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

I am intrigued by those of you who chose a BC church instead of an Orthodox jurisdiction or vice versa. Would you be willing to witness for us?

John

Deacon Father,

I will be happy to witness. I was originally intrigued with the Orthodox with whom I substantially agree both in doctrine and liturgy, except for their stubborn resistence to re-communion. We looked at the Roman Catholics but their liturgy, doctrine, and discipline seem to be in chaos. As an illustration I asked a RC priest if they ever used incense. He responded, "O, the people don't like it so we don't." We ran from the place. Finally, we found our home in the Eastern Catholic Church. We love the theology, liturgy, and the fact that we are in communion with Rome.

It is troublesome to see that we still are so intimidated by what the RC's think of us but there is hope that someday we will believe what the Holy Father wrote in Orientale Lumen and become a true light to the world.

Dan Lauffer

Dear In Christ,

I was raised Protestant and joined the Byzantine Catholic Church in 1998. It was originally becuase I met the priest, he was very kind to me, and took me under his care. Without his help, I would never have been able to overcome some very selfish tendancies I once had, which partially resulted in my being raised by 80's generation parents who only "wanted one child" (and later regretted it big time!) so that they could "give me everything I wanted" etc etc.

I probably would have joined the Orthodox Church though if I had realized at the time that 1) "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" does not work and 2) I end up siding with the Orthodox on every contested point. But I am Byzantine Catholic right now and wish to help my Church out as best as I can.

In Christ,

anastasios

Anastasios,

I probably would have joined the Orthodox Church though if I had realized at the time that 1) "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" does not work

Many Eastern Catholics don't believe in the ideal. They think we are in fact a curious ethnic Church with an unusual liturgy but are really Roman Catholics and that is what we are supposed to be. Matthew on the Catholic Convert board thinks pretty much that way and he is an Eastern Catholic. It is troublesome.

Dan Lauffer

Dan,

Hmmmmm well if you submit yourself to the Pope you are part of the Roman Catholic Church. I do understand there are various rites connected to the Church, but at the end of the day we are all Catholics aren't we?


LaRae

Dan, you are being very unfair to Matthew, IMHO. That's not his point at all. He is merely saying that, whether you're Byzantine or Latin, you're Catholic...and that has certain implications. E.g., the precise way in which the Petrine ministry operates may be up for grabs (to some extent), but papal jurisdictional primacy (the principle) isn't. And although we're gung-ho for Orientale Lumen, we aren't exactly repealing Pastor Aeternus. (Nor will we ever. Infallible Church teaching cannot be reversed.)

IOW, there are certain bedrock commitments entailed in being Catholic. Some things we can compromise. Others we can't...without ceasing to be Catholic in any meaningful sense of the term.

As for re-communion: It means flexibility on both sides. It doesn't mean selling everything out to the Orthodox...which doesn't work anyway, 'cuz they ain't interested.

One final point: You seem to denigrate the way the old-timey Eastern Catholics see their Church. But isn't it remotely possible that they have valuable insights, insights you might even profit from? After all, they've been EC for a long time; they've inherited the patrimony; it's in their blood. Maybe they can teach recent converts a thing or two...?

Just a thought!

ZT

It's true that us converts can become annoying as heck and quite gungho, etc. But I just moved from North Carolina to New York, and went to a Byzantine Catholic Church. I won't go back to that parish--everyone is over 50 and there is no life there. They were obviously not interested in welcoming anyone new as I attempted to be friendly to people but was ignored and everyone just rushed out fast. Their parish will be dead in 10 years.

IN the SOuth, where there are lots more converts, and people are serious about pro-Byzantine positions, the churches are growing.

In Christ,

anastasios

Dan,

I just read a short 5 page article in a book published by Holy Cross back in 1979 about Eastern Catholicism called "Eastern Catholicism in NOrth America: Does it have a future?" and the author outlined the total latinized position (we are RC's of the Byzantine Rite), those who view BC's as "the best of both worlds" (ie hybridism is still a-ok) and "Orthodox in Communion with Rome."

I used to be of the "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" point of view, but then I realized that 1) It is not taught by Byzantine Catholic bishops (except Archbishops Raya, Zoghby, etc), 2) 99% of the faithful do not understand it and would disagree with it, 3) it ticks the Orthodox off, 4) we have to play mental gymnastics. example: I don't belive Vatican I was an ecumenical council and I don't believe that the Popehas universal jurisdiction. So I am technically a heretic. Do I want to keep living a lie? I don't know.

In Christ,

anastasios

Hi, Anastasios.. You ask a very provocative question here.

Elsewhere you've written that your studies (mainly in EO materials?) convinced you that only the first seven ecumenical councils were valid, etc.

May I tentatively suggest a possibility for your consideration? Do you suppose it's possible you are still looking at the question through Protestant spectacles -- with the Protestant attitude of: "I'll figure out the truth for myself; I am my own pope; I decide"....??

