Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[malphono]

It’s not really about Antioch. It’s not really about Alexandria. It’s about competing historical narratives. I have mine, they have theirs, but I do not pretend as though they shouldn’t dare to say what they believe is true, or that saying what they believe is true is some kind of terrible affront (and not exactly what we would expect them to say, knowing that they do not agree with us) that excuses if I were to subsequently tell them to shut up because they hurt my feelings (which is the constant message we get in one form or another from Byzantine supremacists on this board, essentially: “Yeah, it’s nice that you have your little church and its adorable traditions, and of course we wouldn’t want to mess with those, but here’s the REAL history, and if you disagree you are damaging prospects at unity!” Reminds me of the so-called ‘unity’ between Copts and Muslims in Egypt that lasts only until a Copt dare mention the reality of discrimination against Christians, at which point they become guilty of “inciting sectarian tensions” or “threatening national unity” or some such garbage; recognizing the reality doesn’t incite anything…not recognizing the other’s right to tell his viewpoint does, as it builds resentment.).

I will end my participation in this particular conversation by reaffirming that it is better that we have honest disunity than false unity, be it with Rome or Constantinople. And, in correlation with this general principle, any unity that involves swallowing the Constantinopolitan versions of history that have been presented here is not true unity at all, as it involves abandoning the truth: The truth of the holiness of St. Severus and his rightful place as Patriarch of Antioch long before Jacob Baradaeus was even ordained; the truth about our teacher St. Dioscorus who rightly stood up to Leo the not-universally-thought-of-as-great of Rome; and any number of other truths that the Chalcedonians do not agree are truths at all.

This is the reality of where we are. Deal with it. The OO have been dealing with it for about 1600 years now, and as we can see from these exchanges, very little has changed when you get right down to it.

FWLIW, I have to agree. Apparently that makes me a wayward Maronite, but if that’s the case, so be it. And of course I particularly like the highlighted portion.

 

[Nine_Two]

So of course we have no problem admitting that St. Severus wrote “O Monogenis” in Greek. It is what would be expected, living in a Hellenized city as he did. It is one of many hymns (I’ve read as high as 10% of all hymns of the COC) that are preserved entirely in Greek to this day in the Coptic liturgy of St. Basil. We do not deny the profound influence that Greek language and culture had on Coptic language and culture (what is Coptic, after all, if not the native Egyptian language written in an adapted Greek alphabet?). But of course none of this means that Greeks are Egyptians or Egyptians are Greeks (remember: Egyptian, or more specifically “Coptic”, is not a geographic identifier as much as it is an ethnic identifier; EO have made this point to me themselves by pointing out that in Koine Greek the proper long-form name of the city is “Alexandria in Egypt” – “Alexandria e kat Aigypton”, suggesting that the city was set apart because of its distinctly Greek/not native Egyptian character; I agree, but obviously see it as making the opposite point that they do) . What we have in Alexandria is not just a bastion of Greek culture surrounded by native settlements, but in fact also a kind of “Greek satellite” that, by its long established social and cultural standing, came to overwhelm the preexisting Egyptian settlement upon which it was built. In reality, it is not different than what the Muslim Arabs would later do across the country, e.g., Cairo was build around the preexisting Egyptian settlement of Memphis, which is why the oldest section of the city is the Coptic area, containing the Roman fort of Babylon (the oldest remaining structure in the city; c.6th century BC) and many of the oldest extant Coptic churches in Egypt, such as the Hanging Church (el Moallaqa, 3rd century AD).

My apologies. My intention was not to say that the Coptic element of the Egyptian Church wasn’t there - or even significant (in fact I don’t think there is any grounds on which to make that argument). My point was more to the effect that the church itself was integrated. Greek transplant, and Copt, whatever the language these people had shared a country for hundreds of years, I don’t buy that the disagreement was an ethnic Greek/Copt one as it is made out to be, that both sides were led by Greeks, or at the very least Hellic Copts (that might be an oxymoron). Painting it as foreigners vs. natives, as Malphono was doing, was what I was taking issue with.

After all, there is a reason the insult 'melkite" was used to refer to those who maintained their connection with Constantinople, rather than a term with an ethnic meaning.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I meant to respond to ^^ this earlier, but didn’t.

I think you’re being a little bit myopic. Catholics, before the 20th century, engaged in quite a lot of proselytizing – for example, in the kingdom of Poland in 1595.

