Catholic attending Coptic Orthodox Church...still Catholic?

[Traces95z]

Thanks for your response.

I would agree that they may not be in the state of mortal sin…if they continue in their ignorance. But should they continue in ignorance if what they are doing is wrong? Are they even praying for the door to be opened in finding the true church to be a member of? They are not. I don’t believe they have given it much thought, other than to say that the Orthodox priest gave their children communion as babies and now they feel obligated to “pay him back” with their presence in his Orthodox church.

If they were strong in their faith they would know that leaving the Catholic church for the Orthodox church was not an option. Perhaps you are only speaking about their faith in God…then they still don’t know Him well enough if they left the church he instituted.

And what if I mention to them their wrong and they disagree…are they still no longer culpable for verifying the veracity of which I speak? If they refrain from adhering to Canon law and returning to the Catholic Church, what would be the state of their souls then?
If I think someone with good intentions decides to become Methodist…do I also say, “Well, no mortal sin here, their intentions were good.”?

 

[Traces95z]

Yep, the Catholic Church is not a cumbaya-type church. We want unity among the churches but a Catholic must only attend Catholic mass unless there is no Catholic Church available (rarely), then they may attend an Orthodox mass…Catholic mass cannot be REPLACED by any other service from any other church. For a Catholic in good standing to not know that ceasing to attend Catholic mass for Orthodox services is wrong means they are just not wise in their faith. But should one live in ignorance of this fact or is it our obligation to inform them?

Thanks.

 

[Traces95z]

I appreciate your advice. I am continually flip-flopping. I see wisdom on both sides of this issue.

 

[Traces95z]

Thanks. Certainly I would only mention it once to them and let the chips fall where they may. I care for others and wish all to be saved. To see them effectively leave the Catholic Church knowing that this is Christ’s one true church, is difficult. The fact that they don’t know that what they are doing is wrong is about as sad an aspect as if they actually knew and left anyway. If someone took the long way to the store…wouldn’t we want to tell them that there is a shorter way? If someone unwittingly broke the rules of Monopoly, do we let them continue in ignorance or do we correct them?

If I were obsessed with this issue I would have brought it up to them and not let it go. Alas, I have kept silent for the five years I have known them and am spending much time discerning, using this forum and talking to priests about it when I can. I’d say that is demonstrating restraint with an attempt to learn if I am correct in my understanding of the issue and what to do.

Thanks.

 

[Traces95z]

Thanks for your response. I flip to this advice, but then I think of them leaving the Catholic Church and I tend to flip back.

I never brought this up with my sibling-in-laws. I only asked my brother-in-law why he is going to the Orthodox church services instead. He told me it was out of gratitude (and I believe obligation to some degree) toward the priest who gave his infants communion.
I never followed up with a comment or objection. So I still have a first opportunity to inform them should I decide to do so.

 

[dochawk]

Let’s not quibble about terminology.

That’s not “quibbling”.

there are many appropriate choices, but they’re pretty much variations on “recoiling in fear from latinization.”

My wife’s former Coptic Orthodox Church calls their services, “masses”.

Latinization has not been limited to EC; it is a serious problem for EO in the west as well.

Though a valid church, the Orthodox church is by definition schismatic.

I’m trying to find an appropriate way to express what you’re saying. Maintaining accuracy, though, is a problem. In essence, your position involves waiving a certain finger at papal teaching by using that term in this context.

Then again, one of the problems in the RCC at the moment is the volume of “members” that know better than the last few Popes . . .

I said they call it the mass. Stop quibbling…terminology of the mass has absolutely zero to do with my post.

whoosh

not simply not zero, but it is the very point!

What do you mean exactly? They are by all means in Schism and Popes never contradicted that.

Consider, well, every statement fromRome on the issue. we have been asked not to use that term. as it is counter-productive.

The writings of (then) Cardinal Ratzinger are a very good place to start.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Consider, well, every statement fromRome on the issue. we have been asked not to use that term. as it is counter-productive.

Right. Separated brethren… which is original meaning of “schismatic” anyway. No one denies reality of Schism

 

[Isaac14]

But the point is about attitudes, not definitions. Calling someone a separated brother vs. a schismatic, should I hope, impact how you think of and interact with them.