Please don't bite my head off. I don't mean my question as critically as it sounds! But I don't know how else to ask it except, well, bluntly! :p

What I'm getting at is this: Are you employing good old Protestant "private interpretation" -- as well as personal preference -- to determine Truth?

You've read a lot of EO authors, you say. But many Catholic authors are worth reading, too, you know! Would you be open to at least consider the historical claims of the Catholic Church as presented by eminent Catholic scholars such as Hans von Balthazar, Yves Congar, and others? They're no slouches, believe me.

Plus, how about reading a work by an Anglican scholar, Herbet Scott, The Eastern Churches and the Papacy? It examines eastern patristic writings of the first millennium. The Rev. Scott expected to find little eastern support for papal primacy in the first millennium, but instead he found extensive support. It surprised him. In his preface, he writes that he can't imagine how polemicists can say that the Eastern Church of the first 1,000 years saw papal primacy as merely a primacy of honor; the documentary evidence, the overwhelming evidence, shows a very different picture. This is the conclusion of an Anglican scholar, mind you; I don't believe he ever became Catholic, so he certainly can't be accused of a pro-Catholic bias. He was simply an honest scholar in search of historical truth, small "t."

He is not alone. In fact, a very solid historical case can be made for the pope's universal jurisdiction -- but you'll never know that if you focus exclusively (or even primarily) on highly tendentious EO polemics.

So, what about it? Will you give the other side an honest, open-minded look-see? Will you follow the real evidence wherever it leads you -- even if it runs counter to your (possible) residual Protestant resistance to papal primacy?

The truth sets us free. But it doesn't always leave us in our comfort zones.

God bless & with many prayers,

ZT

Dear ZT,

Perhaps my old Protestant ways are showing again! :-)

Yes I have wrestled with the "obedience" issue and that's one reason why I am still Catholic. God gave us a conscience and reason though, and our nous as well (the spiritual eye) that can discern. That's not "pick and choose" it's discernment. If I said "I want to be Orthodox but I believe in polygamy" that would be pick and choose. But when I see Orthodoxy as 100% right doctrinally, that's not "pick and choose."

I am going over Latin sources now that I am in New York at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary. They have lots of collections in Western Christianity and there are not any anti-Catholics on the staff here.

Ultimately I won't go anywhere until I read up on them more.

Have you read J. Meyendorff's "Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions" though? It's a provacative book.

In Christ,

anastasios

Fr Meyendorff's book is well worth reading and is an antidote to Abbe Guettee's The Papacy. It does have its own problems, however. For example, on page 226 Fr Meyendorff claims that Patriarch Anthimus "resigned his throne" during the visit of Pope St Agapetus to Constantinople (AD 536). In actual fact, there are several sources which show that Anthimus was deposed by Pope St Agapetus.

His presentation of the events surrounding the Formula of St Hormisdas (p. 212-216) is one of the better attempts to minimize the significance of the document. In presenting it he does not quote the most significant part (the traditional Roman application of Matthew 16 to the Bishops of Rome as successors of St Peter) nor does he cite other sources from that era that show the support Rome enjoyed in the East. Instead, he highlights those who resisted Roman claims.

IMO, Fr Meyendorff needs to be read along with such authors as Fr Herbert Scott (who I understand was Catholic and not Anglican) and Fr Dom John Chapman (author of Studies on the Early Papacy.) A warning: Catholic authors can also be one-sided in their presentation. It's a temptation that befalls almost all historians.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

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

As a Protestant convert to Orthodoxy, I have to say at the time of my conversion, Byzantine Catholicism didn't occur to me.

I have to say, as I consider it today, the "Orthodox in Communion With Rome" school has the least appeal. To me it suggests Eastern Catholics have no self understanding (one of the complaints against the 'RC of the Eastern Rite' school) -- they are defined in terms of another body.

Some of this depends if one feels fully part of a particular community or an individual on a spiritual pilgrimage.

If one is of the school that one is firmly part of the community of Christ of 'X', then one might struggle with how that community mght better express its unity with the See of Rome and with other bodies of the same patrimony.

If one is on a personal pilgrimage, I understand a careful individualistic consideration of this point of doctrine and that point of doctrine.

For me, the strongest appeal of Catholicism is the factor that eventually lead John Henry Newman to the Catholic faith -- "hooking up with that great dynamo which is Rome"*.

The witness of John Paul II has further given evidence of the important ministry of the Popes. If this dynamic ministry is of divine charism or historical accident, is maybe th ecentral question. But it is increasly clear to me that Christianity benefits from its ministry.

Axios


* 'hooking up' having a different meaning at the time.

Dear Dan and Anastasios;

Thanks for sharing your personal stories. 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?

