Those Annoying Converts
Posted by Karl (September 8, 2006 at 10:41 pm)
Jeffrey Tucker wrote an article called I Hate Converts (and I’m a Convert) which makes interesting and humorous points about the foibles of new converts. He writes about converts that they have a problem: They become know-it-alls who appoint themselves as the fixer-uppers of the whole faith. They pester people who have been Catholic all their lives about their apparent lack of piety. He then gives many examples of the silly things he says converts do, pestering priests, bishops, and popes about the perceived faults of the Church. They have seen the true light, and wish to enlighten everyone else.
Tucker is right that such things do happen. But I think his article tends to support the position that the zeal of the convert is some sort of aberration, something one ought to grow out of. He suggests that converts should take time and keep to themselves for a while: “I suggest that converts first live the real day-to-to-day lives of Catholics for a while–and it’s not always easy—before they dictate to the rest of us how to live.” As true as his advice is, I see in the use of the loaded word “dictate” a bit of resentment of convert zeal.
How should we relate to converts, we who seek to be Byzantine evangelists? I think we should take as our example the original convert, Paul of Tarsus.
You remember the story: Paul was a Jew who took part in the persecution of the Church, even going so far as to hold the cloaks of those who stoned St. Stephen the First Martyr. He was very annoying to the Church, even deadly, before his conversion. What happened after his conversion on the road to Damascus? He was blinded and remained a while with Ananias, but then (DRB):
And when he had taken meat, he was strengthened. And he was with the disciples that were at Damascus, for some days.
And immediately he preached Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
And all that heard him, were astonished, and said: Is not this he who persecuted in Jerusalem those that called upon this name: and came hither for that intent, that he might carry them bound to the chief priests?
The prototypical convert preaches immediately, according to Acts. He doesn’t wait to live the real day-to-day life of a Catholic, he goes and preaches Christ. Wait a minute: perhaps that is the real day-to-day life of a Catholic! Perhaps the reason we cradle Catholics or cradle Byzantines can have resentment toward converts is that their zeal is an accusation: it shows us how we ought to act, and points out that we don’t act that way. It’s easier to make fun of the follies of the convert (as Tucker does, quite viciously) than to imitate the convert.
Certainly one must remain in a state of humility with regard to the faith, and there is danger in the neophyte evangelizing–I know of a few examples of converts telling the internet of their new faith, only to flip completely around within the space of a year–but we must not quench the smoldering wick. Guide the convert, teach, make sure that they are well-grounded, but don’t sneer at their zeal.
We must be particularly careful as Byzantine Catholics. There is, at times, in our churches a tendency to look askance at “outsiders,” at those who have come to our tradition not through birth but through adoption. There is a tendency in some, even among the most intelligent and accomplished in church, to see converts as a problem, as people who don’t really understand the Byzantine way of doing things. They should be quiet until they learn the way things are done.
But this idea that there is a particular Catholic or Byzantine mindset that the new convert must absorb before he or she is a real full-fledged member of the community, as true as it is, can often be a pseudo-gnostic measuring stick used to justify current practices. Johnny Convert complains about our customary practices because he just doesn’t know; he’s too new. Well, it is possible that Johnny Convert complains about the customary practices because they are wrong, and we don’t notice because we are used to them. Do you think St. Paul might have annoyed the original disciples with his relentless insistence on the need to preach to the gentiles? Certainly. But he was right.
This used to be one of the reasons that converts were not allowed to become priests until they have been Christian for several years. Their zeal is good, their way of dealing with the zeal is often bad. Some will keep that zeal and would make good priests, some will lose it, and if they had become a priest in their initial zeal, well, the consequences could be dire.
I am also a convert and find that it tends to be former Protestants turned Catholic keep many of their Protestant methodologies and need to fully integrate themselves into the Church. One example: someone with an error in belief is seen by many converts as an automatic example of a heretic. This is the Protestant method of looking at heresy, and what it ends up doing is making everyone the sole judge of truth, and everyone heretics to everyone else. The Catholic Church does not equate ignorance and error of themselves as the requirement for one to be a heretic — it has to be a post-baptismal rejection of the Church’s authority to correct an error.
This reason for this should be easily discerned: we are fallible, and we often come to conclusions based upon bad presumptions. Most people are not theologically astute for one reason or another. They are not heretics because of their ignorance. Now if they started to preach their error, declare they are right when the Church corrects them, and they continue to preach in disobedience to a Church directive telling them to be silent, then the Church can define them as a heretic. It is an act of willfull error in disobedience to the Church, not just an incorrect thought. But how many converts tend to become heretic hunters within the Church and look to denounce any error they think they see in others?
