Catholic and Orthodox

[dzheremi]

In relation to the bolded…section.

This is where I see a problem and it really is a matter of coming at the issues with a “debating” attitude instead of a conciliatory attitude. It smacks of I’m right, your wrong".
Far better to say that, while nothing can be compromised, much can be more deeply understood. The more substantial the issue, the more we need to take this approach in humility and prayer working through language, interpretation, culture, history and other factors to get to the essential truths of the issues.

As I tried to explain above in the portion about attitude and what it does or doesn’t do to the dialogues, I don’t see this as a practical impediment. It is rather a natural result of the position taken by Orthodox in general (EO and OO) that Orthodoxy is correct and non-Orthodoxy is not. So, yes, “I’m right, you’re wrong”, but hopefully phrased in a more loving, brotherly way. If the Roman Catholic Church is not willing to say the same with regard to the Orthodox (as it has historically had no problem saying) it is of little consequence, as they still believe and teach those things that are at variance with Orthodoxy. Let’s not make it all about how one side seems to the other. The substantial differences in doctrinal teaching (and, indeed, how doctrine is arrived at and codified to begin with) are enough to substantiate schism even if Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew or Kyrill or whoever else were to spend every day together holding hands while skipping through a field of poppies and going on lovely picnics or whatever.

I remain hopeful - but neither do I expect a 1000 years worth of problems to go away in a single generation.

.
That’s good.

 

[dvdjs]

Let’s not make it all about how one side seems to the other. The substantial differences in doctrinal teaching (and, indeed, how doctrine is arrived at and codified to begin with) are enough to substantiate schism …

How do we know this? There are two problems. First, how do we go about understanding what is " enough to substantiate schism"? Second, how do we reach a point of true understanding of the positions held others?

The significance of the latter point should be obvious to a Copt: after many centuries, both the EOC and the CC have made substantial progress with the OOC in understanding each other’s Christology, and have made common Christological statements. It took a long, long time to overcome misunderstanding. The take-home message is that one should never presuppose that we are approaching one another other with full knowledge of each other’s view. We need more humble listening, open to new understanding.

I think that this attitude is helping the contemporary joint theological discussions. On the net, the matter is entirely different. There, discussants cannot even be relied on to speak with authority on the teaching so their own churches, let alone others. So we get long threads with very substance.

As to the first point: absent the finding of an ecumenical council, what can be said with authority? What is sufficient for schism; what is necessary? This is an awesome question. One might imagine that the variance allowed for in the first milenium would provide a heuristic guide about what variance should be admissible today. Sadly it is rare to find an thoughtful discussion of this point. Instead we just see claims, without justification, that there is enough.

 

[dzheremi]

How do we know this?

Because that’s what the Orthodox that I’ve talked to, listened to, and read say substantiates the schism. Doctrinal differences. Reading through some of the replies in this thread I’m starting to get the impression that this might be another major difference in outlook between RCs and Orthodox. It almost seems like some people here see the schism as a sort of clash of personalities, with doctrinal differences being a sort of negligible squabble. It isn’t so, and unfortunately since the Catholic mindset is not the only one at work here, it isn’t enough to just endlessly question how the other side sees things in hopes that there will be some massive change in mindset (“oh, NOW I get it! Okay! You’re alright! Problem solved!” say the monks of Mt. Athos…), Surely the Orthodox too have hoped and may continue to hope for a substantial change in Rome.

There are two problems. First, how do we go about understanding what is " enough to substantiate schism"?

We look at what both parties say substantiates the schism.

Second, how do we reach a point of true understanding of the positions held others?

We ask them, and we compare their answers with their actions and proclamations past and present to see what they believe (keeping in mind that actions speak louder than words).

The significance of the latter point should be obvious to a Copt: after many centuries, both the EOC and the CC have made substantial progress with the OOC in understanding each other’s Christology, and have made common Christological statements.

An irrelevant example. As per above, the Copts can substantiate the position that they’ve always historically held with reference to the well-known statements against monophysitism going back to the time of the original post-Chalcedonian fallout (as well as before, simply by reading the Christological statements of St. Cyril), through the ages until today and beyond (and God-willing forever, as monophysitism is especially despised given that this false charge has been the cause of so much trouble for the Copts).

This is not comparable to the situation with Roman Catholics because of various doctrinal developments (what I suspect would be explained as developments in understanding from the Roman view) that have led to a situation wherein one can find various proclamations of past Popes that conflict with modern Popes, past councils that establish norms that are no longer followed, etc. As the aforementioned Fr. Damick puts it in his “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy” series (podcast and now book), Roman Catholicism is not “backwards compatible”.

One might imagine that the variance allowed for in the first milenium would provide a heuristic guide about what variance should be admissible today.

And it still does in the Oriental Orthodox communion.

Sadly it is rare to find an thoughtful discussion of this point. Instead we just see claims, without justification, that there is enough.

The reality of schism is something other than the sum of claims from either side, whether you feel them substantiated or not. I rather agree with the EP’s idea that we have become ontologically different. Justification for that stance? Look at this thread. Look at the literally thousands (millions?) of documents by people who actually do actually speak with “authority” (not you, not me, not anyone here) that deal with our differences.

 

[JRKH]

How do we know this? There are two problems. First, how do we go about understanding what is " enough to substantiate schism"? Second, how do we reach a point of true understanding of the positions held others?

