Should We Proselytize the Eastern Orthodox?

[Donna]

Beena Bobba,

Please consider that calling something wicked does not imply bitterness, nor anti-[i]anyone[/i].

It is one thing for people in private -following their own lights best they can- to discern when to back off.

It is quite another for the Churchmen consecrated to, and for the interests of Almighty God, to refuse God's mandate (the scripture as quoted in my last post).

Bending over backward toward the Orthodox has resulted in contempt from them. If the press is correct, not even the Pope's [i]image on video [/i]was allowed in Moscow. This, and the ousting of Catholic clergy from Russia indicate that the Orthodox cannot stand the sight of Peter, nor Peter's men.

"Russia's errors" which Our Lady of Fatima declared would be spread til the conversion of that poor nation is obtained, date long before 1917. And political realities to whatever degree existant, then or now, the fruit remains: by refusing submission to the Church, the Orthodox do inevitably bow solely to the State.

Christ would not refuse His Churchmen anything they would need, including a brilliant, practical idea of how best to bring back the lost sheep w/out leaving them alone in their state of wreckage; and who has more of a claim on Him to supply every cunning necessary, within an innocense of doves, than the Apostolic successors?

But if His sons refuse His mandate, how may these graces then come?

[BeenaBobba]

Hi Donna,

I wasn't writing with the assumption that you hate Orthodox people. What I was criticizing was something that seemed very much to me to be an exaggerated dislike of Orthodoxy. I say exaggerated because criticism of Orthodoxy can only go so far as to criticize Catholicism as well -- the two really have so much in common, such as valid Sacraments (or Mysteries, as the Christian East calls them) and Apostolic Succession.

I've spoken to many Orthodox Christians who are anti-Catholic in that they go further than merely disagreeing with a few tenets of Catholicism. These people have a disdain towards anything that isn't distinctly Eastern and fail to see Catholicism as possessing valid Sacraments and Apostolic Succession. On the other hand, some Latin Catholics can (wrongly) have a strong dislike for anything that isn't distinctly Western. This attitude drove many Eastern Catholics back to Orthodoxy this century in our country. It is this attitude that that the Pope is against, and rightly so. The Church was both Eastern and Western prior to the Schism, and Pope John Paul II looks forward to the day when the Church will be both fully Eastern and Western again.

The Moscow Patriarch (MP) is very anti-Catholic; there's no doubt about that. Part of the reason for that (and believe me, this is in no way justification for his behavior) is actually because some Catholics took Our Lady's word at Fatima to mean that Russia was to be converted as quickly as possible to Catholicism. Nowadays, much fewer Catholics are actively proselytizing in Russia, but the MP sees any Western religious influence in Russia as Catholic proselytism -- even when there are few or no Catholics involved! There are currently many Protestant denominations and members of the Mormon religion who are proselytizing the Russian Orthodox. The Russian Orthodox Church is struggling to get back on its feet after nearly a century of atheistic Communist rule that oppressed the ROC and its children. I think in many ways the MP is threatened by the Pope, thinking perhaps his flock can be lost to the Catholic Church at a moment of opportunity. Because proselytizing has driven the Orthodox further from us, the Pope wants to foster in them a trust of Catholicism and of the papacy. They have in their minds a great mistrust of Catholicism, especially of the papacy; they think that if they reconciled with the Catholic Church, they would lose all freedom. Believe me, proselytizing them has only made this bitterness and mistrust worse.

The teaching of the Catholic Church is that the "conversion of Russia" meant the conversion of Russia from atheistic Communism back to Christianity.

If you think proselytizing the Orthodox is a good idea, why don't you list all the good things it's accomplished. I have a feeling there will be very little on that list. The Pope has realized this, so now it is the policy to not proselytize the Orthodox for the greater good of a more quickly reunited Catholic/Orthodox Church. I, for one, as a Catholic Christian in communion with Rome, am going to follow the leadership of the Pope, who I acknowledge as the rightful successor of St. Peter and head of the Church on earth, in this matter.

