Should We Proselytize the Eastern Orthodox?

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='PedroX' date='Apr 13 2004, 10:22 AM'] 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.

[/quote]
Hi Pedro,

My point was that one of the reasons the Russian Orthodox Church has been and is so antagonistic towards the Catholic Church is because of previous efforts at proselytism by the Catholic Church in Russia. Continuing this has in the past and will keep them antagonistic towards Catholicism.

Dr. Warren Carroll, the previous moderator of the history forum at EWTN, has said that the Pope isn't commanding us to sin by the Balamand Agreement, as we're not commanded to convert every person we come across.

At the end of the day, the goal is reunion between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches -- i.e., the goal is the reception of the [i]entire[/i] Orthodox Church back into the Catholic Church. Proselytizing them has reaped few converts. The Balamand's goal is reunion. The question to be asked is this: Which will bring reunion faster -- proselytism or the Balamand? Proselytism has caused tension and bitterness, so the Pope feels that the Balamand could be more efficacious. I agree. I think people should give it a chance before they throw it to the wind. It's only been ten years since it's been issued.

As [url="http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=28935"]this article[/url] shows, the Pope is making headway with our relations with the Orthodox.

God bless,

Jen

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Apr 16 2004, 04:53 AM'] It's just another point of bitterness between us, that will ultimately lead to fewer converts and more souls lost.

[/quote]
Hi Nate,

What do you mean by that?

[PedroX]

B.B.,

Its probably not worth adding this, but I feel the need to clarify a few things.

One, I never even suggested that the Pope was commanding us to sin. Largely, because the Pope did not write the B. Document. An office of the Curia did so. While it is certainly to be respected, and even given assent to, it is not a "command from the Pope".

Secondly, the article you linked to clearly states that it took 3+ years for the Orthodox to "accept" our apology. I feel that the Pope was right to apologize for those sins, but 3 years? Comeone thats not headway.

peace...

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='Apr 16 2004, 04:11 AM'] Dr. Warren Carroll, the previous moderator of the history forum at EWTN, has said that the Pope isn't commanding us to sin by the Balamand Agreement, as we're not commanded to convert every person we come across.

[/quote]
Dr. Carroll is an historian. He has no theological qualifications whatsoever, as he has himself stated. His opinion in this is just that: an opinion.

The Balamand agreement goes much farther than merely saying that we are not bound to try to convert every person we come upon. The agreement implicitly denies the necessity of the Church for salvation by charging Catholics to refrain from evangelizing the Orthodox. It is not simply stating that Catholics are not bound to try to convert them, but rather, that they should not. The goal of bringing the entire orthodox church back into Communion with Rome is nowhere explicity stated and in fact, is played down. The fact of the matter remains: we are commanded to go forth and preach the Gospel to ALL Nations. There is only One True Church outside of which there is no salvation and it certainly is not Eastern Orthodoxy. To say that we should not try to convert them is dangerously close to saying that they do not need to be converted.

[Pope Saint Pius V]

[quote name='PedroX' date='Apr 16 2004, 10:04 AM'] Secondly, the article you linked to clearly states that it took 3+ years for the Orthodox to "accept" our apology.  I feel that the Pope was right to apologize for those sins, but 3 years?  Comeone thats not headway.
[/quote]
First of all, how is the Pope right to apologize for those sins? As we know the Immaculate Bride of Christ is sinless so the only sins could be those personal sins of men within the Church, even those chosen to govern it. The Holy Father cannot apologize for sins that he did not commit that occured centuries ago. We do not have the guilt for those sins whatsoever. Second of all, the Papacy is not in anyway responsible for the schism between the East and the West. In fact, in the Syllabus of Errors, Pope Blessed Pius IX condemns the notion that "38. The Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western". This is Syllabus Error number 38 and derives from the Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851. So, I wonder what sins are we to apologize for? Should we apologize for the sins of individual laymen or even Churchmen when it wasn't anyone today? Furthermore, Our Lord took upon Himself the punishment due to all the world's sins but it would be insane were He to apologize for any of those sins since He didn't actually commit any of them. One can suffer the punishments due to past sin and error but one cannot accept any personal guilt for any such previous sins. Nor can the Church, Herself Immaculate, be blamed for any sins.

Edited April 16, 2004 by Pope Saint Pius V

[Good Friday]

[quote][b]BeenaBobba writes:[/b]
What do you mean by that?[/quote]
Hi Jen.

I meant that proselytism, which has resulted in a few converts, still isn't getting us anywhere. Despite the few converts it has produced, we are still as estranged as ever from most of the East, and the proselytism has just become another source of bitterness between Catholics and Orthodox. Ultimately, it will lead to the loss of more souls, because not only will the Orthodox not come back to the Church, but many more sins against charity will likely be committed and left unrepented of by both Catholics and Orthodox.