The significance of the latter point should be obvious to a Copt: after many centuries, both the EOC and the CC have made substantial progress with the OOC in understanding each other’s Christology, and have made common Christological statements. It took a long, long time to overcome misunderstanding. The take-home message is that one should never presuppose that we are approaching one another other with full knowledge of each other’s view. We need more humble listening, open to new understanding.

I think that this attitude is helping the contemporary joint theological discussions. On the net, the matter is entirely different. There, discussants cannot even be relied on to speak with authority on the teaching so their own churches, let alone others. So we get long threads with very substance.

As to the first point: absent the finding of an ecumenical council, what can be said with authority? What is sufficient for schism; what is necessary? This is an awesome question. One might imagine that the variance allowed for in the first milenium would provide a heuristic guide about what variance should be admissible today. Sadly it is rare to find an thoughtful discussion of this point. Instead we just see claims, without justification, that there is enough.

Excellent Post.

 

[dvdjs]

Because that’s what the Orthodox that I’ve talked to, listened to, and read say substantiates the schism. Doctrinal differences.

 

[dzheremi]

Sorry, this is trivial. Who are you talking to, what is the depth of their expertise, and what is the extent of their authority?

Orthodox priests and Orthodox laypeople, and…they’re Orthodox?

Well, unless people are willing to undertake a serious analysis of both of the issues I raised, rather than just claiming understanding and sufficiency for schism, we will never know.

What issues are those? All you said is “how can we know”. That’s not an issue. That’s just trying to raise doubt over things that many people on both sides don’t see as debatable.

Is there a definitive statement on this substance from any “party”? (I am not talking about the silly lists posted by someone or another on the net.) There is no such list from Rome regarding Apostolic churches; their members are welcome to communion in the CC. So what, specifically, are you talking about?

Not that I know of. The Orthodox don’t generally make “definitive” statements about those outside of their communions. But of course there are many examples you can look to in order to find out what the Orthodox find objectionable about the Roman church. The aforementioned Fr. Damick does a good job of summarizing Orthodox objections to Rome in his “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy” series of podcasts on Ancient Faith Radio, From the Coptic perspective, you could read many sources, such at the Q & A section of Southern U.S. Disocese website (with answers from HG Bishop Youssef).

It is profoundly relevant.

I do not think so, for the reason I’ve already given. The content of the disagreement between the EO and OO is different than the disagreements between either and the Roman communion. I do not think it is a comparable situation. You would like it be approached as you see the EO/OO divide being approached, I understand that, but it isn’t going to be.

Communion was broken. (Was intercommunion permitted by the OOs with the EOC and CC?)

No. To the best of my knowledge it still isn’t, barring some possible pastoral agreements that don’t really apply to where I live (there is a Coptic Orthodox church here, as well as in neighboring Arizona that the Copts sometimes visit since it is the priest of that church who celebrates the liturgy usually once or twice a month here).

I don’t know what monks on Athos think (and don’t care)

That’s a problem insofar as the opinions of those monks are often echoed in the resistance or suspicion of some EO towards the OO. Notice how not caring or attempting to maneuver around such objections has not led to intercommunion between the EO and OO,

but that theological issue has been laid to rest - precisely because people put aside what everyone had thought and said for 1700 years, and began to speak and to listen with greater care and understanding.

And yet there’s no intercommunion. Care and understanding are wonderful, but are not some magical salve that will fix everything. Only God, and a willingness on all sides to profess that the same faith is shared across the communion, can do that.

 

[dzheremi]

You may say it, he may say it, but is it true? This is the frustrating part of these discussions - Orthodox foisting ideas upon the CC that are alien to the CCs self-understanding.

Ha! Pot, kettle, black.

So again: Can the Copts be understood, in truth, to be monophysite heretics? Some people have surely said so! But, Copts have denied it as surely as Catholics would deny the essence of Fr. Damick’s (and your) charge.

For the third time: The difference in the two situations is that the Copts’ rejection of the charge can be substantiated with reference to their own historical documents and positions. With regard to the Roman Catholic Church, any such charges against it by the Orthodox (or at least any that I take seriously) are always with reference to the RCs’ own documents and positions. Do you see the difference? Catholics can certainly similarly use their own historical positions to refute a given charge (Rome was once Orthodox, after all), but it is a little less convincing given subsequent centuries of doctrinal development on the part of Rome which alienate it from its own past history, in the Orthodox view.

Yes, the schism is real. But is it founded on fact or myth? Theology or power politics? Sober understanding of differences or polemical misunderstandings?

A little bit from column A, a little bit from column B. Nothing is ever entirely one side or the other. Both are in schism from one another. That is the reality. But when it comes to theology (which is what the Orthodox say is the sticking point in this whole mess), the Orthodox see themselves as having preserved the true faith in ways that the Roman church has not.

You have been asked previously to elaborate on the meaning of this remark. IIRC you declined to do so.

Forgive me, I figured that you as an Easterner would be familiar with the Patriarch’s remarks (and they have been posted here on CAF before). Here is a transcript of the speech in which the EP made that statement. I cannot elaborate on it any more or any better than he already does, since of course it is his idea, not mine. I just happen to agree with it.
.