So when you say criticize the Orthodox because “there aren’t many Orthodox living in English-speaking countries” the question that comes to mind is, Would you prefer it if they had “stolen” a large portion of our members (rather than just engaging in proper evangelization as they have been doing)?

The argument that the Roman Catholic Church better because it is larger than the Orthodox Church carries no weight with any thinking person.
There are Eastern Orthodox in every English speaking country. We have a very active mission program all over the world.
There are many more Catholics in the US because there were a lot more immigrants from Roman Catholic countries than Orthodox countries. However we are growing in the United States and are opening new missions all over the place.
A lot of the spread of Roman Catholicism was the result of European colonialism. Latin America is mostly Catholic because Latin America was ruled by the Spanish who brought Roman Catholicism with them. No Orthodox country had colonies.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[malphono]

Painting it as foreigners vs. natives, as Malphono was doing, was what I was taking issue with.

Must have been an interesting picture I painted. I didn’t even know about. Whatever … the “foreign” part was what was Imperially imposed. One can read it any way one wishes, but it’s historical fact. I won’t comment further.

After all, there is a reason the insult 'melkite" was used to refer to those who maintained their connection with Constantinople, rather than a term with an ethnic meaning.

As a point of clarification, the term “Melkite” wasn’t an insult or anything of the sort. It was meant (big surprise here) to designate those those followed the Emperor and Chalcedon, and those who bore the designation did so willfully and proudly. And BTW, there were two groups called “Melkites” one being the Melkite Maximites, so named after Maximos II, who were adopting Greek Constantinopolitan usage, and the Melkite Maronites who held fast to their Syriac tradition. Fortunately, the Maronites dropped the “Melkite” part shortly thereafter.

And with that, my participation in this thread is ended. Too bad we don’t have an “ignore thread” function.

 

[frjohnmorris]

My apologies. My intention was not to say that the Coptic element of the Egyptian Church wasn’t there - or even significant (in fact I don’t think there is any grounds on which to make that argument). My point was more to the effect that the church itself was integrated. Greek transplant, and Copt, whatever the language these people had shared a country for hundreds of years, I don’t buy that the disagreement was an ethnic Greek/Copt one as it is made out to be, that both sides were led by Greeks, or at the very least Hellic Copts (that might be an oxymoron). Painting it as foreigners vs. natives, as Malphono was doing, was what I was taking issue with.

After all, there is a reason the insult 'melkite" was used to refer to those who maintained their connection with Constantinople, rather than a term with an ethnic meaning.

What is modern Alexandria was called Alexandria in Egypt because there were several cities in different countries named after Alexander the Great.
There are historians who agree with Malphono and who argue that the Non-Chalcedonians tended to be rural natives who were not Greek, while the Chalcedonians were Greek speaking people in Greek cities. Antioch, for example was a Greek speaking city, although it was in Syria.
There was no doubt an element of Egyptian nationalism in the Coptic schism from the rest of the Church. The people of Alexandria were upset after the 2nd Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I in 381, elevated the newly created see of Constantinople to 2nd rank reducing Alexandria to 3rd rank in seniority. There was a famous conflict between Pope Theophilus of Alexandria and St. John Chrysostom the Patriarch of Constantinople at the Synod of the Oak in 403. The conflict over Dioscorus considered a Saint by the Coptic Church further alienated the Alexandrians.
Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria presided over the Council of Ephesus in 449. This council, called The Robber Council by Pope St. Leo, acquitted the Monophysite Eutyches of the charge of heresy and deposed St. Flavian, the Patriarch of Constantinople who had condemned Eutyches for his heretical views. A group of monks led by Barsumas beat St. Flavian so severely that he died shortly after the council. Some accounts accuse Dioscorus of participating in the beating of St. Flavian. Dioscorus also refused to allow the Tome of Leo, a statement condemning Monophysitism written by Pope St. Leo to be read during the council. Instead the council excommunicated St. Leo.
The Council of Chalcedon in 451 condemned Eutyches and Monophysitism. The council also condemned Dioscorus for his behavior during the Council of Ephesus in 449 and ratified the Tome or Leo which it used along with the Letter of St. Cyril of Alexander to John of Antioch to prepare its final decree declaring that Christ is one person in two natures.
The Egyptian non-Chalcedonians refused to recognize the removal of Dioscorus who died in exile in 451. They also refused to accept St. Proterius who was chosen by Chalcedon to replace Dioscorus. In 457 the non-Chalcedonians elected Timothy Aelurus which means Timothy the Cat or Timothy the Badger to replace Dioscorus as their Pope. Meanwhile an anti-Chalcedonian mob murdered St. Proterius. The non-Chalcedonians in Egypt became the Coptic Church. Those Alexandrians who accepted Chalcedon became the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[dzheremi]

My apologies. My intention was not to say that the Coptic element of the Egyptian Church wasn’t there - or even significant (in fact I don’t think there is any grounds on which to make that argument).

