www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Greek Orthodox to Byzantine Catholic

The ethnics either leave you in peace or are very nice. "Catholic? Oh, that's great! It's so close."

This isn't an official Orthodox document or anything, but it's an ol' favorite from Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon on the subject of Orthodox coming into communion with Rome (or not doing so as the case may be): Never the Twain? [touchstonemag.com]

(Too long to quote the whole article.)

Just so long as I get credit for the "I wouldn't ..." part.

But seriously, you're absolutely right that we do not aim at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other (cf. the Balamand Statement) -- as is probably already known to most people on this forum, notwithstanding the fact that I've been trying my darnedest to let Catholics "somewhere else" know it, with mixed results.

What if one consciously (which may allude to Phillip Rolfes's original conversion question post) decides one, over the other, without any coercion from either side?

Having the faithful of one church (theirs) pass over to the other (ours) isn't our proximate goal but it is our long-term goal.

Both sides accept these conversions because both claim to be the true church. We're supposed to do it quietly, as Roman Catholic layman turned Russian Orthodox priest turned Russian Catholic priest the late Archimandrite Serge (Keleher) told me while walking along the streets of New York nearly 15 years ago.

I am happy that you are happy, truly.

Be prepared for that "itch" to grow, and be prepared to deal with those around you who will act to make it grow by continuing to purposely supplant the Byzantine aspects of our faith.

I, too, comforted myself with official Catholic teachings on the fulness of the Eastern Churches.

Those teachings are not only ignored, but are fought tooth-and-nail by Ruthenians that fear being seen as different from their Roman counterparts, many of them former Romans trying to remodel our home into something they find comfortable.

This is of course not true of all Ruthenians, but it is true of many, and I can't help but try to make sure you are prepared to have to constantly fight against the dismantling of the unique attributes of the Byzantine churches.

I became so weary with that fight, and the harm it caused my spiritual life, that I am now contemplating Orthodoxy for no other reason than to live an Eastern faith without a structure around me trying to water it down until it is gone.

I hoped to find that within the Catholic Church, and again I truly hope that you can, but be prepared to have to choose. I will pray you do not have to and that the itch you feel does not grow. But it sounds familiar and I wish someone had given me these thoughts to contemplate.

A pretty common refrain in fora such as this.

As I like to say, the church has both the unlatinized and old latinized versions of the Byzantine Rite, as it should.

Ruthenian-Americans, reacting to two schisms here decades ago, very much favor the second, also because it's been part of their culture for centuries. So if you want unlatinized, then Ruthenian's probably not for you.

(Similar story with the Ukrainian Catholics, plus they are often immigrants who fled Soviet persecution that used the Orthodox.)

Picking on/looking down on conservative Roman Riters coming in is Modernism's and Orthodox anti-Westernism's cousin, not love of the unlatinized form.

Defend the unlatinized form, but 'doxing is making an idol of it.

I don't want to defend myself from fellow Christians at the expense of my own theosis and that of my young family.

I want spiritual nourishment and growth in the Byzantine tradition as completely as is reasonably possible, and a coherent Eastern worldview for my children to learn and grow within. Seeing my brother join exactly such a parish and watching his family gain insight and instruction that I've yearned for as a matter of course put things in perspective.

I'll go where that is offered. If it means "'doxing" then that's really beside the point.

All sin has an apparent good as its goal. The devil can turn even the theosis of yourself and your family into an idol. I'm no Pollyanna about church life and church people, and if you love the unlatinized form (reminds me of the officialese for my Mass, "the Extraordinary Form," because they barely put up with it, as they do you), you've got a rough row to hoe. That said, a recurring problem in this forum is the popularity of "tous schismatiques" theology, or treating Catholicism and Orthodoxy like mere denominations, which would mean there's no church. It's a distortion of our doctrine, that they have bishops and the Mass; they are estranged Catholics. "Tous schismatiques" also isn't fair to the Orthodox, whom this forum includes and professes to respect; they have a mirror true-church claim.