God bless,

Jen

Edited April 13, 2004 by BeenaBobba

[Good Friday]

[quote][b]Donna writes:[/b]
Christ would not refuse His Churchmen anything they would need, including a brilliant, practical idea of how best to bring back the lost sheep w/out leaving them alone in their state of wreckage; and who has more of a claim on Him to supply every cunning necessary, within an innocense of doves, than the Apostolic successors?

But if His sons refuse His mandate, how may these graces then come?[/quote]
You're right, Donna, Christ won't refuse His Church the means necessary to bring the Orthodox back. But I think you're wrong that the Balamand Declaration constitutes a refusal of Christ's mandate. Rather, I think the Balamand Declaration (and the Pope's own understanding of it) may [i]be[/i] the means to bring the Orthodox back. See, the Balamand Declaration doesn't say we should leave the Orthodox where they are; rather, it says that we should not seek to reconcile individual Orthodox, but to reunite the entirety of Orthodoxy with Catholicism, given the unique status of Orthodoxy in comparison to other Christian denominations. They are [i]almost[/i] Catholic, so it may be more practical to reunite the whole Orthodox church with the Catholic Church, rather than bringing individuals into the Church. In the grand scheme of things, the latter has failed; Uniatism has only caused more rifts between Catholics and Orthodox, while producing relatively few reconciliations.

I would ask that everyone, while feeling free to share their own opinions, please be cautious in the comments made. Saying things like: "The Balamand Declaration is wicked" can be a problem, being that it was signed by Catholic Bishops and has the support of His Holiness Pope John Paul II. This has been a great thread, and I personally don't want to move it to the Back Alley. But if I detect even a hint of Catholic vs. Catholic arguing here, or even a smidge of supporting disobedience to the Bishops or the Pope, I won't hesitate to move it (and, I suspect, the other moderators won't either). Please don't make us do that.

[BeenaBobba]

Hi Nate,

What are you doing up at this late (or early, rather) hour?

I agree with you 100%.

God bless,

Jen

[PedroX]

Good Friday,

Are you a moderator now?

Secondly, while Bishops may have signed it, the declaration is difficult to reconcile with Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The Orthodox may be our "eastern lung", but they risk much by their contempt for the Petrine ministry. I would think that anything that impedes their conversion (as the Balamand Declaration does) is problematic to say the least. Really, either they are in need of conversion, or the Pope is not the Supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, etc...

B.B.,

So, because missionary efforts failed to produce large numbers of converts, we should give up? Wow, I now understand the Great Commission so much better. I never realized that Christ said "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel, unless only a few people are receptive to it." The simple truth is that Christ commanded us to preach the gospel (which include the Petrine ministry) and the Blessed Virgin specifically called for the conversion of Russia. Meanwhile, the Russian Orthodox church does all it can to deprive Catholics of access to spiritual direction. We can not establish diocese, we can not send bishops and priests all because of the Russian Orthodox. Catholics have been there for centuries.

Agh. Enough.

peace...

[theculturewarrior]

I don't understand how we can preach petrine ministry and not submit to it.

[PedroX]

Culture Warrior,

Was that to me? I don't understand. (but, I'm not that bright either )

peace...

[theculturewarrior]

If the Holy Father, the heir to the Chair of Peter, has endorsed the Balamand agreement, how can we tell Orthodox they need the Pope unless we don't believe it ourselves?

[Good Friday]

[quote][b]PedroX writes:[/b]
Are you a moderator now?[/quote]
Yep!

[quote]Secondly, while Bishops may have signed it, the declaration is difficult to reconcile with Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The Orthodox may be our "eastern lung", but they risk much by their contempt for the Petrine ministry. I would think that anything that impedes their conversion (as the Balamand Declaration does) is problematic to say the least. Really, either they are in need of conversion, or the Pope is not the Supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, etc...[/quote]
Firstly, I want to clarify: I'm not saying that we absolutely must agree with the Balamand Declaration. It does not, by any means, carry any weight of infallibility, even if the Pope has supported it. But I think saying that it's [i]wicked[/i] is not only not productive to this thread, but also a bit of an insult to the Bishops who wrote it and to the Pope, who supported it. If it's wicked, are they wicked? I think it's all right to say that it may not be prudent, but it's another thing entirely to say that it's wicked, from the devil, etc.

