Should We Proselytize the Eastern Orthodox?

[theculturewarrior]

I believe I used the words "impaired communion."

I guess my idea is one of an orthodoxy gradient. Catholicism, the fullness of Truth. Orthodoxy the mostness of Truth, protestantism, the partness of Truth. Either way, all of the above are Christians, most of whom have wrongly held beliefs through no fault of their own. My idea is that the Catholic Church has the keys to the Kingdom, the others fall along the gradient in relation to their relative conformity to Catholic doctrine. Either way, they have been baptized in the name of the Most Holy Trinity. The danger is the danger of any falsehood. But it isn't an either or situation, otherwise other Christians wouldn't be recognizably Christian. They are though.

Do you suggest that Orthodox baptisms are invalid? If not, what is the effect of an Orthodox baptism if not initiation into the Church?

Edited April 3, 2004 by theculturewarrior

[theculturewarrior]

I need to extrapolate on these things...I think the traditional teaching along the lines of what you have given still flies, even today, post Vatican II.

But I also believe that the fundie feeneyite interpretation is NOT the traditional Catholic teaching, but an misrepresentation of it. Those outside the Catholic Church are in danger of losing their souls. Those outside Christianity are in greater danger. The danger increases and decreases along the orthodoxy gradient.

[MagiDragon]

ummm . . . guys . . . i think we've missed something . . .

I believe there's actually some sort of agreement that says that a person *cannot* convert from Catholic to Orthodox and vice versa.

Also, the Orthodox have the four marks of the true Church.

1. They have unity of teaching (One)
2. They teach what is from God (Holy)
3. They accept all peoples (catholic)
4. They can trace their roots to the 12 (Apostolic)

I would have to agree with theculturewarrior's hypothesis that we *are* the same church. We even have unity of teaching between the two (one?!?) of us.

even though they don't directly follow Peter, they are still governed by the 12. The 12 follow Peter . . . thus do they really go where we do not?

i'm possibly wrong on everything here . . . but i'm not sure where i would have made a mistake.

[cmotherofpirl]

There is no agreement not to evangelize the orthodox on a one-to-one basis.

[Pope Saint Pius V]

I'll have to respond to MagiDragon and the CultureWarrior later this evening. I have to return to playing cards right now, but I do want to respond to cmotherofpirl and say that if we are not opposed to conversion on a one on one basis then what are "we" opposed to? Are we opposed to public efforts by the Church to converting the Orthodox? Also, if we aren't supposed to convert the Orthodox then somebody ought to tell Our Lady of Fatima who declared the need of Russia to convert and the promise that it would come by Her Immaculate Heart. She seems to stand in contradiction to this whole non-conversion business.

[PhatPhred]

This is from [url="http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/balamand_txt.htm"]the Balamand Statement (THIS IS AN HTML LINK!!!)[/url]:

[quote]18) Towards this end, Pope Paul VI affirmed in his address at the Phanar in July 1967: "It is on the heads of the Churches, of their hierarchy, that the obligation rests to guide the Churches along the way that leads to finding full communion again.  They ought to do this by recognizing and respecting each other as pastors of that part of the flock of Christ entrusted to them, by taking care for the cohesion and growth of the people of God, and avoiding everything that could scatter it or cause confusion in its ranks" (Tomos Agapis, n. 172).  [b]In this spirit Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I together stated clearly: "[u]We reject every form of proselytism[/u], every attitude which would be or could be perceived to be a lack of respect" (7 December 1987).[/b]

...

22) [b]Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox.[/b]  It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church.  Within these perspectives, so that there will no longer be room for mistrust and suspicion, it is necessary that there be reciprocal exchanges of information about various pastoral projects and that thus cooperation between bishops and all those with responsibilities in our Churches can be set in motion and develop.[/quote]
I don't know what authority this statement has in the Catholic Church.

[cmotherofpirl]

We are opposed to in-your-face stand in front of your church type conversion stunts.

[Pope Saint Pius V]

First of all, the Balamand Declaration has no bearing upon the life of the Church, nor is it an authoritative document. And, as my signature clearly states, Paul taught that we ought to resist any novelty with regard to the Deposit of Faith. What could be more novel than for the Bride of Christ to cease, even if only publicly, her mission of evangelization? Even if a pontiff attempted to make such an order binding, we have the Gospels and the Sacred Tradition of Our Church to lead us along the right path. Did not Paul present an "in your face, in front of your church" style of evangelism and conversion to the Gentiles? What better model have we than that great Apostle for the Missoinary Action of the Church?

[MagiDragon]

[quote]"It is on the heads of the Churches, of their hierarchy, that the obligation rests to guide the Churches along the way that leads to finding full communion again.  They ought to do this by recognizing and respecting each other as pastors of that part of the flock of Christ entrusted to them, by taking care for the cohesion and growth of the people of God, and avoiding everything that could scatter it or cause confusion in its ranks" [/quote]

interesting. this confirms one of my earlier guesses: we *are* one flock.

now, since i don't seem to be completely confused about this issue, i'll go a step further. i believe that part of the pact that was ratified between the two of us was that we *would not accept* converts from their faith to ours, and they *would not accept* the reciprocal.

another part of the agreement was that if a Catholic man and an Orthodox woman marry, boys will be raised Catholic; girls Orthodox. if an Orthodox man and a Catholic woman marry, girls will be raised Catholic; boys Orthodox.

personally i don't really like this agreement. it seems to divide the family with no recourse to reunification . . . but then again, if this situation became common, it would create a natural pressure for reunification of the two churches. perhaps The Spirit is at work here. I would *LOVE* to see us reunite with the Orthodox.