Dear LaRae;

I was hoping to avoid theological discussion in this thread other than how it was experienced in the personal sense. However, I do want to make one point.

You ask if we are, in the end, Catholics because we submit to papal authority. I think I need to highlight an Eastern understanding of papal and church authority.

In popular parlance, to submit to another's authority is grounded in fear. One submits to the authority of another because the other holds power and can cause the annihilation of the weaker. This is a way too common perception of papal authority. In this conception, the Pope is and speaks from above the Church.

However, in the Eastern understanding*, submission is borne of communion. We submit because we are in communion with the Pope. The Pope speaks, not to us, but for us, in our common voice. This authority is the truth because it is rooted in love. He speaks infallibly when he speaks the truth because the truth is love. The Pope can speak infallibly only because of our communion. We are not in communion because he is infallible.

Now, if the Pope's infallibility derives from communion and communion is borne of love, then he speaks the truth. The truth, since it is love, exists whether or not it has been proclaimed. In this sense, the Pope speaks to and for all mankind, whether or not each individual man or woman recognizes it. This is the same Petrine authority recognized by ecumenical councils. In this conception, the Pope, like the ecumenical councils, reside within and therefore speak from within the Church.

The authority of the Church then is universal (Catholic) because it is love. It is the truth. We submit to the Pope (or an ecumenical council)because the Pope (or an ecumenical council) submits to us and in doing so, the truth is illuminated.**


*This is not to say that the previous explanation represents the Western understanding of papal authority. Rather, this means that the following is based on Eastern ecclesiology and especially that of Maximus the Confessor.

**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.

(Fr. Dcn.) John
I use my clerical title especially when I may be speaking on behalf of the church.

I've developed this thought more fully in the thread on Roman Primacy

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

I appreciate what the good Deacon has wrote. Perceptions have a lot to do with divisions in the Church.

I was raised Protestant and anti-Catholic. Patristic evidence and Church history led me leave Protestantism for Roman Catholicism. My own ethnic heritage and the sheer beauty of the Eastern expression of Christianity led me to further journey into becoming a member of the Armenian Catholic Church. (For the longer version see:

http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/personal_background.html

Why Eastern Catholic instead of Eastern Orthodox (or in my case Oriental Orthodox)?

I enjoy being in communion with St. Peter's successor in Rome just as much as I enjoy being under the authority of a successor of St. Thaddeus and St. Gregory the Illuminator, i.e. our Armenian Catholicos-Patriarch.

I love being in communion with other Christians of the various Eastern Churches (I regularly visit a Roman Catholic parish and also a Greek Melkite parish).

I believe my Church (imperfected as it is) IS an Orthodox Church in communion with Rome. This, also, is inspite of the imperfections there may be in that Ecclesial relationship. I'm not perfect. Until I reach perfection, I won't demand (or even expect) perfection from my Church leaders either. I believe Rome has apologized for a great many of her mistakes and has borne much fruit in keeping with this repentence. Therefore I bear forgiveness in my heart towards her (as an Eastern Christian) and want to work with Rome AND our seperated Orthodox brethren in hope of one day re-uniting.

One important difference I think there is between Eastern Catholics and Orthodox and their relationship with Rome is this: both recognize there are differences in our approach to the Christian faith. Orthodox (not all) tend to denounce this difference and see it as a cause for schism. They refuse communion to Rome until she adopts their faith. Eastern Catholics like myself, recognize that Rome has had many of these differences since the earliest times of the Church (e.g. Filioque, Papal Primacy, Original Sin, etc.) and respect it.

As Alex has so many times beautifully demonstrated, Eastern Catholics have a basic understanding on why things developed differently in the West and respect this. We respect this developement just as we expect our Traditions in the East to be respected by the Latins. We try to do unto them as we would want them to do unto us.

In short one of the main reasons why I am Eastern Catholic is because I see our differences as complimentary rather than as divisive. I want my children to grow up loving and respecting their Roman Catholic friends and loved ones rather than hating what they believe.

This is by no means exhaustive but it is what immediately comes to mind. Thanks for the great topic Petrus.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

[ 08-31-2002: Message edited by: Der-Ghazarian ]

"Hmmmmm well if you submit yourself to the Pope you are part of the Roman Catholic Church. I do understand there are various rites connected to the Church, but at the end of the day we are all Catholics aren't we? -LaRae"

Dear LaRae,

Being in communion with the Pope makes us members of the Catholic Church. We are all "Catholics" but not all "Roman Catholics." Our Churches are not Western-Roman or Latin. There are some Eastern-Roman or Byzantine Churches that are part of the Catholic Church. The Church I belong to is not Roman at all, rather it is Armenian. If you are interested in understanding the difference between "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic," I have some information at the following link:

http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/Churches_not_Rites.html

Thanks for your comments,

In Christ's Light,

Der-Ghazarian