I agree that there are parts of it that may not be prudent, but I don't think it's wicked. I think it's a case of the Bishops and the Holy Father trying to decide how best to bring the Orthodox back. As I said before, the Balamand Declaration does not impede Orthodox reconciliation. It still allows for the Orthodox to reconcile, but it prohibits the widespread evangelization of the Orthodox (probably because there are issues between Catholics and Orthodox that the average layperson just doesn't understand). Uniatism has failed (can anyone deny that?), so I think the Bishops are thinking it may be more productive to work toward union with the whole Orthodox church, rather than just union with a few Orthodox. They're working toward this goal by dialogue between the Pope and Orthodox Patriarchs, the Catholic Bishops and Orthodox Bishops. It's going to take time, but it may be more beneficial than a few individual reconciliations. Imagine what the Church would look like if East and West were completely united again.

[quote][b]theculturewarrior writes:[/b]
I don't understand how we can preach petrine ministry and not submit to it.[/quote]

[quote][b]theculturewarrior writes:[/b]
If the Holy Father, the heir to the Chair of Peter, has endorsed the Balamand agreement, how can we tell Orthodox they need the Pope unless we don't believe it ourselves?[/quote]
I don't think disagreement with the Balamand Declaration constitutes disobedience to the Pope. The Balamand isn't infallible, nor did the Pope even write it (he has only supported it), so there is a certain level of disagreement that can be voiced. I think many on this thread have done a good job at sticking to that level of disagreement, that is, questioning the prudence of the document while not questioning the authority of His Holiness or the Bishops.

[Pope Saint Pius V]

Good Friday, I don't mean any disrespect and I don't want to see this thread moved to the back alley but your logic was that if we say its wicked, then we are close to saying that they are wicked. You yourself have said that its imprudent, are you then saying that the Pope is imprudent? I think you see the fallacy of that line of logic. Second, you have asked what has prostyletism gotten us? You also assert that this list would be rather short. I answer that by prostyletism the Catholic Church has won the whole world. You suggest converting or rather bringing together Orthodoxy with Catholicism but not on an individual basis. What then, I ask, do you do with those who through the light of Divine Guidance have realized the necessity of being subject to the Roman Pontiff? On this thread we are so eager to defend this Holy Father's statements and yet what do we say to the Infallible Declaration proclaimed in the last line of the Bull Unam Sanctam by Pope Boniface VIII?

[Good Friday]

I believe all that the Catholic Church teaches, PSPV, including Unam Sanctam.

I think it's entirely different to say that something is imprudent and something is wicked. Yes, I think saying that the Balamand Declaration is imprudent can mean that the Bishops and the Pope may have acted imprudently. So what? Being that they were not protected by the charism of infallibility, it's very possible that they did act imprudently, at least in some parts of the Balamand Declaration. This does not constitute a denial of their authority, since this was not infallible. On the other hand, to say that it's wicked implies some wickedness on their part, and I disagree that anyone was trying to be wicked. I think they were trying to do what's best for the Church and for the souls of the Eastern Orthodox, and I think some of it fell short and some of it was correct.

Lastly, I never said that the Eastern Orthodox shouldn't reconcile with the Church as individuals, I said (and so did the Balamand) that we shouldn't seek them out to convert them as individuals. There's a difference. If they want to be reconciled, then nothing should stop them. I don't think the Balamand is calling for that. I think the Balamand is saying that we, as Catholics, shouldn't be out there actively seeking their individual reconciliations -- the Church prefers to seek the full reconciliation of the East with the West, instead of just a few individuals. This is uniquely possible because of the East's closeness in theology to the West, whereas such would not be possible with our separated brothers and sisters in Protestant churches because they are still quite far from us theologically. If it's possible to bring the entire East back to the Church, then isn't that better than just a few thousand Orthodox?

I think that's what the Balamand is saying, but I could just be a little too optimistic. In any case, my original point in this thread was that it's fine to question the prudence of the Balamand, but I just think it's a little much to start calling it wicked and such.