I think that it would be interesting to see what would happen if the Pope were to place a few of their patriarchs in the College of Cardinals. Don't give them any real responsibility, but when it comes time to elect the next Pope, they could vote. This could help them to accept the new Pope as their leader.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='Pope Saint Pius V' date='Apr 3 2004, 04:12 AM'] First of all, the Balamand Declaration has no bearing upon the life of the Church, nor is it an authoritative document.  And, as my signature clearly states, Paul taught that we ought to resist any novelty with regard to the Deposit of Faith.  What could be more novel than for the Bride of Christ to cease, even if only publicly, her mission of evangelization?  Even if a pontiff attempted to make such an order binding, we have the Gospels and the Sacred Tradition of Our Church to lead us along the right path.  Did not Paul present an "in your face, in front of your church" style of evangelism and conversion to the Gentiles?  What better model have we than that great Apostle for the Missoinary Action of the Church? [/quote]
ummm, i really think you need to simmer a while on this topic.

first off, paul only said that about what was *contrary* to what the apostles taught.

secondly, we aren't ceasing our mission of evangelization, we are saying that since they teach as we teach, we should let them handle their children, we will handle ours, and the children of others shall be divided between us.

thirdly, they have an equal share of tradition and scripture to the Catholic faith.

finally, it is exactly the 'in your face, in front of your church" style of evangelism' that has cause the rift in the first place.

Edit: If i remember correctly, initial rift was caused by the divide of the roman empire. when communication improved enough for a reunification, both sides sent emmisaries to the other. unfortunately, both were hotheads. The emmisary from Rome said, "You've gotta accept the Bishop of Rome as your head." The emmisary from Constantinople said, "You've gotta accept the Patriarch of Constantinople as your head." Somebody got ticked off, and one excommunicated the other. In retaliation, the other excommunicated the first. This is what caused the schism: two people with bad tempers.

it's fine to do that if it will work, but these people already have the fullness of the truth. the primary dividing point is the Pope. we say he rules, they say the patriarch of constantinople rules. i think that our viewpoint carries a little more weight, but i certainly can't dismiss theirs.

Edited April 3, 2004 by MagiDragon

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Pope Saint Pius V' date='Apr 3 2004, 06:12 AM'] First of all, the Balamand Declaration has no bearing upon the life of the Church, nor is it an authoritative document. And, as my signature clearly states, Paul taught that we ought to resist any novelty with regard to the Deposit of Faith. What could be more novel than for the Bride of Christ to cease, even if only publicly, her mission of evangelization? Even if a pontiff attempted to make such an order binding, we have the Gospels and the Sacred Tradition of Our Church to lead us along the right path. Did not Paul present an "in your face, in front of your church" style of evangelism and conversion to the Gentiles? What better model have we than that great Apostle for the Missoinary Action of the Church? [/quote]
No, Paul did not.

When Paul preached about the statue of the unknown god, he preached to move their hearts, not insult them.

[theculturewarrior]

Wow, that's interesting. (The Balamand Statement, that is). What is it's history? And what does it mean?

Also, I still believe it is kosher to defend the Truth, so long as the objective is not proselytization.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='MagiDragon' date='Apr 3 2004, 08:04 AM'] it's fine to do that if it will work, but these people already have the fullness of the truth. the primary dividing point is the Pope. we say he rules, they say the patriarch of constantinople rules. i think that our viewpoint carries a little more weight, but i certainly can't dismiss theirs. [/quote]
Your post is full of glaring historical inaccuracies. However, for sake of time I shall only address this one example of the lack of logic in your argument (I'll save the historical stuff for another time.) You said, "These people already have the fullness of truth. The Primary dividing point is the Pope." Do you not see the contradiction in that statement? Is it not de fide that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff, and in matters of Faith and Morals teaches infallibly? Yes, it is. Do they reject this? Yes they do. Can it then be said that they have the fullness of truth? No it cannot. It is not a matter of them simply thinking the Patriarch of Constantinople has that power and essentially making the debate over which Patriarch has supreme power. Rather, they reject the very notion that there is one supreme power in the Church and that he teaches infallibly. They do not have the fullness of faith, nor are they in communion with Rome. They do have valid orders and valid sacraments, but that does not indicate communion, but merely, apostolic succession (which is not the same as communion). The only option is to convert them.

[popestpiusx]

By the way, the Balamand Agreement is a disaster. The have been Orthodox bishops, compelled by conscience (and obvious truth) to reconcile with Rome and who were turned away because "it would be bad for Ecumenical relations". If that is not scandalous I don't know what is.

[p0lar_bear]

1. The word "proselytize" has rather negative connotations. It has intimations of forced conversions and manipulation. Saying that we should not proseltize our Eastern Orthodox brethren does not mean that we should not seek to bring them into unity with the Church. Also, any efforts to "Latinize" them should be definitely be avoided. Their religious heritage is an important part of the heritage of the Church and it should not be dismissed.


2. As a general rule, calling someone a heretic or schismatic is not the best way to evangelize them. People aren't too inclined to listen to someone who begins the conversation with "die heretic scum!" The fact that the Eastern Orthodox are in schism is important, but if the goal is to bring them back into communion, we need to approach them in love and draw from the truths that their faith already has.