Catholic attending Coptic Orthodox Church...still Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Traces95z
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
THANK YOU! Finally, one person in this whole thread who understands me!!! lol 😉
 
dochawk said:
For the best explanations, do a search on “zoghby initiative”
Click to expand...
That was denied by Vatican, Eastern Orthodoxy AND Eastern Catholicism at the time it began. Perhaps it is a popular opinion but hardly normative and hardly valid point for this discussion.
David_Catholic said:
I understand what you’re saying, but our canon law says otherwise.
Click to expand...
Canon law considered a mistake. Anyway, you are right it is still in force. Should Eastern Catholic prefer Eastern Orthodox Liturgy to Catholic Mass (Latin Rite, I mean Mass) then? Why are we in communion if Canon Law does not tolerate Eastern Catholics attending Mass over Liturgies of Churches in Schism? There has to be an error of misinterpretation somewhere.

Yet, again… one party is Latin Catholic. That means Eastern Canon Law isnt only one governing this. By the looks of it marriage was in Latin Catholic Church and hence other party promised they would be raising children in Catholic faith. At the same time, if Latin Church did the marriage then they knew about other party being Coptic Catholic canonically and there is possibility of transfer happening through marriage. There is a good chance half of said people are Eastern and we can be sure half is Latin. OP should at least notify Latin Catholic in question then. His wife will not deliberately make him go against his law and commit sin.
 
Its not pleasant here either. I love Eastern Catholic Churches for their bravery and I am glad I live in a time where they exist and enrich our Church. So many martyrs died for that and so many people suffered for communion to be established.

I hate to see Schism underplayed and Eastern Catholics being treated as brothers to Orthodox but strangers to Latins. Whether that treatment is by Latins who deny East or Easterners who deny West.
David_Catholic said:
Nobody said they SHOULD attend liturgy with schismatics… all I’m saying is that it’s not as big of a deal as some make it out to be. There are certain situations where Catholics can attend an Orthodox liturgy.
Click to expand...
I see. We can not be sure if there is or is not a certain situation there, correct? Then OP can share his concern either way just to be sure.

And since one of those people is Latin they should stop doing that either way… he is subject to Latin Canon Law.
“David_Catholic said:
“We have nothing in common with Rome except Communion, and we have everything in common with the Orthodox except communion”.
Click to expand...

If that were said by Latins about any sedevacantist group (who we share with more than you do with Orthodoxy, since we even agree on Papacy), I’m sure that would raise concerns from Eastern Catholics who went under so much suffering (from Orthodoxy and fellow Catholics alike, sadly) to be in communion with Rome. That statement makes me sad and kind of feels like it shows the problem- Eastern Catholic Churches are treated as Churches who will bring Orthodoxy into communion and that is supposed to be their greatest goal. But in reality their goal is to guide people to God- such is goal of entire Church. Latins don’t exist to please protestantism and Eastern Catholics dont exist to please Orthodoxy.
David_Catholic said:
But of course, full communion is the most important thing. That is why I am not Orthodox. The Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded upon Peter the Rock, and as Christ wished, I remain in full and visible communion with the prince of the Apostles.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I feel the same way. Full communion is the most important thing indeed. Communion is what we share with all the Saints in Heaven who love us, and communion is what we share with each other. Such beautiful thing.
 
Last edited:
The faiths are so simliar that I hope one day it will indeed unite with Rome. But until then, they are not the same church and will remain so until the schism ends. And my Canon Law says that a converted catholic may not REPLACE the Catholic mass with an Orthodox one.

It not a big deal TO YOU! To Rome it certainly is and objectively speaking is a mortal sin.
 
Last edited:
As I have enumerated many times, many times. Not sure why you keep repeating that you are in communion with Rome when that is not the issue here.
 
Not true. As I stated early in the thread. My wife’s old Coptic Orthodox Church will NOT allow me to receive communion at their mass.

How am I confusing schism with heresy? I have not accused anyone of heresy.
 