Comment posted September 9th, 2006 at 4:51 am
I agree with much of the article, as I am a convert myself and should have been caged for the first year and still need to gaurd against these unhelpful attitudes.
However it seems that Mr. Tucker seems also to be saying there should be a certain level of comfort with the status quo, which I disagree with. The status quo in
the Byzantine and Roman Catholic Churches (at least in the United States) is not something to be content with.
We all need a continuing conversion to a deeper Faith that will lead those within and outside the Church into a fuller communion with Christ.
Comment posted September 9th, 2006 at 9:25 am
Boy!!!
This is “barking right up my tree!”
Answer number one…why do we converts go around telling others how to practice the very Faith they were born into?
Because…..in order to get over our abhorence of the Catholic or Orthodox Faith, we had to study our brains out. As we did, we found out what the official documents, catechisms, writings, etc. of the Church teach regarding the proper praxis of a believer.
And we don’t see “cradles” doing it.
In fact, the behavior of many “cradles” was a source of scandal to us as Protestants — scandal which kept us from really even considering the Church.
So when we convert, we want not only our lives to be as fully Catholic (or Orthodox) as we can be, we want others to “get in line with the program” also!
Of course, in the process of working this all out, we become a ROYAL PAIN IN THE TUCHAS to our chosen parish!!
I call it “convert fever” and I had a RIP SNORTIN’ case of it up until about a year ago!! May God bless all those kind people at St. Ann’s who put up with me — especially those who took me aside and gently offered “course correction.”
One thing that you have to understand about Protestantism — especially certain brands of it — is that they are really, really big on pietist outward show. Pastors will actually call people to certain kinds of behavior (don’t drink alkeehol, don’t gamble, don’t go to movies, etc.) so that you can be holy.
And since we trust our leaders, we believe that the holiness is in the doing. And while this is not altogher wrong, outward shows of piety, especially in front of other Christians, easily takes place of the real holiness of “being small”…the private prayer corner, the unknown fastings, the anonymous acts of kindness and charity.
As for the issue of being an Irishman in an Eastern European parish….no, I don’t try to be something I obviously am not. It took some time for me to become comfortable with the Liturgy because it was so different. But I try to appreciate the beauty that is in the East without compromising my Irishness nor acting like I have to learn Ukrainian or Old Church Slavonic and dress like a Slav peasant!
I actually miss the Anglican form of worship I grew up with, but there is beauty here that I can appreciate without having to go bonkers about it.
And now that I am calmed down considerably (big sigh of relief from the parish faithful!) I am finding the the real work of holiness and growth in the Christian Faith is not only hard work — it is something I know precious little about.
Pray for me — a convert — that now God will lead me away from the superficialities which have been my spiritual life, and draw me to a real spirituality which is both pleasing to Him and certainly less taxing on the parish I belong to!
Brother Ed (we really don’t MEAN to be annoying!)
Comment posted September 11th, 2006 at 11:53 am
Perhaps those who are not happy with converts … need to convert their own hearts.
Comment posted September 12th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Why do people assume, just because someone is a convert with zeal, they know more about the faith than those who lived it through their whole life? In part, the convert has taken ahold of an intellectual idea, but there is more to the faith than this — there is the lived experience which is more and greater than mere intellectualism. A convert should realize their zeal is good, but it should be a zeal for community — not a zeal for personal glory.
Secondly, many converts confuse the documents they read through their old exegetical methods. They still read it as if they are the authority, as if everything comes in and out through their own head. This is why many Protestant converts continue to be Protestant in methodology after their conversion, changing expressions of truth, but not the heart of their foundational error. They are quick to criticize priests, Bishops, Popes, thinking they, they convert, know better — after all, they read documents! It might not be sola scriptura, but sola scriptura never was about scripture, but the self, and the self as sole authority to interpret the faith.
The Church, however, is the body of Christ, a community through communio — they shall know we are Christians through our love, not through our sophisticated theological arguments! We are called to listen to the Church when there is disagreement, to work it out as a community — we are not to act like the Pharisees who trumpeted their superior views and lifestyle over the rest of the faithful.
Do all converts suffer this problem? No. Do many? Yes. And it is because of this, because they have changed notional statements but not the heart, they have yet to fully engage the faith of the fathers, of the community. Instead, they have tried to change the community to their own ideal of that community, an ideal that never was, never is, and never shall be. Wisdom, be attentative - not loudmouthed and imprudent
Comment posted September 12th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Dear Henry,
I would say that zeal ought to be for God, not the community, except insofar as God is the source and summit of our communion. The attentiveness to the content of the faith (which is expressed in the documents) is, I think, a good thing, and puts them squarely in the Patristic tradition, where lots of energy was spent worrying over the smallest iota in the creed. We are right to worry about such things. Faith is not a matter soley of the experiental, but also has content, and it is vital we get it right.