I have not seen a single coherent elaboration of the vaunted “ontological difference”. I have not see you make an effort to elucidate the meaning of this remark. I haven’t the vaguest idea of whether or not that ontological difference is a post-schism development or already was rooted first milenium. I have no idea if it is a sufficient cause for schism.

See above for the EP’s elucidation of this idea.

A reference to millions of documents by “authorities”? Let’s link to a few, with attribution so that we can talk of depth of expertise and the accuracy of facts. I could point out that there is much writing on the the heresy of the OOs. What would that prove?

I’ve already linked the SUSCopts website, which contains some good material by the bishop of the diocese I am now in. There are also 41 results for “Roman Catholic” on orthodoxebooks.org, a repository of Coptic Orthodox writings. I have no idea how many of them may be useful to this discussion because frankly I don’t have to sit here and read them all. I have to go now. But no doubt there are things to mull over there (and there may be even more using other search terms), if you wish. I am less interested than you in going over some point-by-point list of what you find wrong with whatever you find there. I trust them to be Orthodox, which is of course not always (or perhaps I should say “not ever”) the same as saying that they present their objections in a way consistent with how the Roman Church sees itself and its doctrines. That is irrelevant if the point is truly to understand the Orthodox as they see the faith in relation to that of the non-Orthodox, just as it would not fly for an Orthodox person to object to Roman Catholic assertions that they, not the Orthodox, contain the fullness of truth. Of course they’d say that – it’s what they believe! The fact that they’re wrong…well, that’s why we’re not in communion, isn’t it?

And so here we are, back at square one because we make mutually exclusive claims to the truth. Ho hum.

 

[Marybeloved]

Ha! Pot, kettle, black.

For the third time: The difference in the two situations is that the Copts’ rejection of the charge can be substantiated with reference to their own historical documents and positions. With regard to the Roman Catholic Church, any such charges against it by the Orthodox (or at least any that I take seriously) are always with reference to the RCs’ own documents and positions. Do you see the difference? Catholics can certainly similarly use their own historical positions to refute a given charge (Rome was once Orthodox, after all), but it is a little less convincing given subsequent centuries of doctrinal development on the part of Rome which alienate it from its own past history, in the Orthodox view.

A little bit from column A, a little bit from column B. Nothing is ever entirely one side or the other. Both are in schism from one another. That is the reality. But when it comes to theology (which is what the Orthodox say is the sticking point in this whole mess), the Orthodox see themselves as having preserved the true faith in ways that the Roman church has not.

Forgive me, I figured that you as an Easterner would be familiar with the Patriarch’s remarks (and they have been posted here on CAF before). Here is a transcript of the speech in which the EP made that statement. I cannot elaborate on it any more or any better than he already does, since of course it is his idea, not mine. I just happen to agree with it.
.

See above for the EP’s elucidation of this idea.

I’ve already linked the SUSCopts website, which contains some good material by the bishop of the diocese I am now in. There are also 41 results for “Roman Catholic” on orthodoxebooks.org, a repository of Coptic Orthodox writings. I have no idea how many of them may be useful to this discussion because frankly I don’t have to sit here and read them all. I have to go now. But no doubt there are things to mull over there (and there may be even more using other search terms), if you wish. I am less interested than you in going over some point-by-point list of what you find wrong with whatever you find there. I trust them to be Orthodox, which is of course not always (or perhaps I should say “not ever”) the same as saying that they present their objections in a way consistent with how the Roman Church sees itself and its doctrines. That is irrelevant if the point is truly to understand the Orthodox as they see the faith in relation to that of the non-Orthodox, just as it would not fly for an Orthodox person to object to Roman Catholic assertions that they, not the Orthodox, contain the fullness of truth. Of course they’d say that – it’s what they believe! The fact that they’re wrong…well, that’s why we’re not in communion, isn’t it?

And so here we are, back at square one because we make mutually exclusive claims to the truth. Ho hum.

You truly would rather the division persist forever, wouldn’t you? What is it that we cannot develop deeper understanding on? And what matters are these (doctrinally) about which the RC has contradicted herself? Or is it all the same to you, doctrine, practice, expression of the truths in different traditions? Is a disagreement over which calender to use enough to break communion?

 

[dzheremi]

You truly would rather the division persist forever, wouldn’t you?

No, not at all. I would love for Rome to return to Orthodoxy. We commemorate Roman saints in the Coptic Orthodox Church, One of the greatest of the monasteries is in fact the Monastery of the Romans (Paromeos/Deir el Baramous). But we cannot share communion with Rome until we share faith, and we’re not currently sharing it. Division lasts as long as that is the case.

What is it that we cannot develop deeper understanding on? And what matters are these (doctrinally) about which the RC has contradicted herself? Or is it all the same to you, doctrine, practice, expression of the truths in different traditions? Is a disagreement over which calender to use enough to break communion?

We can develop a deeper understanding on many things, and indeed that has been the result of many ecumenical talks (see HE Metropolitan Bishoy’s page that I linked earlier for some examples). But no amount of common understanding can replace common faith. We can understand each other perfectly well and still disagree.

The Roman Catholic Church has contradicted herself most plainly on every matter on which she once held the Orthodox faith and now does not. The particulars will vary from EO to OO and by level of internet belligerency )), but the well-known ones that are mostly common to both that you’re likely to hear are…well, well-known: Papal dogmas, the filioque, understanding of the faith and the sacraments, ascetic life, etc. Pretty much everything that it means to be Christian that is of much import, in my opinion, hence my agreement with the EP even though I’m not in communion with him, either.

