www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Protestants Converting to the ECCs?

There's an interesting thread over on the desert that is the Catholic Convert board. Someone asked why people converted to the ECC instead of the RCC and a Roman Catholic priest responded that canon law requires protestants to convert to the RCC. I've heard the same thing myself.

Generally speaking I think there's some wisdom to that. It's hard enough to become catholic without changing one's 'culture.'

Any thoughts on this? And does anyone know of protestants being directed to the RCC instead of the ECC?

It's hardly a desert over there but I will offer an answer. During my conversion Father told me he had to check with Rome to see if I could convert. Seemed like a strange thing to me. As you know I'm pressing hard for an explanation as to why canon law might insist upon such a thing. I understand the cultural divide but it really hasn't been that big a jump for me. I never liked pews in the first place.

Dan L

Oh it's a desert allright. A desert void of intelligent thought. The latest idiotic thing they discussed over there was how God sent the tsunami to punish the Muslims. There was a whole thread about it but I didn't read it because the first posts made me so mad that I couldn't continue.

But of course my favorite idiotic thing there was in the thread about why those Quebec Catholics weren't as good as the folks on that board. A teacher (worry about your children folks) responded that it was because they were French and that in her opinion there were no good French Catholics since St. Bernadette. I guess she'd never heard of St. Therese.

That's bigotry which of course is reprehensible but even less forgivable is that it's so darn stupid.

Had you read the whole thread regarding the tsunami in that "desert" of a discussion board, Jennifer, perhaps you would have found some or even many opinions consistent with yours. But you admit that did not read the entire thread. Moreover, the initial poster apologized for his idiocy in another thread. And rather than kvetching about the absence "of intelligent thought" in that wilderness, you might have provided some there.

Irenaeus

Just another self-serving rule that simply states that those of the Western tradition (all Protestants) belong to the Latin rite.

A fourteen year old has more say so on what rite he/she wishes to belong than an adult who found the faith in a different tradition other than the Latin one.

It is a gross lack of respect to consider a Protestant's desire to convert to the ECC as invalid. But we aren't the ones who make the rules, are we?

Joe

Actually I think we discussed this somewhere else and I gave the oppinion that the Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church left that decision up to the individual. Will look it up again later and quote it here.
Stephanos I

We're baptizing an adult this weekend along with his infant son. He had belonged to an adult-baptism Protestant sect and after reading about and visiting the RC, GC, and EO churches he chose us (Greek Catholic).

It's been wonderful hearing the litany for the Catechumens chanted for him, and adult baptisms are always so deeply moving.

Jennifer,

The Latin Code at one time had that expectation. As best I can see, the provision does not exist in the current edition and, if it did, it would appear to be stalemated by the CCEO, which makes clear the right of those entering the Church to select whatever Church sui iuris they choose.

CCEO:

Canon 587
Canon 588
Canon 30
Canon 31
I don't know where you would get such a notion. You yourself are contemplating, and have been for some time now, a change to Eastern Catholicism or Orthodoxy, either of which would apparently involve a "culture change" for you. What is important is where an individual finds the spirituality which speaks to him and through which he expects to be able to effect his salvation.

It would seem that, by the time one is ready to make the change, it should be clear whether the parish and (by extension) the Church in which he plans to enroll is one in which he is comfortable culturally, as well as spiritually. I find myself not feeling very sympathetic to anyone who spends time in a parish of a Church sui iuris prior to converting with the specific intent to enroll in that parish's Particular Church and complains afterwards that they are off-put by the culture or are unaccepted by the parishioners for not being an ethnic Upper Slobbovian.

Many years,

Neil

As a convert from Southern Baptist to Byzantine Catholic, Pascha of 1995, at that time there was no question -- I could and would convert to being Byzantine Catholic. No question of "changing of rites" or "you were Protestant, so you can't become Byzantine."

I have seen many attempts after the fact by people saying I could not be Byzantine Catholic, and one amusing one was because my father was from a Swedish-Lutheran background.

As I think I saw on the board in question, the rules (when used, and not abused) in question were placed to preserve the integrity of the Eastern Churches, so an Orthodox would become Eastern Catholic -- if they reunited with Rome. There is also the question of "Western-rite schismatics" like SSPV. They would be Roman Catholic. The rules really do not address the unusual _American_ situation (not too uncommon when it comes to canon law -- they are often written addressing a european situation). Here there is a diversity of choices, while those in Germany, for example, would not have it. Thus, when the canons were written, they did not consider the diversity of America, and so often those with an anti-Eastern bias will misread them to say all Americans except ethnic Easterners are Roman Catholic by default. It is a continuation of the Irelandian ideal, imo.

Dear Friends,

Well, as someone who has been with Protestants as they make their way to the Christian East, I think that it is precisely the profound influence of the Eastern Christian culture itself that draws them toward the fullness of the Church!

I don't know the statistics, but in my albeit narrow experience, I've come across several dozen Protestant ministers who have joined either ECism or Orthodoxy - and have read of many others doing so.

Also, I'd venture to say that the iconography and "bells and smells" of Orthodoxy is also what was once the common patrimony of both East and West, so perhaps Orthodoxy (in or out of communion with Rome) isn't as foreign a spiritual culture to the West as we might feel.

However, there are converts who do indeed feel this way and this is why "Western Orthodoxy" has developed in some Orthodox jurisdictions, such as the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

Alex

Yes, I was born 'western' and am now try to be 'eastern.' However, I am troubled by the idea of looking for the "spirituality which speaks to us." I think it's a very modern idea to pick and choose one's "spirituality." It reminds me of the "spirituality" section at Borders.