Of course, yes. My apologies in turn; I didn’t mean to put you on the defensive, only to explain why the language-based argument of “But these were Greek-speaking cities!” is not quite the conclusive evidence that the Byzantines who wield it think it is (and Fr. John Morris is far from the first I’ve encountered to make that reasonable connection, so I do not blame him on that account). The linguistic situation in Egypt in those days was quite complex (as it is in some ways today if we look at the variety of Arabic dialects as well as the Nubian languages), such that there have been entire academic works written on it (see, for instance, Papaconstantinou [ed.] The Multilingual Experience in Egypt from the Ptolemies to the Abbasids; Surrey: Ashgate Pub. 2010). It is woefully simplistic, not to mention ultimately incorrect, to raise the objection that these were Greek cities, therefore obviously the true/correct/authentic/whatever See is that of the Greeks, not the Copts. By all means, object to Coptic Orthodox Egypt on theological or ecclesiological grounds all you want, but these are not linguistic arguments.

My point was more to the effect that the church itself was integrated.

Integrated – sure; native – no. Only the Copts are the native Egyptians, not the Greeks despite the huge footprint they left on Egypt’s culture. In the native tongue, this much is clear. Egyptians are remnkimi (lit. people/men of the land/‘black soil’ = Egypt); Greeks are ouweinin (not sure if that’s the right form, grammatically, but I’m not going to dig through Crum’s dictionary for one word). The difference was noted linguistically, even if Copts could also use the Greek or Greek-derived terms as appropriate (Aigyptos, Ellin, or whatever), which might lead to understandable confusion on the part of the Greeks and their spiritual descendents the EO who of course didn’t/don’t learn the language of the natives in the first place (so they can marvel at how many of their words are in Coptic, but are largely unaware that they’re only looking at one strata of Coptic or Egyptian language and its use, so their linguistic arguments are not strong).

Greek transplant, and Copt, whatever the language these people had shared a country for hundreds of years,

Agreed.

I don’t buy that the disagreement was an ethnic Greek/Copt one as it is made out to be, that both sides were led by Greeks, or at the very least Hellic Copts (that might be an oxymoron). Painting it as foreigners vs. natives, as Malphono was doing, was what I was taking issue with.

That’s not how I read Malphono’s statements, but he can explain what he meant if he wishes to do so.

After all, there is a reason the insult 'melkite" was used to refer to those who maintained their connection with Constantinople, rather than a term with an ethnic meaning.

Now you’re heading into Syriac territory, and not knowing Syriac myself I’m going to back away from this one. I’ve read that it was applied pejoratively, and also (more recently) that it was willingly taken up (these sources might’ve been referring to different eras, however). Regardless, Egyptian (read: Copt) is an ethnic identifier. The idea of an Egyptian Arab identity really only became popular with Nasser, which for all intents and purposes was yesterday (and when the Arabs came, they borrowed “Aigyptos” into their language as “Gibt” or “Qibt”, which is the source of “Copt”, and they used it specifically to refer to the native Egyptians, e.g., the native non-Arabs; only later did it take on the meaning of “Egyptian Christian”, and even that is not 100% accepted to this day, as there are some individuals who do identify themselves as “Coptic Muslims”). So while in some sense I agree that this was not an ethnic conflict, insofar as the Greeks were integrated (and the Copts, being the natives, were never in need of integration into Egypt…save perhaps for the Greek/Hellenized ruling class in the cities, hence why people like St. Shenouda received Greek education despite being fiercely Coptic), there was at least resistance to Greek rule and Greek norms being imposed upon a church which had developed its own national character, its own unique theology, and its own religious practices – all of which the Chalcedonians then sought to either destroy, suppress, or otherwise bring into conformity with their own practices and theology. In other words, we willingly and gladly took on the Greek hymns of St. Severus et. al. as part of our shared patrimony (both Copts and Greeks, without distinction). We did not willingly accept (and do not accept now) the imposition of Chalcedonian patriarchs such as Proterius, nor the attempts to anathematize those who chanted the Triasgion according to the Oriental understanding of the same, nor the attempts to slander and condemn our saints, etc. And the very real reminder of all of these things is the continued presence of Chalcedonian sees in Alexandria and Antioch.