 

[jam070406]

No, not at all. I would love for Rome to return to Orthodoxy. We commemorate Roman saints in the Coptic Orthodox Church, One of the greatest of the monasteries is in fact the Monastery of the Romans (Paromeos/Deir el Baramous). But we cannot share communion with Rome until we share faith, and we’re not currently sharing it. Division lasts as long as that is the case.

We can develop a deeper understanding on many things, and indeed that has been the result of many ecumenical talks (see HE Metropolitan Bishoy’s page that I linked earlier for some examples). But no amount of common understanding can replace common faith. We can understand each other perfectly well and still disagree.

The Roman Catholic Church has contradicted herself most plainly on every matter on which she once held the Orthodox faith and now does not. The particulars will vary from EO to OO and by level of internet belligerency )), but the well-known ones that are mostly common to both that you’re likely to hear are…well, well-known: Papal dogmas, the filioque, understanding of the faith and the sacraments, ascetic life, etc. Pretty much everything that it means to be Christian that is of much import, in my opinion, hence my agreement with the EP even though I’m not in communion with him, either.

Just because East and West developed different understandings to the same mysteries, with the West going deeper to further develop those mysteries, doesn’t mean the RCC “contradicted” itself. The West has had many Saints and spread the gospel to many regions. So to say the West changed what it means to be Christian and somehow doesn’t know what is important, as if, only the East can be Christians, is extremely insulting.

 

[dvdjs]

Orthodox priests and Orthodox laypeople, and…they’re Orthodox?

OK. Presumably they are not completely ignorant - although we get lots of just chrimated types here who really are. But the depth of their knowledge is, from my own experience with Orthodox laity and clergy, all of the map. They are not infallible.

What issues are those? All you said is “how can we know”. That’s not an issue. That’s just trying to raise doubt over things that many people on both sides don’t see as debatable.

The issues I raised are fundamental: what are our beliefs, how are they different, and is that difference sufficient for separation? The fact that some have no doubts and see matters as not debatable is irrelevant.

I do not think so, for the reason I’ve already given. The content of the disagreement between the EO and OO is different than the disagreements between either and the Roman communion. I do not think it is a comparable situation. You would like it be approached as you see the EO/OO divide being approached, I understand that, but it isn’t going to be.

This is either fantasy or it points to the fact that schisms are not about theology but politics and polemics. After all, there is a finding of an ecumencial council behind the separation of the OOs. An Ecumencial Council. There is no such force behind the separation of OOs and EOs. Fascinating.

And yet there’s no intercommunion. Care and understanding are wonderful, but are not some magical salve that will fix everything. Only God, and a willingness on all sides to profess that the same faith is shared across the communion, can do that.

So theologians agree that the difference in faith was really a misunderstanding of each others faith. So, in reality, the faith is the same. But schism remains. Why?

 

[dvdjs]

Ha! Pot, kettle, black.

Not sure what you mean. Let me be clear that I have no problem with anyone saying anything correct about the Catholic church; I only have a problem when the claims are incorrect. If you wish to accuse me of something, be a little more clear.

For the third time: The difference in the two situations is that the Copts’ rejection of the charge can be substantiated with reference to their own historical documents and positions. With regard to the Roman Catholic Church, any such charges against it by the Orthodox (or at least any that I take seriously) are always with reference to the RCs’ own documents and positions. Do you see the difference? Catholics can certainly similarly use their own historical positions to refute a given charge (Rome was once Orthodox, after all), but it is a little less convincing given subsequent centuries of doctrinal development on the part of Rome which alienate it from its own past history, in the Orthodox view.

No, this still makes no sense to me.

First, you bypass the key point: if it is so simple and clear, then why did it lead to a schism has endured for 17 centuries. The Chalcedonians had to be misunderstanding the Orientals. If that is possible, what else other misunderstandings are out there? In the face of this reality you appear to fall back to a claim of obvious differences, the evidence being that people say so. Curious.

Second, you presuppose that the CC cannot adopt the same posture as the Copts because their faith has changed. But that is not a correct assertion.

A little bit from column A, a little bit from column B. Nothing is ever entirely one side or the other. Both are in schism from one another. That is the reality. But when it comes to theology (which is what the Orthodox say is the sticking point in this whole mess), the Orthodox see themselves as having preserved the true faith in ways that the Roman church has not.

And that a priori is what needs to be discarded in favor of real analysis.

Forgive me, I figured that you as an Easterner would be familiar with the Patriarch’s remarks (and they have been posted here on CAF before). Here is a transcript of the speech in which the EP made that statement. I cannot elaborate on it any more or any better than he already does, since of course it is his idea, not mine. I just happen to agree with it.

Of course I am familiar with the talk. The substance of which has almost nothing to do with your use of it. That is why, in this thread and others, I have asked you what you mean. Still no answer.