Obviously I'm doing this myself so I'm a hypocrite.

What sparked this for me was a recent conversation with an RC priest friend. He told me that I was "western."

It's virtually impossible IMHO to divorce western culture and intellectual and philosophical thought from Roman Catholicism. So even the most anti-Catholic protestant accepts Roman Catholic understandings of God and salvation, e.g. original sin.

It takes a lot of work for a western Christian to even learn about how eastern Christianity differs from western Christianity. It takes effort to reject your culture and learn another.

Of course the Orthodox have it easier here because their response to this delimma is that there is no "real" western catholicism anymore (western Orthodoxy is insignificant). I spoke with an Orthodox priest about this once and he was very adament that he was a "western Christian." If he had choosen Rome instead of Orthodoxy, he would be Roman Catholic. However, because he concluded Rome was in error he became Orthodox and by default was "forced" to become eastern.

Dear Jennifer,

You are absolutely right, of course.

Protestantism is a spin-off of a number of fundamental Augustinian ideas taken from Roman Catholicism, as you've said.

An example would be the Protestant/Roman Catholic debate over whether the Eucharist is "symbolic" (and therefore no Real Presence) or whether it is about the Real Presence (and therefore not symbolic).

The Orthodox East would counter by saying both points of view miss the point - the Eucharist is BOTH.

Another example is the argument over "what saves" is it "faith alone" or "Faith and works?"

Again, for the East, both sides are asking a "works" question and it is the Divine Grace of the Holy Spirit through Christ that acts in us to produce "faith that works through charity." Then there is Theosis . . .

It is ultimately a question of one's spiritual identity.

There have been Easterners who have become Roman Catholic and Protestants. There was a breakaway Ukrainian Catholic group prior to WWII that founded a Lutheran movement.

There used to be an "independent" Orthodox group that published the magazine "The Orthodox Catholic."

Holding the matter of their orders et al. in abeyance, they had about six or seven different rites for those wishing to join them (including the Milanese/Ambrosian Rite).

And, to me, this made a lot of sense, as does the fact that the Antiochian Orthodox Church has the Byzantine Rite, and two Western Rites for Anglicans and Roman Catholics respectively. They also have an Evangelical "form" of the Byzantine Rite for Evangelical Protestants (i.e. the "Evangelical Orthodox").

The Russian Orthodox Church led the way in the 19th century by translating Anglican and Roman Catholic liturgical texts, by having the Old Rite and the Assyrian Rite.

So you are perfectly correct.

Alex

Neil,

According to Latin Canon Law: Under the 1917 code there was a law, design to protect the dignity of the Eastern Churches, that said that one should convert to the Church that was "most akin" to the one you were leaving. This meant that the Orthodox would convert to the most appropriate Eastern Catholic Church. It was an unitentional oversight that relegated Protestants to the Latin Rite.

Fr. Deacon Edward

Deacon Ed,

Thanks for citing the current provision from the Latin Code - I was sure it was there somewhere but was too lazy to go look it up in the book and couldn't track it down in the online version.

As to the old Code, I'm less convinced than you - given the tenor of the times - that the intent
was not to limit Protestant converts to the Latin Rite or that it was an oversight. Although it was also not much of an issue back then.

There weren't a lot of folks looking East - towards Catholicity or Orthodoxy - in the early 20th century. The exceptions were those like Vilatte and others of the episcopi vagante ilk. It was about then that they were discovering the East as a potential source of the Apostolic Succession they so desired.

Many years,

Neil

The Canon Law expert at EWTN Q&A, who is Ukrainian Catholic, makes an important distinction that I think we had been overlooking:

Question:
Bob,

A small correction. While the Latin and Eastern Codes require an Orthodox joining the Catholic Church to be enrolled in the appropriate Eastern Catholic Church, a Protestant may choose any sui iuris Catholic Church.

"Canon 30 Anyone to be baptized who has completed the fourteenth year of age can freely select any Church sui iuris in which he or she then is enrolled by virtue of baptism received in that same Church, with due regard for particular law established by the Apostolic See."

Thank you for good work and I commend you for knowledge of Eastern Catholic Churches.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Answer:
Hi Fr. Deacon,

This is a wrong interpretation of canon law that Eastern Catholics have claimed for a while. The previous law prior to the promulgation of the 1990 Eastern Code permitted this. However, this is indeed NOT the case anymore. Canon 35 of the Eastern Code reads, "baptized non-Catholics coming into full communion with the Catholic Church should retain and practice their own rite everywhere in the world and should observe it as much as humanly possible. Thus, they are to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the same rite with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions."

Again, as a result of this canon, I respectfully disagree with you. There is no canon which says what you have asserted. At the age of 14, anyone can choose which Church sui iuris they join IN VIRUTE OF BAPTISM. The canon you cite only applies when someone is about to be baptized, not when someone HAS BEEN ALREADY BAPTIZED. When someone who has already been baptized wants to become Catholic, we follow CCEO canon 35.

Thank you for your kind words.

Please email us back if anything remains unclear.

Peace and all the best, Bob


However, in the end all this pretty moot. Most Latin priests will accept an Orthodox convert, and most Byzantine priests will accept a Protestant convert regardless of canons and the convert will live his faith life happily and without problems.