Let me put it in another way: can anyone (convert or no) make use of the writings of the Church to argue for orthodox theology in a self-aggrandizing way? Yes. But can anyone make use of the writings to argue for orthodox theology in a humble way? Yes. It’s not the strength of adherence to doctrinal formulations that’s the problem–in fact, we all ought to adhere as strongly as we can to all revealed doctrines–it’s the motive behind it.
I come back to the example of St. Paul, who was a royal pain in the backside, but was also was the humblest and best of men.
Comment posted September 12th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
The Patristic tradition says we are to go beyond the letter and into the spirit — this is also the point of the apophaticism of the Church. The problem again with “documentism” is it creates a dead letter and is not the life of the faith which is not a life of documents, but the faith of the Fathers. A document is dead, the faith is alive. The faith of the community is only given a rough image in a document, but it is not expressed in totality in that document. It dies when it is cut off from the community, from the living tradition, in which a document is at best a snapshot of one way it tried to express its beliefs.
When we interpret documents, it is easy to take a document quite literally. This is especially true for those who think everything is simple and documents mean just as they say. They don’t. Words change meanings, context change meanings, interpreter changes meanings. Look to St Cyril of Alexandria. He wrote about “one incarnate nature.” The documentist theory of faith saying “Well, I read the doucments, I got it right,” then will go on to prove Chalcedon is heretical… They might have read the document, but they did not understand it! The document is a document of the community, of the Church, and not the individual. The community might express in a new way that one faith, and the two ways might even sound as if they contradict each other. This is because people are trying to read them as full expressions of faith and the words are literal one for one representation of the reality being expressed. But as the Fathers show us, words are not where we should end. Indeed, it is seen to them a problem when we have to put it into words.
St Hilary of Poitiers wrote, “But the errors of heretics and blasphemers force us to deal with unlawful matters, to scale perilous heights, to speak unutterable words, to trespass on forbidden ground. Faith ought in silence to fulfill the commandments, worshiping the Father, reverencing with Him the Son, abounding in the Holy Ghost, but we must strain the poor resources of our language to express thoughts too great for words. The error of others compels us to err in daring to embody in human terms truths which ought to be hidden in the silent veneration of the heart” (On the Trinity, Book II.2).
Documentist faith is a faith in words, not in the spirit, and that’s why the zeal is misplaced. It thinks it has truth because it is written down. That is not the truth. It ends up the same problem as a Protestant hermeneutic. It ends up that I am the carrier of truth after all, and my interpretation is truth. It forgets the words are dangerous, and liable to misinterpretation — the filioque is the great example of this, a truth if interpreted rightly, but easily confused and misinterpreted. Those who say “We have the documents of the Fathers and they did not say filioque” charged the West with heresy and lived out this false doucmentist understanding of the past. You will find the meaning of the filioque is well proposed in the Fathers, even the Fathers of the East, even if the words were not used!
You said our zeal is not to be about the community? Are we to ignore it and follow the Protestant individualism with its every man for themself mentality? Certainly you jest? Jesus is the one who said take it to the Church, he points to community. St Paul said it is not knowledge — but love — which is the greatest of virtues.
The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, and her documents are just that HER property, and SHE interprets in the community through the community through the faith of the community, through the common consent of living tradition and through the common consent of prayer from her lived, liturgical life.
St Teresa of Avila said it best — “I believe it is the devil, who, seeing that there is no path which leads more quickly to the highest perfection than that of obedience, suggests all these objections and difficulties under the guide of good.” Book of Foundations, V.
One of the ways people find objections to following the Church is the “I know better” objection. Yet, where is their Apostolic Succession, where is their authority coming from? St John Cassian agrees:
“The signs by which you can recognize the presence of a carnal pride in a soul. […] troublesome in the matter of obedience except where his own wishes and likings correspond to his duty…” St. John Cassian, Institutes, Chapter XXIX.
When we leave the interpretation to ourselves, we end up just making the documents mean what we want them to say. Luther, like Arius before him, showed where this ends up.
“Whence it may not be doubted that this man was guilty of a crime not less than that of the vile Arius, who in like manner perished by the issue of his bowels through the draught. For this too is a heretical belief, that in the Church man may disobey the bishop of God to whom the sheep are entrusted to be fed, and that authority may be usurped by one to whom none has been entrusted, either by God or man.” St. Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks, II 23
Comment posted September 12th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
My goodness, Henry, you must type fast.
