Are Eastern Catholics and traditional Catholics Orthodox in denial [CONTROVERSIAL]

[cradleGO]

I disagree. Our current process of the catechumenate as practiced by the OCA, AOCNA, ROCOR and all other churches that routinely receive converts, is sufficient.

Is sufficient? ".. and all other churches..." Based on what? What studies have been prepared? Sounds like you just want to contradict.

Once again, my suggestion is to speak with recent converts and seekers with results grouped from which religious background they are coming. Refine those and tailor a reception approach where needed. My expectation, as I said, is that only 20 per cent might need a tailored approach. In a perfect world. The actual catechumen training would be the same for all, although I suspect that all catechumen training is tailored to some extent.

The goal is to hasten the decision of the seeker by Orthodoxy making its best case in terms that the seeker understands and values. For example a Calvinist seeker would have concerns either more or less similar to a Seventh Day Adventist. Sort it out and be prepared to address those concerns upfront. If they aren't motivated by those expected concerns, then move on. But if they are, then all is ready.

 

[The Liturgist]

Is sufficient? ".. and all other churches..." Based on what? What studies have been prepared? Sounds like you just want to contradict.

I never disagree with people to be contrarian; I regard contrarianism as a great sin and would were it not for my catechesis yield to the temptation to resent the accusation and take offense, except I also regard harboring resentment as a great sin; it is better to exercise apatheia. Besides, it is meet for an Orthodox to regard himself as the worst of sinners; I sincerely believe you are more pious than I am, even though you are in error concerning the reason why I disagree with you.

Rather, that reason is twofold: firstly, I reject your contention that our priests are incapable of determining on their own when someone is ready for baptism, and that there is a need to create specific programs depending on which church someone converts from beyond what we already have, which is defined by canon law and church policy. So it is already the case that Mormons, J/Ws and Seventh Day Adventists have to be baptized in most jurisdictions, as well as anyone not baptized according to the Trinitarian formula, as opposed to merely being chrismated.

Secondly, your view, aside from its lack of confidence in the priests, as I see it also suggests a lack of confidence in the transformative powers of the Sacred Mysteries of Baptism and Chrismation and Confession and the Eucharist. When we receive someone, they are sacramentally changed.

Here I shall also reiterate that Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions that actively evangelize conduct a formal catechumenate before receiving people. It is not as though a Mormon can just walk into an Orthodox church and be baptized on the same day. Additionally, the ban on neophytes being ordained, that is, people who have been Orthodox for less than three years, except for the very small number of clergy deemed worthy of reception by vesting, adds an extra layer of protection.

My point, therefore, is you should trust the bishops, trust the priests, and trust the Mysteries, to get the job done, as they have been doing. After all, it is not as though are churches are overrun by half-catechized conwertsy who have brought errors like acceptance of homosexuality and iconoclasm with them. Indeed the left wing in Orthodoxy consists largely of cradle Orthodox, both from the Old Country and the children of converts who made the mistake of sending them to public schools (although there are also left wing converts; I can think of one, but I am not sure I accurately recall his name, and I don’t want to accidentally libel someone).

 

[cradleGO]

I never disagree with people to be contrarian; I regard contrarianism as a great sin and would were it not for my catechesis yield to the temptation to resent the accusation and take offense, except I also regard harboring resentment as a great sin; it is better to exercise apatheia. Besides, it is meet for an Orthodox to regard himself as the worst of sinners; I sincerely believe you are more pious than I am, even though you are in error concerning the reason why I disagree with you.

Rather, that reason is twofold: firstly, I reject your contention that our priests are incapable of determining on their own when someone is ready for baptism, and that there is a need to create specific programs depending on which church someone converts from beyond what we already have, which is defined by canon law and church policy. So it is already the case that Mormons, J/Ws and Seventh Day Adventists have to be baptized in most jurisdictions, as well as anyone not baptized according to the Trinitarian formula, as opposed to merely being chrismated.

Secondly, your view, aside from its lack of confidence in the priests, as I see it also suggests a lack of confidence in the transformative powers of the Sacred Mysteries of Baptism and Chrismation and Confession and the Eucharist. When we receive someone, they are sacramentally changed.

Here I shall also reiterate that Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions that actively evangelize conduct a formal catechumenate before receiving people. It is not as though a Mormon can just walk into an Orthodox church and be baptized on the same day. Additionally, the ban on neophytes being ordained, that is, people who have been Orthodox for less than three years, except for the very small number of clergy deemed worthy of reception by vesting, adds an extra layer of protection.

My point, therefore, is you should trust the bishops, trust the priests, and trust the Mysteries, to get the job done, as they have been doing. After all, it is not as though are churches are overrun by half-catechized conwertsy who have brought errors like acceptance of homosexuality and iconoclasm with them. Indeed the left wing in Orthodoxy consists largely of cradle Orthodox, both from the Old Country and the children of converts who made the mistake of sending them to public schools (although there are also left wing converts; I can think of one, but I am not sure I accurately recall his name, and I don’t want to accidentally libel someone).

your contention that our priests are incapable of determining on their own when someone is ready for baptism, and that there is a need to create specific programs depending on which church someone converts from beyond what we already have,

I never said anything like that. My point is NOT about catechumen orientation nor when someone is ready for baptism. I am advocating for having prepared "talking points" when speaking with seekers from various heterodox communities.
However, feel free to rail against or for whatever political agenda you choose, but leave me out of it.

 

[The Liturgist]

I never said anything like that. My point is NOT about catechumen orientation nor when someone is ready for baptism. I am advocating for having prepared "talking points" when speaking with seekers from various heterodox communities.