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote]Good Friday, I don't mean any disrespect and I don't want to see this thread moved to the back alley but your logic was that if we say its wicked, then we are close to saying that they are wicked. You yourself have said that its imprudent, are you then saying that the Pope is imprudent? I think you see the fallacy of that line of logic. Second, you have asked what has prostyletism gotten us? You also assert that this list would be rather short. I answer that by prostyletism the Catholic Church has won the whole world. You suggest converting or rather bringing together Orthodoxy with Catholicism but not on an individual basis. What then, I ask, do you do with those who through the light of Divine Guidance have realized the necessity of being subject to the Roman Pontiff? On this thread we are so eager to defend this Holy Father's statements and yet what do we say to the Infallible Declaration proclaimed in the last line of the Bull Unam Sanctam by Pope Boniface VIII?
[/quote]



I got a suggestion for you to take into consideration, Go to Our Lord were He is Truly Present in the Blessed Sacrament and see what He says. Ask Him, He will tell you whatever advice you need to know!

The Divine Teacher will tell you I promise.

God Bless You
Jason

[Pope Saint Pius V]

[quote name='Jason' date='Apr 15 2004, 04:45 PM']


I got a suggestion for you to take into consideration, Go to Our Lord were He is Truly Present in the Blessed Sacrament and see what He says. Ask Him, He will tell you whatever advice you need to know!

The Divine Teacher will tell you I promise.

God Bless You
Jason [/quote]
Jason,

Thank you for your suggestion to pray. I will be certain to do that. I have to wonder however, what does your post have to do with anything that I said? We are debating a theological matter and you are throwing in personal spiritual advice, albeit good, but nonetheless outside the realm of logical discussion.

[Pope Saint Pius V]

Good Friday,

If Our Lord told us to preach His Kingdom to all nations and the Church has consistently and infallibly taught that an essential component of being a member of that kingdom is subjection to the Roman Pontiff, then tell me how it is that we are not supposed to seek the reconciliation of individual Orthodox faithful. I agree wholeheartedly that we should seek the reconciliation of the Orthodox Church as a whole but at the same time we must seek the reconciliation of the individuals. It is also clear that the past 30+ years of ecumenical ventures has done nothing but lead the Orthodox to believe that we are weak and willing to compromise. I would also like to point out your lack of charity toward those whom you deem Uniates. You stated that they have driven a wedge between the Church and the Orthodox. How? By following the command of Christ? Rather, it is the insatiable pride of the Orthodox that leads them to reject Rome. The Holy Father is spoken of in the least respectful terms among the Orthodox and the Catholic Church is mocked in almost all Orthodox countries. The Balamand Agreement does nothing more than make the Church impotent so that the Orthodox may remain in their present situation without risk of losing members to the cause of the Truth.

[Good Friday]

[quote][b]PSPV writes:[/b]
If Our Lord told us to preach His Kingdom to all nations and the Church has consistently and infallibly taught that an essential component of being a member of that kingdom is subjection to the Roman Pontiff, then tell me how it is that we are not supposed to seek the reconciliation of individual Orthodox faithful. I agree wholeheartedly that we should seek the reconciliation of the Orthodox Church as a whole but at the same time we must seek the reconciliation of the individuals.[/quote]
Our Lord told us to preach His Kingdom, He didn't give us a map of how to do it every time. Generally, it's a good idea to preach it to individuals as well as to whole churches. But if the Church that He founded says maybe we should be preaching it only to the whole of the Orthodox church, and not to individuals, don't you think we at least need to give that some serious consideration?

[quote]I would also like to point out your lack of charity toward those whom you deem Uniates. You stated that they have driven a wedge between the Church and the Orthodox. How? By following the command of Christ?[/quote]
If that's how it came across, I assure you that's not how I meant it to sound. I don't think Eastern Catholics have done anything to drive a wedge between the Church and the Orthodox. I think that the evangelization of individual Orthodox by the Western Church, which has resulted in converts, has driven a huge wedge between most Orthodox and the Catholic Church. It's just another point of bitterness between us, that will ultimately lead to fewer converts and more souls lost.

As for the comments about the Orthodox and their being prideful, I don't intend to address those comments except to say that some pretty prideful actions have been taken on both sides over the years. It's time for both sides to stop.