…I don’t have to sit here and read them all. I have to go now. But no doubt there are things to mull over there (and there may be even more using other search terms), if you wish. I am less interested than you in going over some point-by-point list of what you find wrong with whatever you find there. I trust them to be Orthodox, which is of course not always (or perhaps I should say “not ever”) the same as saying that they present their objections in a way consistent with how the Roman Church sees itself and its doctrines. That is irrelevant if the point is truly to understand the Orthodox as they see the faith in relation to that of the non-Orthodox, just as it would not fly for an Orthodox person to object to Roman Catholic assertions that they, not the Orthodox, contain the fullness of truth. Of course they’d say that – it’s what they believe! The fact that they’re wrong…well, that’s why we’re not in communion, isn’t it?

And so here we are, back at square one because we make mutually exclusive claims to the truth. Ho hum.

No, it is not. I am not at all sure what you are saying here. It almost sounds like you consider OO writings on the Catholic faith as an essential part of the OO faith. That is kool-aid orthodoxy. Surely you are not thinking this way.

We makes claims to Truth. You have not established that these claims are mutually exclusive.We make claims to historical truths, and observations about one another. No one claims - except a cult - would claim these as Truth. No one claims them as revealed and irreformable. That is why there is something to be gained by talking.

 

[dvdjs]

. But we cannot share communion with Rome until we share faith, and we’re not currently sharing it. Division lasts as long as that is the case.
…
The Roman Catholic Church has contradicted herself most plainly on every matter on which she once held the Orthodox faith and now does not. The particulars will vary from EO to OO and by level of internet belligerency )), but the well-known ones that are mostly common to both that you’re likely to hear are…well, well-known: Papal dogmas, the filioque, understanding of the faith and the sacraments, ascetic life, etc. Pretty much everything that it means to be Christian that is of much import, in my opinion, hence my agreement with the EP even though I’m not in communion with him, either.

These matters have been discussed many times on many threads. Whatever one makes of the arguments, it is plain, that the notion of *plain *contradiction is not supported by the facts. As to sharing the faith, you again and again fail to detail precisely what is not shared and how that is essential to the faith.

 

[dzheremi]

Just because East and West developed different understandings to the same mysteries, with the West going deeper to further develop those mysteries, doesn’t mean the RCC “contradicted” itself. The West has had many Saints and spread the gospel to many regions. So to say the West changed what it means to be Christian and somehow doesn’t know what is important, as if, only the East can be Christians, is extremely insulting.

I didn’t say that or anything like that. Regarding the West’s understanding of the sacraments or mysteries, the development of doctrine or dogma surrounding this aspect of Christian life paralleled the general intellectual development of the West as it became increasingly rationalistic. What was previously truly considered a mystery then became a matter of process, and this undercurrent continues in modern Roman Catholicism in many different respects.

I personally don’t see this as a problem for those who for some reason need that kind of epistemological presentation, but just the same feel that this impulse can be destructive and should not be nurtured in the Church, and hence would think it better of this kind of approach if it were not dogmatized or otherwise codified. (Many objections to RC practice and dogma are thought of similarly by the Orthodox; many of these things are what I personally see as negotiable with reference to a uniquely Western theology, in that differences in the conception of the change do not necessarily mean we’re talking about a different Eucharist. In my experience, the East answers these same questions by just saying “A change happens” and leaving it at that. If the West means by all its verbiage “a change happens”, then okay; just don’t ask those from other unique traditions not to teach their own traditions instead, or to have to assent to your philosophical underpinnings.)

Now that you’ve said it (because again, this is not something that I said), I guess I can agree that the West has a different idea of what it means to be Christian than the East. But these ideas are not necessarily in conflict in every single respect, or else we would REALLY have nothing to talk about! So this is not really a big deal to me. I love many of the Western musical traditions, for instance: Mozarabic chant, Old Roman plain chant, etc. Many of the texts of these hymns are completely theologically Orthodox, proving as we go back in time that the West once more or less held to Orthodox views, even as it had different expressions of them. That’s not a problem at all. Again, I would love to see Rome become Orthodox again! I just don’t see any signs of this happening on a large scale.

And of course you can be Western and Christian, and Western and ORTHODOX Christian. I am a Westerner, and one of the people who has helped me the most in coming to the Coptic Orthodox Church is actually a British Orthodox priest (the British Orthodox Church is the native missionary church of the British Isles under the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate). Orthodoxy is where Orthodoxy is, and Heterodoxy is where Heterodoxy is. I do not know anyone who believes in phyletism, though it could be argued that this effectively runs amok in some individual (mostly EO) churches, much to the shame of the Orthodox church as a whole.

 

[dzheremi]

OK. Presumably they are not completely ignorant - although we get lots of just chrimated types here who really are.

I don’t really talk to anybody here about Orthodoxy. We have few Orthodox posters, and even fewer Oriental Orthodox posters.

But the depth of their knowledge is, from my own experience with Orthodox laity and clergy, all of the map.

True, as could be said of any communion.

They are not infallible.

Of course they aren’t. Nobody is.

The issues I raised are fundamental: what are our beliefs, how are they different, and is that difference sufficient for separation? The fact that some have no doubts and see matters as not debatable is irrelevant.

How so, when these are among your perspective dialogue partners?

This is either fantasy or it points to the fact that schisms are not about theology but politics and polemics.

I’m not sure how.

So theologians agree that the difference in faith was really a misunderstanding of each others faith. So, in reality, the faith is the same. But schism remains. Why?