(cont’d. below)

 

[dzheremi]

Speaking on a personal level, I am willing to say “all of these things were so long ago; clearly the EO have developed their own traditions around their sees and even though I do not agree with their version of history, I am fine with differences in practice vis-a-vis the Trisagion or whatever, and I do not put reverence of a man above communion, e.g., it’s fine if the EO would not want to venerate St. Dioscorus, as the Armenians already don’t.” Of course that’s just me and the rest of my church is maybe not with me on that (it varies), as of course we do not want to condemn our fathers such as St. Dioscorus. Therein lies the problem: Things like the EO still publicly anathematizing the Armenians for not having the Byzantine cheesefare week (I just about fell out of my chair when I read those texts; “but the accursed Armenians this week do not eat cheese…” or whatever; I’m sorry, but that’s just really, really funny to me), or publicly anathematizing St. Severus or whoever else are a problem. In fact, I have to say that the condemnations woven into EO celebrations strike me as odd. Maybe I’m not paying close enough attention, but I don’t remember hearing any condemnations of individuals in the COC liturgies I’ve been to (maybe they’re in St. Cyril or St. Gregory? Those are hardly ever used, so I don’t remember), other than perhaps some vague references to “enemies” or “idolators” in certain hymns like “Tentheeno” or the Verses of the Cymbals (neither of which are liturgical anyway). Hmm. We know we condemn them anyway, but we don’t generally use the liturgy to wag our fingers at those we consider non-Orthodox (or if we do, we save that for the reading from the Synaxarium, like the gentlemen that we are ). Heck, we don’t even condemn by name Pope Leo I of Rome in any place that I’ve noticed, and judging from the comments Abouna had to say about the Tome when he was catechizing me, we really, really, really hate the Tome.

So maybe there are some differences in emphasis or approach, too.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And I thought arguing with Calvinists was tough. Wow.

 

[josie_L]

The argument that the Roman Catholic Church better because it is larger than the Orthodox Church carries no weight with any thinking person.
There are Eastern Orthodox in every English speaking country. We have a very active mission program all over the world.
There are many more Catholics in the US because there were a lot more immigrants from Roman Catholic countries than Orthodox countries. However we are growing in the United States and are opening new missions all over the place.
A lot of the spread of Roman Catholicism was the result of European colonialism. Latin America is mostly Catholic because Latin America was ruled by the Spanish who brought Roman Catholicism with them. No Orthodox country had colonies.

Archpriest John W. Morris

European colonialism made Catholicism more accessible to the world at large, but it did not make the converting of natives an easier task, i.e., many Catholic missionaries suffered major hardships and/or risked their lives to go into unknown, unchartered lands to preach the Word of God. The spread of Catholicism is due mainly to the dedication of hundreds if not thousands of missionaries, priests, nuns …etc., not colonialism.

 

[Nine_Two]

Must have been an interesting picture I painted. I didn’t even know about. Whatever … the “foreign” part was what was Imperially imposed. One can read it any way one wishes, but it’s historical fact. I won’t comment further.

While Egypt had maintained a great deal of its culture and identity under Roman, and later Byzantine rule. Antioch was a different matter. It was Imperial and there was nothing foreign about anything that the courts imposed on it. To call it such makes discussion impossible.

 

[Peter_J]

European colonialism made Catholicism more accessible to the world at large, but it did not make the converting of natives an easier task, i.e., many Catholic missionaries suffered major hardships and/or risked their lives to go into unknown, unchartered lands to preach the Word of God. The spread of Catholicism is due mainly to the dedication of hundreds if not thousands of missionaries, priests, nuns …etc., not colonialism.

Notwithstanding the fact that I’m a fellow Catholic, I nevertheless find this ^^ too difficult of swallow. (Whitewash tend to stick in the throat. )

 

[spina1953]

I thought the Coptic language was the language of the Egyptians, that was my understanding, am I wrong about that?

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, Coptic is the latest developmental stage of the Egyptian language, currently only preserved liturgically in the Coptic Orthodox Church (it is not spoken natively by anyone).