Read me again. I didn’t say zeal isn’t to be about community. I said it is to be about God. Community comes along with that. After all, God is Trinity! The reason for my discomfort with your accusation that converts have the “documentist” heresy is that all too often, the emphasis on community goes with an attempt to downplay the content of faith. To say that Christianity is experiential is true; to say that this means we can do away with what the Church teaches (you haven’t said this, but many do) is false.
I also never said one leaves the interpretation to oneself. Documents are read and interpreted in a tradition, as you pointed out. But may I propose that the emphasis on experience and community can be just as individualistic? _My_ experience, _my_ community, rather than the community of the mystical body of Christ, through the Spirit. Being attentive to the lived experience of the whole Church, from the beginning till now, is a good thing. This lived experience is present in texts. That means we need to read the old stuff.
I think we are probably arguing past each other. “Proof-texting” is bad, but fidelity to the texts (understood according to the mind of the Church) is not. It’s not either read the texts or be a true Christian. One can do both.
Comment posted September 12th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
I have a rather simple, maybe simple minded, comment. I have not seen the kind of problems to which Henry alludes. Perhaps there is something about the way our situation is being handled that makes the difference. Perhaps we have a particularly astute pastor. Perhaps we have only learned and humble converts. Perhaps we have cradle Catholics who love God and people so much that they welcome converts with open arms.
What are the necessary elements for a congregation to grow?
CDL
Comment posted September 14th, 2006 at 8:07 am
May I bring up the fact that every single Byzantine parish I’ve seen for the most part is rotting from the inside out, to be blunt? If anyone’s uncomfortable about “convert zeal” it’s cause they’re dying, and they want to stay dead.
I know it’s a bit more complicated than that, but that’s what it boils down to. In the Byzantine church we have NO time really. Action must be now, so maybe the converts are on to something. But of course, as a convert myself, I don’t know what I’m talking about. I have four year old convert zeal.
Comment posted September 14th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
I am curious as to why someone would convert to Byzantine Catholic if all the parishes they visited were rotting from the inside?
No one said zeal is the problem, the problem is their zeal is misplaced. When someone goes around declaring their Bishop a heretic, because the Bishop has a different opinion and taste than they, then perhaps that is an example of where you get the zeal all wrong and have not learned properly the faith.
Comment posted September 15th, 2006 at 3:54 am
Henry,
I think I’ve carefully reread this entire thread. Could you document where someone has claimed a bishop to be a heretic? I know some have been and some may be now but why did you assert such a claim here when it doesn’t appear to have been brought up by anyone else at all?
Again, I may well have missed it.
CDL
Comment posted September 18th, 2006 at 9:27 am
I read the rant of one of the posters who, on his blog, acted like he was the authority by which Bishops should bow and he is their teacher, not them him.
Comment posted September 18th, 2006 at 10:44 am
A convert who reads himself into the Church - like myself - will be especially alert to inconsistencies between faith and practice in others. But this is not an issue solely with converts. It is a matter of spiritual immaturity to be conscious of the faults of others and oblivious to one’s own. Had I remained a Methodist, the issue would still be there of integrating what I believe in my head into my daily life and of dealing constructively with others who were on the same path as I but a little behind.
Comment posted September 30th, 2006 at 9:23 am
Do we have that many converts that this is a real issue? Most converts that are interested in eastern Christianity become Orthodox, and most that are interested in Catholicism go Roman… that being said I came back to the Church via the EC (was baptized & raised Roman), but I tried to blend in & learn since, at least, the Byzantine Church was new to me. Yet, I can appreciate the zeal of converts, and a careful reading of Luke 15 shows that there should be joy in the discovery of the kingdom. I wish that my parish had some of this zeal at times.
Comment posted October 26th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Monsieur Henry Karlson speaks like a medieval Latin: heretics, heretics, heretics. Why post on a Byzantine website? Such perspective ia more appropriate in Spain, but it is certainly far removed from Orthodoxy.
Comment posted November 6th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
I agree with Ivan. Chill out, Henry Karlson, your’re bowing and scraping to the old demon ‘power’, even if it has a clerical dress. Ivan is correct - Such is not Orthodoxy, nor is it the true, beautiful meaning of the word Catholic…
Comment posted November 6th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
I wish people read what I write — if they did, they would see I was actually pointing out the “inquisition” methodology you find in many “zealous converts” is the problem I am criticizing.
Comment posted November 7th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
I appreciated Tucker’s article tremendously and have seen this trend many times in Latin Rite circles. (Not being Byzantine I cannot speak for its veracity there.)