I’m not entirely sure. The majority of Copts I know believe that the EO and OO share substantially the same faith. But I would repeat what (I think) I’ve already posted here: Schisms are substantially healed by laity seeing one another in the other church, not by top down pronouncements from theologians. From that I would guess that not enough in both churches believe that the EO and OO share the same faith as to make them comfortable with the idea of communing with the other church. (Though I personally have seen many, many OO commune at my local OCA back in Northern California; take that as you will.)

 

[dzheremi]

Not sure what you mean. Let me be clear that I have no problem with anyone saying anything correct about the Catholic church; I only have a problem when the claims are incorrect. If you wish to accuse me of something, be a little more clear.

I’m not accusing you personally of anything. This was in response to your objections that “Orthodox foisting ideas upon the CC that are alien to the CCs self-understanding.” This is strikingly similar to some objections I’ve heard from Orthodox regarding Roman claims against them. It seems to me that particular complaint can be leveled against both communions, as neither particularly understands the other as they understand themselves. So I don’t really see this as a valid response to anything. We need to be able to evaluate other churches by our OWN church’s standard of orthodoxy, or else this whole “ecumenism” thing is pretty pointless.

No, this still makes no sense to me.

Hmm. I thought I was pretty clear, but I guess this particular point is not going to illuminate anything for either of us.

First, you bypass the key point: if it is so simple and clear, then why did it lead to a schism has endured for 17 centuries.

It’s not so simple and clear. Christology is thorny business. Various heretical groups exploit this fact in order to appear as though they’re Christian when they’re really not (e.g., Mormons).

The Chalcedonians had to be misunderstanding the Orientals. If that is possible, what else other misunderstandings are out there?

I am not seeing the necessary connection between the EO/OO divide and any other potential theological conflicts. Again, I do not see the point of simply posting “how do we know” or “what else is out there” when every potential conflict is to be taken on its own and to be solved (or not) according to its own solutions. As the EO and OO share substantially similar faiths (at least in comparison to either and the RC), their dialogues are not really pertinent to EO/RC dialogue, as that concerns different issues (since the OO do not have, for instance, the idea of Papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc).

In the face of this reality you appear to fall back to a claim of obvious differences, the evidence being that people say so. Curious.

You write as though Orthodox just say things about their own communion or the Roman communion for the sake of hearing themselves talk. That is curious.

Second, you presuppose that the CC cannot adopt the same posture as the Copts because their faith has changed. But that is not a correct assertion.

Okay, I’ll call your bluff: How is it not a correct assertion? Because Rome does not see its own doctrinal development as detrimental to its claims of maintaining the apostolic faith? You can lead a Pope to water…

And that a priori is what needs to be discarded in favor of real analysis.

So am I to assume from this that you did not look at the Q&A of SUSCopts’ website, which contains HG Bishop Youssef’s thoughts on the matter? Or Orthodoxebooks.org, which contains a wealth of information on how the Coptic church sees itself in relation to other churches, including the RC? Again, I point you to orthodox sources and you tell me that there’s no real analysis there. I think you are using this idea as an excuse to not look at the resources that you already are out there, because you already know and have rejected what they say (because it isn’t in line with YOUR “a priori” thinking about the Roman communion).

Of course I am familiar with the talk. The substance of which has almost nothing to do with your use of it. That is why, in this thread and others, I have asked you what you mean. Still no answer.

I linked you to EP Bartholomew’s talk because I agree with idea, and also his explanation of what he means. Do you want me to restate what he has said? That is kind of a waste of bandwith.

It almost sounds like you consider OO writings on the Catholic faith as an essential part of the OO faith.

What? I have no idea where you’re getting that idea from. I linked you to some examples of writings that in one way or another reference Roman Catholicism because you asked me to link to some so that you could analyze them.

Nothing that Orthodox Church writes about any other church is an essential part of the faith. They’re good things to read if you wonder about the differences between the churches, but that’s it. No part of the Orthodox faith is dependent upon or necessarily related in any essential way to any communion outside of it.

We makes claims to Truth. You have not established that these claims are mutually exclusive.

You’ve got to be kidding me, man. Do I really have to enumerate these things for you?

1- The Pope is either infallible or he isn’t. (He isn’t.)
2- The Pope either has universal jurisdiction over the whole church or he doesn’t. (He doesn’t.)
3- The Pope is either the Vicar of Christ or he isn’t. (He isn’t.)
4- The state of mankind (cf. “Original Sin”) is either as the RC describes it or it isn’t. (It isn’t.)
5- St. Mary was either been born immaculately as the RC church say she was or not. (She wasn’t.)

Etc., etc., etc. You’ve heard all these. I know you have.

 

[dvdjs]

True, as could be said of any communion.

Good. That is why it is important to dig deeper than “that’s what I hear”

Of course they aren’t. Nobody is.

Good. That is why it is important to dig deeper than “that’s what I hear”

How so, when these are among your perspective dialogue partners?

Perspective dialog partners are those that may be open to new understanding. Those that aren’t aren’t .

I’m not sure how.
…
I’m not entirely sure. The majority of Copts I know believe that the EO and OO share substantially the same faith. But I would repeat what (I think) I’ve already posted here:

Schisms are substantially healed by laity seeing one another in the other church, not by top down pronouncements from theologians. From that I would guess that not enough in both churches believe that the EO and OO share the same faith as to make them comfortable with the idea of communing with the other church. (Though I personally have seen many, many OO commune at my local OCA back in Northern California; take that as you will.)