 

[frjohnmorris]

Things like the EO still publicly anathematizing the Armenians for not having the Byzantine cheesefare week (I just about fell out of my chair when I read those texts; “but the accursed Armenians this week do not eat cheese…” or whatever; I’m sorry, but that’s just really, really funny to me), or publicly anathematizing St. Severus or whoever else are a problem.End Quote}

I have never read or heard any Eastern Orthodox source that condemned the Armenians for not having Byzantine Cheesefare Week.

As I wrote before, I am not sure that it is really doctrine continues to divide Eastern Orthodox from Oriental Orthodox. It seems to be more matter of historical interpretation.
That the Oriental Orthodox consider Saints people Eastern Orthodox consider schismatics or heretics and the Eastern Orthodox consider people Saints they consider schismatics or heretics is a problem that I do not know how to resolve. I would be interested in learning how the Coptic Catholics deal with this issue.

I wrote that some historians consider the schism the result of antagonism between the Greek speaking cities and the non-Greek countryside. I did not write that I embraced this theory. Fr. John Meyendorff rejected it. However, I cannot help but see a certain amount of local nationalism in the mix.

Fr. John Meyendorff wrote that the problem was fundamentalism about the writings of St. Cyril of Alexandria. The non-Chalcedonians could not accept Christological definitions that did not use the exact words of St. Cyril. However, they seem to have forgotten St. Cyril’s letter to John of Antioch, which recognized that one could express the same doctrine using different terms.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Nine_Two]

Speaking on a personal level, I am willing to say “all of these things were so long ago; clearly the EO have developed their own traditions around their sees and even though I do not agree with their version of history, I am fine with differences in practice vis-a-vis the Trisagion or whatever, and I do not put reverence of a man above communion, e.g., it’s fine if the EO would not want to venerate St. Dioscorus, as the Armenians already don’t.” Of course that’s just me and the rest of my church is maybe not with me on that (it varies), as of course we do not want to condemn our fathers such as St. Dioscorus. Therein lies the problem: Things like the EO still publicly anathematizing the Armenians for not having the Byzantine cheesefare week (I just about fell out of my chair when I read those texts; “but the accursed Armenians this week do not eat cheese…” or whatever; I’m sorry, but that’s just really, really funny to me), or publicly anathematizing St. Severus or whoever else are a problem. In fact, I have to say that the condemnations woven into EO celebrations strike me as odd. Maybe I’m not paying close enough attention, but I don’t remember hearing any condemnations of individuals in the COC liturgies I’ve been to (maybe they’re in St. Cyril or St. Gregory? Those are hardly ever used, so I don’t remember), other than perhaps some vague references to “enemies” or “idolators” in certain hymns like “Tentheeno” or the Verses of the Cymbals (neither of which are liturgical anyway). Hmm. We know we condemn them anyway, but we don’t generally use the liturgy to wag our fingers at those we consider non-Orthodox (or if we do, we save that for the reading from the Synaxarium, like the gentlemen that we are ). Heck, we don’t even condemn by name Pope Leo I of Rome in any place that I’ve noticed, and judging from the comments Abouna had to say about the Tome when he was catechizing me, we really, really, really hate the Tome.

So maybe there are some differences in emphasis or approach, too.

I’m not experienced enough with the Coptic liturgical cycle (or even the liturgy period) to really comment, I will clarify that we don’t condemn anyone in the liturgy proper, they are condemned on very specific feast days in the hymns, and not even necessarily directly.

For example, the troparion to St. Athenasius:

• O holy father Athanasius,

  like a pillar of orthodoxy
  you refuted the heretical nonsense of Arius
  by insisting that the Father and the Son are equal in essence.
  O venerable father, beg Christ our God to save our souls. *

But I agree with you, throughout the years people have gotten worked up over some silly things. Often you have to wonder if they were just searching for a reason to be mad at each other.