My view on this particular sin of schism (anti-Westernism from the ethnics, and Westerners 'doxing): ROCOR Russians, if you hate the Christianity of the country that literally saved your lives after World War II and gave you a home thanks to religious liberty; converts, if you hate yourselves so much that you really want to turn your backs on your own people and culture (an attitude I'd think born Orthodox would find foreign and repugnant) as well as the objective truth that we are the same faith (Trinity, hypostatic union, Mother of God, bishops, and the Mass), you all know that the Eastern European homeland's not Communist anymore, right? Put your money where your mouths are and buy a one-way ticket to Moscow, Athens, or Belgrade, ingrates. I love Russian, etc. culture, and the unlatinized as well as the old latinized forms, as does the church, but schism is evil.

However, not all Scots like haggis. This ^^ statement ought to say "Those converts who idolize the unlatinized form make an idol of it."

No need. I distinguish between all defenders of the unlatinized form and those who make an idol of it. The latter, the ones who 'dox, make it harder for the good Catholics who try to defend that form.

But you can't say " but 'doxing is making an idol of it" because some people 'dox without it having anything to do with Easternicity/Westernicity, let alone idolizing. (Plus I know some converts to Orthodoxy who believe that Western Rite Orthodoxy should be more Western, but that's another ball of wax.)

I contend that choosing Orthodoxy over Catholicism is idolizing Easternness, even if only implicitly; it's their logical conclusion based on their premise.

Exception: there is a kind of principled old-fashioned Anglican high churchman who's not a would-be Catholic, even if his liturgical practice resembles ours. Like the Carolines, Non-Jurors, and Tractarians, he believes in something based on Hooker that he thinks is Anglicanism; definitely non-papal. He holds that we're a branch of the church but in grave error, that his is the pure version of Western Catholicism, much like confessional Lutherans do. This describes most of American Anglo-Catholicism historically, in the Episcopal Church; the British version was would-be Catholic. I can see these 'doxing on principle, and a few have. They have my respect.

Then they get hit in the face with Orthodox anti-Westernism (again, the logical conclusion of Orthodox theological opinions), much like jjp and legions more in the Greek Catholic option [sergesblog.blogspot.com] get smacked with Catholics' suspicion about the unlatinized form. Then they either go completely native (Fr. Gregory Hallam in Britain), struggle to be Western Rite Orthodox and usually end up pressured to byzantinize the way Ruthenians are latinized, or go back.

A wise Catholic friend speaks for me:

Since Russian Orthodoxy was the first to repudiate Florence (some sort of Russian synod rejected it in 1441; also its declaration of independence from Constantinople?), it's the oldest Orthodox church as such; the Greeks as a separate church date from 1484 this month.

I recently discovered on the website of the Eparchy of Phoenix an excellent resource that outlines the distinctives of Byzantine Catholicism [eparchyofphoenix.org]. Some of the articles date back to the nineties, some are more recent. But they're all excellent reflections and defenses of Eastern tradition(s) in Byzantine Catholic churches.

One of the articles I found particularly enlightening was the one titled Differences [eparchyofphoenix.org] (found on the page's outline under the main heading "Our History of the Byzantine Catholic Church"). The author does a great job of highlighting (especially in the final two paragraphs) both the value and importance of maintaining Eastern liturgical, theological, and spiritual traditions, particularly as they relate to the mission of Eastern Catholic churches to broker unity with the Eastern Orthodox.

This doesn't make sense, even grammatically. (Note: I don't like grammar police, and certainly don't like to be one myself, but I have to make an exception here.) You say "their premise" so presumably you also meant "Their choosing Orthodoxy over Catholicism" (as opposed to propounding some grand Stephen-Hawkings-ish theory of "choosing Orthodoxy over Catholicism" in general) but that would not entirely solve the problem, because it would still leave the question: Who?

But to add my own thoughts about "choosing Orthodoxy over Catholicism" I would ask:couldn't one just as easily say "choosing (Eastern) Orthodoxy over Catholicism, Oriental Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Methodism, Calvinism, and Pentecostalism"? I'm not saying that "choosing Orthodoxy over Catholicism" is an incorrect phrase exactly, but it does make it sound like a person has a particular interest in not-being-Catholic.