I find the relatively (as compared to EO v s CC) relaxed attitude of OC EO inter-communion in the US and the strong sense of a shared faith here fascinating. It flies in the face of the specific findings of an ecumenical council - while no such finding exists separating EO and CC. It thus points to factors outside of matters of conciliarly defined faith. There is much more that is shared in culture and discipline between OO adn EO that either shared with the CC. But not on matters de fide. Is it eastern mentality? Is a certain mentality de fide. Is it ontology? Is that de fide? Whatever it is, I think that it is probably highly revealing about what schism is really all about.

(Similarly I found the comments of searn77 fascinating. A breach of communion having precious little to do with theological matters.)

I think that you are partially correct about grass-roots intercommunion. First it should be noted that outside the US intercommunion of ECs and OCs is not uncommon. In the US, its really things are a bit unsettled owing to the strong influenced of Protestant groups assumed en masse into both the Antiochian diocese and the OCA. But ultimately the defence of the mysteries is dictated by the hierarchs. I am uncomfortable with free-lancing priests, who might be committing an abuse.

 

[dzheremi]

Good. That is why it is important to dig deeper than “that’s what I hear”

You ask me where I get my information, so I told you. What did you want me to do, lie? I talk to people. People who know their faith. I read books and things too, but Orthodoxy is not so intellectualized, in my experience. I fail to see what is wrong with the approach that I am taking. It is experiential, in that those things that I have not personally experienced are answered with reference to the experiences of others who were raised in the Orthodox faith or who otherwise know a lot about it (long-time converts, long past the zealous stage). This seems to me to more closely fit the examples of the Desert Fathers, who provided pastoral care to brother monks and others in accordance with their own questions, struggles, and needs. I do not remember reading at any point, even in the sayings of the Romans, that another mode of transmission was preferred for its supposed “deepness” or any other reason.

Good. That is why it is important to dig deeper than “that’s what I hear”

See above. I don’t know why you are positing this false dichotomy wherein just because I rely on what people tell me that means I cannot form a sufficiently deep understanding of whatever the issue is. “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17)

Perspective dialog partners are those that may be open to new understanding. Those that aren’t aren’t

.

And some who have been disinterested have become interested (I seem to recall reading at some point that HH Pope Shenouda III was the first Coptic Pope to visit the Roman Pope in something like 800 years). Maybe more who were once interested are no longer interested.

I find the relatively (as compared to EO v s CC) relaxed attitude of OC EO inter-communion in the US and the strong sense of a shared faith here fascinating. It flies in the face of the specific findings of an ecumenical council - while no such finding exists separating EO and CC.

And?

It thus points to factors outside of matters of conciliarly defined faith. There is much more that is shared in culture and discipline between OO adn EO that either shared with the CC.

Interesting. I could see now why you would think that, but I do not see it that way. I would say that when it does happen, it could be taken as evidence that they see themselves as sharing substantially the same faith, which they don’t see with reference to the CC.

But not on matters de fide. Is it eastern mentality? Is a certain mentality de fide. Is it ontology? Is that de fide? Whatever it is, I think that it is probably highly revealing about what schism is really all about.

Just as I think it’s highly revealing that you keep using the term “de fide” to explain your argument. I have not heard of any such division in Orthodox between things that are “de fide” and things that are not. If this is part of an Eastern or Oriental understanding of the faith, then that is news to me. To be honest, I have not even thought to ask such a question to the Orthodox priests and laypeople that I have talked to, because it never crossed my mind to think about things that way to begin with. Something tells me that the Orthodox I know would respond similarly if I were to bring it up.

As such, I can’t really answer your questions. Things are not “de fide” or “non de fide” or what have you. That’s simply not a part of the Orthodox faith as I know it. That category or way of looking at things doesn’t exist.

 

[dvdjs]

I’m not accusing you personally of anything. This was in response to your objections that “Orthodox foisting ideas upon the CC that are alien to the CCs self-understanding.” This is strikingly similar to some objections I’ve heard from Orthodox regarding Roman claims against them.

But we must truthfully evaluate others churches, accepting what they say about themselves (not about others, where their depth of expertise is doubtful). That is the point. I can’t think of a case in which a Catholic tried to attach an alien understanding of Orthodoxy to the EOC. If anything, ECs have had occasion to point out erroneous ideas about Orthodoxy that some EOs here hold.

I am not seeing the necessary connection between the EO/OO divide and any other potential theological conflicts … every potential conflict is to be taken on its own and to be solved (or not) according to its own solutions.

Without well-defined criteria and norms, the discussion cannot go anywhere.

As the EO and OO share substantially similar faiths (at least in comparison to either and the RC), their dialogues are not really pertinent to EO/RC dialogue, as that concerns different issues (since the OO do not have, for instance, the idea of Papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc).

The latter issues are unique to dialogue with the CC. But this idea of substantially similar faiths of the EO and OO churches is shocking to me. An ecumenisal council holds otherwise. That looms as a major and fundamental gulf in faith - not mere ecclesiology - that separated the OOs.

You write as though Orthodox just say things about their own communion or the Roman communion for the sake of hearing themselves talk. That is curious.

Non-responsive, but audible.

Okay, I’ll call your bluff: How is it not a correct assertion? Because Rome does not see its own doctrinal development as detrimental to its claims of maintaining the apostolic faith?