 

[dzheremi]

Okay, then…well, forgive me, then I should change my observation to the fact that we do not do that. As I do not know Byzantine terminology, when I read that the triodion is a service book for the divine services during certain parts of the year, I assumed that means it is used liturgically during those periods. And of course it is in the Triodion for Cheesefare Sunday where you may read: “During this week the accursed Armenians fast from eggs and cheese, but we, to refute their damnable heresy, do eat both eggs and cheese for the entire week” (source), which – liturgy or not – is a very funny thing to say (as though the development of different fasting schedules or modes of fasting is in itself a heresy, or that you show the strength of your conviction by eating cheese…no wonder my Coptic friends always joke about “going Greek” during the ‘extra’ time of our Great Fast that has no parallel in the EO church). I have never seen a hymn for condemning a person or an entire communion in the COC, but from what I have read and heard from EOs this seems to be a fairly popular practice in your communion. It’s a different mindset is all I really meant. But I appreciate the correction.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Okay, then…well, forgive me, then I should change my observation to the fact that we do not do that. As I do not know Byzantine terminology, when I read that the triodion is a service book for the divine services during certain parts of the year, I assumed that means it is used liturgically during those periods. And of course it is in the Triodion for Cheesefare Sunday where you may read: “During this week the accursed Armenians fast from eggs and cheese, but we, to refute their damnable heresy, do eat both eggs and cheese for the entire week” (source), which – liturgy or not – is a very funny thing to say (as though the development of different fasting schedules or modes of fasting is in itself a heresy, or that you show the strength of your conviction by eating cheese…no wonder my Coptic friends always joke about “going Greek” during the ‘extra’ time of our Great Fast that has no parallel in the EO church). I have never seen a hymn for condemning a person or an entire communion in the COC, but from what I have read and heard from EOs this seems to be a fairly popular practice in your communion. It’s a different mindset is all I really meant. But I appreciate the correction.

I looked at my copy of the Triodion and the condemnation of the Armenians is not in the English edition.
I basically agree with Fr. Erickson’s article.
Condemning those considered heretics by name is fairly rare in Eastern Orthodox liturgical texts and can easily omitted. The only time that I can think of when it is done is during 3 feasts commemorating the Ecumenical Councils. All you need is a black pen to ink out a few words. Both sides have their fundamentalists who need to be marginalized. Just because the monks of Mt. Athos say something that does not make it an official declaration of the Orthodox Church. What is important is agreement on doctrine, not agreement on historical incidents or personalities. It would seem reasonable that a council representing both sides could draw up documents expressing our doctrinal agreement and resolve the problems that stand in the way of the restoration of Communion if there is good will on both sides. If the Non-Chalcedonians accept the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, it would be a violation of the 5th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II in 553, which declared that Chalcedon must be interpreted in conformity with the Christology of St. Cyril, to consider them heretics.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

Okay, then…well, forgive me, then I should change my observation to the fact that we do not do that. As I do not know Byzantine terminology, when I read that the triodion is a service book for the divine services during certain parts of the year, I assumed that means it is used liturgically during those periods.

The Triodion contains the texts for services during the pre-Lenten period, Great Lent and Holy Week. It is called the Triodion, because the canons usually have only 3 odes.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Josie,

European colonialism made Catholicism more accessible to the world at large, but it did not make the converting of natives an easier task, i.e., many Catholic missionaries suffered major hardships and/or risked their lives to go into unknown, unchartered lands to preach the Word of God. The spread of Catholicism is due mainly to the dedication of hundreds if not thousands of missionaries, priests, nuns …etc., not colonialism.

FYI, Fr. John is a professional historian. I’m sure he knows about the suffering and martyrdoms of Latin Catholic martyrs in the missions. I’m sure he knows that the imperial strategy was to use the Church to “pacify” natives.

And I’m pretty sure the only thing he meant was that since the secular powers in the Catholic countries had heavy colonial interests, it was easier for the missionary Church to “hitch” along. Wouldn’t you agree? (face it, the Vatican historically did not have its own navy for like 95% of the colonial period). The traditional Orthodox countries were mostly either landlocked or did not have the kind of relationship with the secular government that the Catholic Church had. The closest comparable relationship between Church and State was in Russia, but AFAIK, Ruissia’s maritime capability was nowhere near that of the Western European countries.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Randy_Carson]

And I’m pretty sure the only thing he meant was that since the secular powers in the Catholic countries had heavy colonial interests, it was easier for the missionary Church to “hitch” along. Wouldn’t you agree? (face it, the Vatican historically did not have its own navy for like 95% of the colonial period). The traditional Orthodox countries were mostly either landlocked or did not have the kind of relationship with the secular government that the Catholic Church had. The closest comparable relationship between Church and State was in Russia, but AFAIK, Russia’s maritime capability was nowhere near that of the Western European countries.

And one implication of the fact that Catholicism WAS able to make disciples of all nations (or lots more of them, at least) is…?