I think Henry does allude to some of the problems, but I will put it this way. As I see it in the Latin church, we have whole generations who were uncatechized for all practical purposes. And yet we live in an age where getting your hands on written material setting forth the church’s teaching is easier than ever before. So there are plenty of people — converts and reinvigorated cradles alike — who have taught themselves the doctrines of the faith and the beauty of the faith’s content has overwhelmed them. They naturally develop a zeal for what they have seen. I compare it to the zeal seen in the Gospel of John and the story of Andrew’s call as an apostle. In that whole exchange between Jesus and Andrew and John there’s a lot of depth about the christian life, but the part I want to focus on is his racing off to Simon to tell him that “We have found the Messiah.” When you find what you truly desire, something that is truly good and of great value, you want to share it, not horde it. All the more when you find Him and recognize that He answers the deep desire of your heart. That’s what creates the zeal in the convert. But the problem is that many of us, having focused so much on theology and doctrine and reading these texts in the process of our conversion, begin to mistake right belief in doctrine as the be all end all of living the Christian life. And of course, there is so much more than that. That’s where the disconnect comes up, and I think for Protestant converts, because of their past background, it is amplified. So I see the concerns about some of the characterization that Tucker makes (although I think some is just in fun), but the problem is real, in my opinion.
Comment posted November 13th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
I seem to recall, probably while studying about the Latin RCIA, that at some point in the Early Church the whole congregation in some way went through catechumenate with the catechumen(s), so as to draw from their ‘zeal’ so to speak. And it didn’t seem like just the Lenten Scrutinies ceremonies they were talking about, either, but something more.
FWIW….
Comment posted March 5th, 2007 at 3:32 am
phentermine prescription no cod pharmacies no prescription phentermine
Comment posted December 6th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Warm greetings in the True Christmas Spirit!
I hope all is well, you seem very knowledgeable. I read through your blogs–very sharp indeed! Do you have a Doctorate in Divinity or Philosophy?
Anyhow, I was wondering if you could give some priceless advice. I am thinking of buying some good old Catholic theology books for some family members and loved ones, and well, I recently received an advertisement for this very interesting book called “Communicatio in Sacris: The Roman Catholic Church against Intercommunion of non-Catholics” by Mr. William J. DeTucci.
I was wondering if you have seen any book review on this book? I could not find anything on the author. It seems the book talks about the Role of Vatican II in the Modern World and how some Traditionalists have resisted many of the Modernistic teachings of Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, and the New Mass, as opposed to the old Latin Tridentine Mass. However, I also recently read Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio ( www.vatican.va), which seems to be give the Liberty of “Open Communion” to so-called Traditional Catholic Groups who dissent from Vatican II, i.e. Marcel Lefebvre’s SSPX, Mark Pivarunas’ CMRI, Clarence Kelly’s SSPV, Br. Michael Dimond’s Most Holy Family Monastery, the various Saint Benedict Centers, Jason Spadafore’s Raphael Society, Patrick Taylor’s Society of the Virgin Mary, and so many other Independent Bishops at Large)–all who promote Intercommunion Latin Mass Ritual, of course! I think the Spirit of Vatican II is really being recognized now by many of the Traditionalists who once followed Bishop Lefebvre in resisting Vatican II Conciliar Reforms, but since the Motu Proprio Latin Mass Ecumenism has been widely promoted and it has been “well received” by many of these same various Traditionalists Sects and also by many Liberal Bi-Ritual Bishops who offer both the Latin Mass and Ecumenical Modern Liturgies.
However, breaking the rule of judging a book by its cover, and only peaking its table of contents, it seems to me this book is an itchy reaction to this Neo-Ecumenism that both Greek and Latin Churches have been involved with. Not sure if you have read the book, or know of some theologian who has written a review? Here is the link to the contents that I browsed:
http://www.lulu.com/content/1431544
and also here:
http://www.vladcatholic.com
I would most greatly appreciate any book review that you or a theologian has done. This book seems to have positive merit in as much it claims to be “a Compendium of Roman Catholic Doctrine on the subject of Intercommunion with non-Catholics. This book produces the overwhelming theological consensus for the Dogmatic Teaching condemning Intercommunion with non-Catholics, putting together a treasury of Sacred Scriptures, Church Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Theologians, and Popes who have written on the matter.”
However, I just wanted to verify that before I make my last minute shopping for this Christmas & New Year Season.
May God bless you all!
Kind regards,
Patty
Comment posted December 11th, 2007 at 2:05 am
roulette wheel wwe wheel number roulette
Comment posted July 26th, 2008 at 8:28 am
health quot affordable insurance and affordable insurance health
Comment posted July 27th, 2008 at 7:19 pm