Should We Proselytize the Eastern Orthodox?

[theculturewarrior]

[quote]They have NO strange ideas. It is just your ignorance of their ideas. There is NOTHING seperating them from the Catholic Church except Peter.[/quote]

First off, this belongs in the debate forum.

Second off, remember, I am not speaking off what's on the books, I am speaking about actual EOx laity. And yes, they have some strange ideas. One of them is Peter. Another is Original Sin. Another is the Filioque. Another is grace outside the EOx Church. (Yes, I too have been called a heretic).

As far as my ignorance is concerned, guilty as charged! As to the extent of my ignorance, do not presume.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='PhatPhred' date='Apr 2 2004, 07:59 AM'] I thought that Eastern Rite Catholics omit the "filioque" from their recitation of the creed in the Divine Ligurgy. [/quote]
We have recently been instructed to cease reciting it, for the sake of ecumenism with the Eastern Orthodox. This does not mean we deny it however, as to deny it would be heresy.

Edited April 2, 2004 by Hananiah

[Theoketos]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Apr 2 2004, 11:31 AM'] Umm, actually, their liturgy is valid [/quote]
Okay, I submit Licit instead of Valid...

Would that work Polar?

Edited April 2, 2004 by Theoketos

[Theoketos]

[quote name='aByzantineCatholic' date='Apr 2 2004, 12:44 PM'] theculturewarrior,



They have NO strange ideas. It is just your ignorance of their ideas. There is NOTHING seperating them from the Catholic Church except Peter. [/quote]
Although I would say that because we in the West are not familiar with Ideas of East, those Ideas are strange, though not wrong...

Also what about the canonical difference between Latin Marriage where consent makes the Marriage and Eastern Version where Consent is takes a lesser role and The Priest thus is the minister?

Please do not take the above as a barb but I really want to know. I think that eventually they might be reconcilable…

[theculturewarrior]

I think as far as marriage goes, the EOx rite represents a legitimate difference in [b]form[/b]. There is a difference in sacramental theology, but it is legitimate, and it is also (IIRC) the same form and intention celebrated by Eastern Catholics in union with the Holy Father.

I would use the word valid to desrcibe Orthodox sacraments. IIRC this is the word the CCC uses. Whether it is licit or not depends on the circumstances.

Several ideas I have heard from EOx laity are not only strange, but also wrong. Not only that, but they are often presented (online) in a "shut up you heretic" format.

Edited April 2, 2004 by theculturewarrior

[Theoketos]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='Apr 2 2004, 02:05 PM'] I think as far as marriage goes, the EOx rite represents a legitimate difference in [b]form[/b]. There is a difference in sacramental theology, but it is legitimate, and it is also (IIRC) the same form and intention celebrated by Eastern Catholics in union with the Holy Father.

I would use the word valid to desrcibe Orthodox sacraments. IIRC this is the word the CCC uses. Whether it is licit or not depends on the circumstances.

Several ideas I have heard from EOx laity are not only strange, but also wrong. Not only that, but they are often presented (online) in a "shut up you heretic" format. [/quote]
Well said

I love my Eastern Brothers and really pray that we all will be one!

[theculturewarrior]

Me too, but love is a cross.

[PedroX]

Of course we should "evangelize" the Eastern Orthodox, just as we need to evangelize many "Catholics". Any one who does not agree with or abide by the teachings of the Authentic, Apolstolic Magisterium needs to be evangelized (even myself!). Not acknowledging the Petrine minstry is a serious fault in the EO tradition. Are they are brothers? Yes. Are their sacrements valid? Yes. Are they in full union/communion with the Church? No.

peace...

[Pope Saint Pius V]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Apr 2 2004, 04:53 AM']
Actually Filioque is Latin.

It was a part of the Creed (always said at Mass in Latin): from "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" meaning "Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son" (speaking of the Holy Ghost).