Last edited:
I think you should politely talk to them and inform them of that. If they do not agree, do not turn your backs on them and remain loving and caring. Do not cease praying for them. I have deep respect for Coptic Church and their tradition, and their ecclesiology is even closer to us than Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology. One day we may truly be one Church but it is important to acknowledge Schism for now.
 
He is saying they do not allow him to commune, not vice-versa…
 
Oh my goodness. When did we start debating the sacraments?? I never said the Orthodox don’t have valid sacraments nor did I suggest that we as Catholics can’t partake…as long as it doesn’t REPLACE the mass.
 
I see. You are right it is allowed, but he is right it shouldn’t replace Catholic Liturgies- especially not for Latin Catholic in question.
 
I did not say that. If I did it was a mistake. I have been very thoughtful in saying that the faiths are similar but the churches are different. I can’t know if your particular church is indeed 100 percent in line with the orthodox church, save the pope thing.
 
Last edited:
Why did it take most of my Thursday evening to get you to admit that? lol
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
That was denied by Vatican, Eastern Orthodoxy AND Eastern Catholicism at the time it began. Perhaps it is a popular opinion but hardly normative and hardly valid point for this discussion.
Click to expand...
yes, rebuffed at the time, but remains the best expression of the issue, and is far from dead. Note that at the time it was pushed off,
a) I’m trying to put this charitably, but most of the eastern bishops were more latin than eastern, and
b) it pre-dates the serious consideration of the issues by Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope JP II, Pope Benedict . . .

It would be interesting to see how Pope John would have handled it–when he called V II, the intent was supposedly laying groundwork for east and west, but things took a different direction . . .
Traces95z said:
Why did it take most of my Thursday evening to get you to admit that? lol
Click to expand...
And why after all night, are you thinking that this is different than what he’s been saying all night?
🤔
 
Last edited:
He kept saying that the Eastern Catholic Church IS THE SAME as the Eastern Orthodox Church. He also says the faiths are exactly the same…except the pope thing…which I still doubt.

You jumped in quite late in the thread…did you even read any of it?
 
Last edited:
I think there was a lot of misunderstanding there as well as lot of technical stuff where word has been used which could imply error but without intention of actually implying it. I suggest we take a step back and chill a bit. We are brothers in faith and there should be mutual respect and love. Of course that applies to me too and perhaps even more so.
 
No chilling needed. I feel this has been a respectful discussion.
When one person tells me that the Eastern Catholic Church is the same as the Eastern Orthodox Church then I got to ask why they think that.
 
Last edited:
dochawk said:
yes, rebuffed at the time, but remains the best expression of the issue, and is far from dead.
Click to expand...
Sadly. I think Zoghby initiative is too far into the opposite side of Latinization. One extreme traded for the other.
dochawk said:
a) I’m trying to put this charitably, but most of the eastern bishops were more latin than eastern, and
b) it pre-dates the serious consideration of the issues by Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope JP II, Pope Benedict . . .
Click to expand...
I’ll go ahead and assume that by a) you mean Catholics. Orthodox Bishops were hardly Latin and denied it as well. About your point b)… well that may be true but they never renounced that decision so it comes down to speculation.

Don’t get me wrong there is not much wrong with 2 point-system of Zoghby initiative but it tends to be misinterpreted. Especially part of profession in first millennium Eastern faith about Papacy tends to mean “what Orthodox believe that first millennium East held”. Though we, Catholics, know that even Eastern Fathers professed Papacy and inerrancy of Rome, like St. George the Hagiorite or Maximus the Confessor.

And dual communion system where you accept primacy of Rome but ignore it’s “errors” about inerrancy (as Zoghby’s initiative seems to hold) is basically payment of lip service. Zoghby’s initiative seems to result in indifferentism and relativism, as well as estrangement of East and West in Catholic Church. I don’t get why does it get the praise recently.
 
Last edited:
. . . .

Ok, you are upset that I still don’t believe you share the SAME faith, is that it? Most Eastern Orthodox Churches have more differences than just the pope…so I have to be somewhat skeptical about your claim that your Catholic Church is exactly the same as a church in schism.
 
Last edited:
I UNDERSTAND IT my friend. I just don’t believe it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top