming a "papist" [My apologies, just lettin' ya know where I was coming from!!].

But you know, I just couldn't give it a rest. The more I read, the more I wanted to read. And I came to understand that the Anglican communion has no validity. At the same time, through a series of events, I had come to begin attending Vespers Services at Christ the Savior Orthodox Church in Harrisburg and had FALLEN IN LOVE with the beauty of the Church and the way the Vespers service was run.

Well, I now found myself in a quandry. I desparately wanted to experience and be a member of the Orthodox Faith, but study had convinced me of the headship of the Bishop of Rome over the Church.

UGH!! Becoming a Latin rite loomed on the horizon for me. Escape seemed impossible by dint of conscience. [Sorry, my Latin brothers, nothing personal, but y'all lost a hell of a lot when Vatican II changed the traditional Latin Mass!!]

Then someone told me "Well, why don't you try St. Ann's in Harrisburg?"

"Whazzat?" (Eastern Catholicism is the best kept secret in American Christianity).

Once I experienced one Liturgy at St. Ann's, I was attracted. By the fourth or fifth, I was head over heels in love with it!! THIS was everything I wanted!! [For instance, I am convinced that paedocommunion is essential for our children -- I still grin from ear to ear when I see the little ones receive Jesus every Sunday!!]

And one day, about 4 months into my catechetical classes, I honestly believe that the Lord spoke to my heart in that very quiet voice and told me "This is where I want you."

No arguements from me!!

I also realized that after being raised in a Western mindset, the Eastern understanding of spirituality is what I need to take me from a mere intellectual understanding of faith to an experiential experience [if God wills such].

Bottom line: wanted the beauty of Orthodox Liturgy, but couldn't get past those darn "keys" which the Lord handed to St. Peter. Then my covenantal theology kicked in and I also realized that there could only be one head on earth of the earthly kingdom family.

What else could I be but Orthodox in communion with Rome? Yes, that is what I consider myself. And when the reunification of the Church eventually comes about, that is what all Orthodox will be -- Orthodox in praxis and in communion with Rome.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Would you say the same thing of the Pope of Alexandria, who has from the beginning claimed prerogatives of which the Pope of Rome could only dream?

[Would you say the same thing of the Pope of Alexandria, who has from the beginning claimed prerogatives of which the Pope of Rome could only dream?]

And where is it written or what canon/canons stipulates any Orthodox Catholic is required to believe these claims? And what dogma does he claim that isn't believed by the rest of the Orthodox Catholic Church?
He is not accepted as 'the first amongst equals' by Orthodoxy. The Ecumenical Patriarch is.
So, I'm not sure what your point is since there is no stipulation I know of that requires the rest of Orthodoxy to accept his claims in order to be 'in communion with him'. Nor is there any canon or dogma that stipulates that to be in communion with him one must accept his final earthly authority as you are with with Rome.

OrthoMan