Also, regardless of what the Pope's opinion is...Eastern schismatics are still just that, schismatic. So, even if he has instructed us not to fulfill our Christian duty, we still must do it. (I doubt he actually said not to evangelize them, though.) God bless. [/quote]
Nice post Crusader. Christ founded One Church only. This is the Church outside of which no man may be saved. It is not an invisible Church as some have recently posited, rather it is a visible Church to which we must adhere. Christ placed as the head of this Church a vicar, who would govern His Church until His Second Coming. It is to this Church that Christ gave the command to go and "call ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." It is only within the Catholic Church that are found the essential marks of Christ's church. Therefore, one must look to St. Paul, that if they (apostles and their successors) or even an angel from Heaven were to preach something other than what he had taught them (Deposit of Faith) they should resist it. This is just what St. Paul did to St. Peter at the Council of Jersualem saying to that first Pontiff, "I resisted him to his face." Therefore, even if the Holy Father had stated that we ought not evangelize the Orthodox,of which no one on this post has yet given a citation, we may resist and remain firm in the faith, following the example of that great Apostle to the Gentiles, St. Paul.

[Trying2BFaithful]

There is no real need to prosletyze members of the Eastern Orthodox faith. Their teachings on faith and morals are essentially identical to Catholics'. The only non-liturgical differences between the Catholic Church and the EOC are the filioque argument of the Creed, respect for Papal authority, and the fact that their priests can marry. Other than that, we essentially believe all of the same things. We have some different saints because of the separation, but that's not a big deal.

Be careful, however, when using the term "eastern churches" because that can be misleading. Some eastern churches do NOT follow the same faith and morals as the Catholic Church. The Ukranian Orthodox Church is one example. They are opposed to all forms of birth control ONLY until a couples first child is born. Then for some reason its ok to artificially interfere with God in creating life.

[Pope Saint Pius V]

I have to wonder if we'd be using the same logic of non-conversion, or downplay papal authority if we were speaking of the SSPX who have far less doctrinal problems than the Orthodox? I think most people on this post would avoid saying that we have no need to convert the SSPX and yet those same people are opposed to converting the Orthodox. In logic I learned that a thing cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same way. I think my logic teacher would be disapointed with the above reasoning.

[cmotherofpirl]

Anybody who is not Catholic should be evangelized. Period.

[theculturewarrior]

I am going to explore a middle ground between PSPV and Trying2BFaithful. (BTW I am impressed with the broad demographic this site draws!)

I offer all this as an idea. Please help me form my opinion...

I believe there is no salvation outside the Church. The Church is a communion. Not only is the Church One, Holy, and Apostolic, but it is also a communion of saints on heaven and on earth.

How is man to be visibly united to the Church? "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." Would you agree PSPV that baptism is what initiates us into the Christian life? Would that be visible unity?

If so, what is the requirement for this sacrament? Valid form and intention, verdad? I assure you that most Christians (and especially Eastern Orthodox) have this. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. How can both Catholics and Orthodox be one Church?

Well, they are baptized into the Church. Therefore they are numbered among the communion of saints. The Church is still One, but communion is impaired. When we reunite, it won't be a question of the two becoming one, but of the One becoming healed.

Nevertheless, I fully believe that those outside the auspices of the Holy Father are in spiritual danger, and we need to pray for them. Complete communion is a must.

Edited April 3, 2004 by theculturewarrior

[Pope Saint Pius V]

CultureWarrior, I have to wonder what spiritual danger you refer to if those "outside the auspices of the Holy Father" are nonetheless within the bonds of the visible Church. Pope Blessed Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X, Pope Pius XI, all acknowledged that the Church of Christ is the visible Catholic Church with the Pope as its head. Furthermore, this notion of belonging to the visible Catholic Church under the auspices of the Holy Father is explicitly what is required (apart from those exceptions of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood) of those who wish salvation. Pius IX clearly contradicts these notions that the Orthodox, barring invincible ignorance, can be considered to be within the Catholic Church, nor should those outside the Church have any great hope for their salvation. If, however, those Orthodox are in a state of invincible ignorance, as many probably are, then we Catholics have a duty to lift the veil of ignorance from their hearts and bring them to the Fulness of Truth expressed within the Catholic Church alone. Also, Warrior, what is the definition of the ambiguous notion, "imperfect communion?"

[Pope Saint Pius V]

I did not mean my list of Pontiffs to be exclusive, but merely to show that this is a constantly held teaching. Obviously many more could be named, but for the sake of brevity, I have left the list as is.