Forgive me, I did not understand that from your post. And actually, now that you have clarified that, I agree. That is a good idea. We should absolutely do that, and conduct research to determine the best approach for each group that might walk in the door. Someone like Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick would be great to lead such a project, if he was interested, which he might not be, or he might not have time; since he was made an Archpriest he has new responsibilities throughout AOCNA.

Also there would be a lot of work of interviewing existing converts to formulate these talking points.

But yes, this is a very good idea, now that I understand what it was that you were proposing, I would enthusiastically support that.

 

[The Liturgist]

However, feel free to rail against or for whatever political agenda you choose, but leave me out of it.

I have no political agenda to rail against; you presented a good idea; I thought you were talking about something else, but that is because I did not understand what you were proposing. I really appreciate you taking the time to clarify this point for me, and now that you have, as I said in the post above, I am delighted with your idea and would publically support it, although I don’t have much influence.

One very intelligent cleric you might reach out to, across the aisle, as it were, is Fr. John Whiteford of ROCOR. He is very good at suggesting resources for doing projects like that. On the Greek Orthodox side, my confessor is acquainted with Metropolitan Gerasimos of San Francisco, and I have also met him. I also know several of the monks at St. Anthony’s in Florence, but I doubt they would be interested in such a project, but they might be; they can be surprising, and they might know who would be.

 

[CantorSeraphim]

There exists a sweeping ecumenical agreement between the Antiochian Orthodox Church (EO) and the Syriac Orthodox Church (OO), which includes a mutual recognition of Orthodoxy. However, the same Antiochian Orthodox Church has repeatedly been forced to politely decline invitations from the Melkite Catholics who want to unite with them. And they have if I recall published explanations as to why. So perhaps you might want to look those up.

Thank you, I will try to look that up. I am interested because for many us (ECs) our self-understanding does include the notion that we are Orthodox (in communion with Rome), though not in communion with the larger body of canonical Orthodoxy. Most who hold this position tend to see the unia as political and not theological in nature, so it is difficult to understand the basis for why some EO admit the Orthodoxy of some churches they are not in communion with (eg the OO churches), and not others.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Thank you, I will try to look that up. I am interested because for many us (ECs) our self-understanding does include the notion that we are Orthodox (in communion with Rome), though not in communion with the larger body of canonical Orthodoxy. Most who hold this position tend to see the unia as political and not theological in nature, so it is difficult to understand the basis for why some EO admit the Orthodoxy of some churches they are not in communion with (eg the OO churches), and not others.

it’s because the non-Chalcedonians aren’t that far from us, and there is hope at actual reunion (although, I do not believe they are Orthodox). the Unia is theological since you embrace all of Rome’s heretical teachings by virtue of being in communion with them, even if you don’t affirm them in your praxis.

 

[E.C.]

Thank you, I will try to look that up. I am interested because for many us (ECs) our self-understanding does include the notion that we are Orthodox (in communion with Rome), though not in communion with the larger body of canonical Orthodoxy. Most who hold this position tend to see the unia as political and not theological in nature, so it is difficult to understand the basis for why some EO admit the Orthodoxy of some churches they are not in communion with (eg the OO churches), and not others.

Part of it is what Fr Matt mentioned in his above post, but part of it is also political. Speaking purely anecdotally, I've noticed that Russians tend to have a better opinion of the Melkites than say the Ruthenian or Ukrainian Catholics. Perhaps because they view one group as traitors to the faith more so than the other group. Even ROCOR's opinion of the OCA (which has its roots in converted Ruthenian Catholics and the Alaskan Mission) tends to be on the same level as the Russian opinion of Ukrainian Catholics.

That said though, the Ukrainian Catholics have in some way embraced more of Rome's stuff than others; such as the New Calendar. Again, part of this is political in nature given how badly Ukrainian Catholics were treated by the Romanovs and the Soviets. As bad as things got under Communism, there were always at least three living Orthodox bishops somewhere within the Soviet Union whereas for the Ukrainian Catholics there were zero living bishops of theirs within the Soviet Union for decades.

 

[cradleGO]

Part of it is what Fr Matt mentioned in his above post, but part of it is also political. Speaking purely anecdotally, I've noticed that Russians tend to have a better opinion of the Melkites than say the Ruthenian or Ukrainian Catholics. Perhaps because they view one group as traitors to the faith more so than the other group. Even ROCOR's opinion of the OCA (which has its roots in converted Ruthenian Catholics and the Alaskan Mission) tends to be on the same level as the Russian opinion of Ukrainian Catholics.

That said though, the Ukrainian Catholics have in some way embraced more of Rome's stuff than others; such as the New Calendar. Again, part of this is political in nature given how badly Ukrainian Catholics were treated by the Romanovs and the Soviets. As bad as things got under Communism, there were always at least three living Orthodox bishops somewhere within the Soviet Union whereas for the Ukrainian Catholics there were zero living bishops of theirs within the Soviet Union for decades.

I am confused by your use of the term 'Ukrainian Catholics'. It sounds like you mean the Greek Catholics - former Orthodox - rather than those with no recent ties to Orthodoxy. Ukraine has Greek Catholics that were persecuted as you report. I do not know the history of Roman Catholics in Ukraine, other than they surely were discriminated against. They are currently - seemingly - being jerked around in their efforts to gain control of St Nicholas Church in Kyiv (?) which is thoroughly Roman Catholic in origin and history. One issue might be relocation of a music school/repository? that the Soviets placed in part of it. Note: By all measure the Roman Catholics are otherwise free to practice their faith in free Ukraine.
If I am correct, you might want to edit your post for clarity. And I will delete this post.