Basically, I think you and I are saying the same thing. I definitely agree with what you've been saying.

[PedroX]

PSPV,

First, apologizing is not the same as accepting blame. It is simply saying "I'm sorry that happened" and quite frankly we should be sorry that "individual Laymen" acting on a Crusade called by the church sacked Constantinople. It certainly wasn't the "christian" thing to do.

Second, I never claimed, or even implied the the Pope (past or present) was responsible for the schism. Kindly please direct your criticisms in the right direction.

GF,

What is it with this insitence that evangelization be judged/based on numbers?
[quote]I meant that proselytism, which has resulted in a few converts, still isn't getting us anywhere. [/quote]

Its very much a "megachurch" attitude, and I don't (honestly) understand it. There are very good reasons for changing the MANNER of evangelization, but to abandon it because it has resulted in "few" converts? My Eastern Rite friends would be thrilled to hear this, I'm sure.

peace...

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='PedroX' date='Apr 16 2004, 01:38 PM'] PSPV,

First, apologizing is not the same as accepting blame. It is simply saying "I'm sorry that happened" and quite frankly we should be sorry that "individual Laymen" acting on a Crusade called by the church sacked Constantinople. It certainly wasn't the "christian" thing to do.

Second, I never claimed, or even implied the the Pope (past or present) was responsible for the schism. Kindly please direct your criticisms in the right direction.

[/quote]
Two points:

First, The sack of Constantinople was opposed by Pope Innocent III (I think it was him). That should suffice. No furthur apologies should be necessary.

Second, I think you misunderstood PSPV. I don't think he was accusing you of saying that the Pope was responsible for the schism, but rather, some of the language of the apology seems to take responsibilty for it or place the blame on the Church.

Just an attempt at a clarification.

God Bless!

[PedroX]

PSPX,

I agree that Pope Innocent III's opposition should be enough, but I can understand the desire of charity to underscore the point, especially since the other side didn't seem to get it.

Also, thanks for the clarification. I just felt as though I had been caught in the crossfire and I didn't understand why.

Anyway, happy Easter Friday.

peace...

[popestpiusx]

My own opinion is that not only has the other side not gotten it, but they seem to think Rome is pathetic now (for a whole number of reasons including liturgical.) They view these kinds of apologies as a loss of spine on the part of Rome and not as the outstreched hand they were intended to be.

[Pope Saint Pius V]

Furthermore, as to the Holy Father merely enacting Christian charity, please don't take this the wrong way but it was absolutely pointless. We're apologizing to people for an act that occured centuries ago that we didn't commit and that they didn't suffer. Realistically, it is nothing more than an ecumenical gesture but one, which as you pointed out, has had absolutely no effect. In fact, it makes the Church appear weak in front of Her Enemies.

[Good Friday]

[quote][b]Pedro writes:[/b]
Its very much a "megachurch" attitude, and I don't (honestly) understand it. There are very good reasons for changing the MANNER of evangelization, but to abandon it because it has resulted in "few" converts? My Eastern Rite friends would be thrilled to hear this, I'm sure.[/quote]
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm very glad that the Easterners who have become Catholic are here, and I think they make an invaluable contribution to the Church. But one has to admit that, compared to the number of Eastern Orthodox, these have been relatively few conversions. That doesn't underscore their importance, because at one conversion all of Heaven rejoices; but it is to say that there must be something more we can do, to gain even more souls for Christ and His Church.

Also, I only see the "few" converts reason as one reason to change our method of evangelization. I think the real reason we need to change our method of conversion is because it's only causing more bitterness. We're trying to convert them on a theological level, when that's really not the problem. Our theological differences are very minor, and can be quickly overcome once our historical and cultural differences are overcome. Their opposition to the papacy, in my opinion, doesn't lie in any theological grounds, but in historical grounds. I think that the Bishops and the Pope are more equipped to handle these historical objections than we, the laity, will ever be, which is why I think it should be left to them (as they've requested).

[Shawn_H]

My answer to this threads question is a resounding NO.

While there are differences, those differences are not about the fundamenatlas of the faith, but about ecclesiology and the role of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. It is not conversion that we want from the Orthodox, they are already converted, it is institutional unity and reconciliation between them and us.

[PedroX]

Shawn,

great to see you hear. However, I would point out two small things. One is that the Holy Father has called for conversion among Catholics, to true Catholicism. With this being said, how can we not also call our Eastern lung to conversion? Especially since the problems are much deeper than simply ecclesiastical in nature. Look for example at the Marian doctrines.

peace...

[popestpiusx]

Shawn, in addition to what Pedro said, the Primacy of Peter and his successors IS fundamental to The Faith. It is not merely an institutional issue, but a doctrinal issue fueling the separation.