A point already made by others on this thread. It cannot be considered to be plainly one way if the counter-arguments are readily available.

So am I to assume from this that you did not look at the Q&A of SUSCopts’ website, which contains HG Bishop Youssef’s thoughts on the matter? Or Orthodoxebooks.org, which contains a wealth of information on how the Coptic church sees itself in relation to other churches, including the RC? Again, I point you to orthodox sources and you tell me that there’s no real analysis there. I think you are using this idea as an excuse to not look at the resources that you already are out there, because you already know and have rejected what they say (because it isn’t in line with YOUR “a priori” thinking about the Roman communion).

Come on. I haven’t had the time to look over these links - a stipulation that you made even while posting them as somehow important. But my remark was not about the links, it was about your remark:

the Orthodox see themselves as having preserved the true faith in ways that the Roman church has not.

and it is a fair response to your comment, however you might try to twist it.

I linked you to EP Bartholomew’s talk because I agree with idea, and also his explanation of what he means. Do you want me to restate what he has said? That is kind of a waste of bandwith.

No. I want to hear what* you* mean.

What? I have no idea where you’re getting that idea from. I linked you to some examples of writings that in one way or another reference Roman Catholicism because you asked me to link to some so that you could analyze them.

I am talking about your writings. If time allows I will comment on the links later.

Nothing that Orthodox Church writes about any other church is an essential part of the faith.

That is progress.

They’re good things to read if you wonder about the differences between the churches, but that’s it.

They are only good if they are true representations of the various churches. However, as you just pointed out, whatever authority these links may have about the OO faith, they cannot be take, as a matter of faith to have authority in what they say about others. That is a very important point, which you seemed not to want to agree to. It is the real point about why it is necessary to approach dialogue with openness toward new understanding. Because whatever it is we are saying about others is subject to growth in understanding with no compromise of our own faith. This is key.

You’ve got to be kidding me, man. Do I really have to enumerate these things for you?

1- The Pope is either infallible or he isn’t. (He isn’t.)
2- The Pope either has universal jurisdiction over the whole church or he doesn’t. (He doesn’t.)
3- The Pope is either the Vicar of Christ or he isn’t. (He isn’t.)
4- The state of mankind (cf. “Original Sin”) is either as the RC describes it or it isn’t. (It isn’t.)
5- St. Mary was either been born immaculately as the RC church say she was or not. (She wasn’t.)
Etc., etc., etc. You’ve heard all these. I know you have.

These are great. And they illustrate my two points beautifully.

You are quick to give a facile thumbs up or thumbs down before you carefully define each “thing”. Can you give an accurate representation of Catholic thinking on each. I am certain from precious discussion that the answer is no. So your responses to them are utterly meaningless. Second, whatever the outcome of a serous discussion, are they church dividing issues? Consider for example, item 4. When did that become church dividing - and by the way, who said it is and on what authority?

ps glad to see nothing about azymes

 

[dvdjs]

You ask me where I get my information, so I told you. What did you want me to do, lie? I talk to people. People who know their faith. I read books and things too, but Orthodoxy is not so intellectualized, in my experience. I fail to see what is wrong with the approach that I am taking. It is experiential, in that those things that I have not personally experienced are answered with reference to the experiences of others who were raised in the Orthodox faith or who otherwise know a lot about it (long-time converts, long past the zealous stage). This seems to me to more closely fit the examples of the Desert Fathers, who provided pastoral care to brother monks and others in accordance with their own questions, struggles, and needs. I do not remember reading at any point, even in the sayings of the Romans, that another mode of transmission was preferred for its supposed “deepness” or any other reason.

The approach is fine as far as it goes, but it is simply not sufficient for drawing the conclusion that you draw. Lacking in logic, and susceptible to prelest.

See above. I don’t know why you are positing this false dichotomy wherein just because I rely on what people tell me that means I cannot form a sufficiently deep understanding of whatever the issue is. “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17)

So, in this discussion, is it the Word of God that you are hearing or critiques of the Catholic faith?

Interesting. I could see now why you would think that, but I do not see it that way. I would say that when it does happen, it could be taken as evidence that they see themselves as sharing substantially the same faith, which they don’t see with reference to the CC.

Against the objective reality of the findings of an Ecumencial Council. Fascinating.

Just as I think it’s highly revealing that you keep using the term “de fide” to explain your argument. I have not heard of any such division in Orthodox between things that are “de fide” and things that are not. If this is part of an Eastern or Oriental understanding of the faith, then that is news to me. To be honest, I have not even thought to ask such a question to the Orthodox priests and laypeople that I have talked to, because it never crossed my mind to think about things that way to begin with. Something tells me that the Orthodox I know would respond similarly if I were to bring it up.

Really? We get that all the time here from EOs. Dogma or Theologoumenon: Sinlessness of Mary, Aerial Toll houses; etc. Sometimes I am shocked about what EOs here posit as optional belief in “mere orthodoxy”. But in the end it simply means of the faith.

As such, I can’t really answer your questions. Things are not “de fide” or “non de fide” or what have you. That’s simply not a part of the Orthodox faith as I know it. That category or way of looking at things doesn’t exist.

If, at long last, you say that you cannot tell what is of the faith, and what is mere custom, then how on earth can you presume to tell what other faith is essentially the same or truly different?