As an Orthodox Christian on a Catholic forum, I’ve experienced both sides - those who take seriously the separated brethren mindset have been a delight to converse with. Those who emphasize the schismatic mindset have either implied or explicitly stated I’m hell bound unless or until I submit to the Pope. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out who I respect, or who may actually someday convince me to more seriously consider the Catholic Church.

 

[Theophane]

I thank God they are still with the Holy Catholic Church.
The Eastern rite is as much Catholic as we are. I come from Malaysia but both my parents are from Kerala.
Saint Thomas (doubting Thomas) brought the Church to Kerala in India and it was later under the Church of Antioch.
When Francis Xavier came to India he brought the Roman Catholic to the East and to us, later some members of the Eastern rite aligned themselves with the Protestants and some with the Catholic Church.
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, also known as the Malankara Syrian Catholic Church, is an Eastern Catholic, autonomous, particular church, in full communion with the Pope and the worldwide Catholic Church, with self-governance under the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.
They are proud Catholics, when some of their priests came to Malaysia recently, they were allowed to say Mass at The Church f the Assumption in Petaling Jaya as there are Keralites from India working in Malaysia.
People like me who was born into the Roman Catholic and who are Malaysian citizens wanted to attend the service but were adviced by the archdiocese not to.
Not wanting to quarrel with the priest who gave that advice, I backed off.
read a report that said the Holy father once said we have to make Ecumenism work, if we wait for tthe clergy it will only happen one day after Judgement Day.
How true I though.

 

[Uriel1]

Be happy for her
She is working out her own salvation
Jesus is close to her
Just you be close to her too
Don’t fight, just praise be Jesus

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

But the point is about attitudes, not definitions. Calling someone a separated brother vs. a schismatic, should I hope, impact how you think of and interact with them.

Even if I use word “schismatic” I don’t think Orthodox are damned to Hell or anything like that. In-fact when I use “Separated Brethren” it would include all who believe in heresies, all Atheists, Pagans or other Abrahamic religions. “Schismatic” is simply much more telling than “Separated Brethren” and basically puts someone closer to us than “Separated Brethren”. But yes, term has been historically abused which is somehow sad.

And using term to refer not to Orthodox Christians but to Orthodox Churche(s) should not be a problem then. Nobody can damn institution to Hell, neither can anyone suggest institution is individually guilty of a sin.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out who I respect, or who may actually someday convince me to more seriously consider the Catholic Church.

There are extremes to everything. If you meet someone far on the “schismatic” side, they will try to convince you that you are bound to Hell. If you meet someone far on the “separated brethren” side, they will try to convince you that it doesn’t even matter what denomination you follow at all (which also does not help to make someone consider Catholic Church).

explicitly stated I’m hell bound unless or until I submit to the Pope

While I do not really defend someone damning you to Hell as that is not on human authority at all, we believe it is important to be in communion with Pope for Salvation. That condition can be excused in some circumstances (and I dare not judge which circumstances would or would not apply), but it is an exception. In other words those people do try to help you, as much as anyone who believes you are walking wrong path is trying to help you by explaining you their point of view (Protestants, Pagans or Atheists all qualify there even though I believe they are wrong and Catholics are not, principle remains).

 

[Traces95z]

Well that is either a misinterpretation of their comments due to your hypersensitivity or they were wrong in their attitude. Because no one I know feels anything other than brotherly love for our Orthodox brothers and sisters. I won’t have my language checked by those who have had their feelings hurt by ignorant Catholics with unloving intentions.

This is a Catholic forum. I have used both “serparated brethren” and “schismatic church” to describe the Orthodox Church and its members. These terms are used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Vatican website, New Advent, and Wikipedia for goodness sake. If it bothers you that the Magesterium of the Catholic Church refers to the Orthodox as such then perhaps this isn’t the right forum or thread to be involved in.

From the “Decree on Ecumenism”: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

“1. The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.(1) Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.”

“Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God’s gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.”

My post is about my situation and most of you are fixated on terminology. Let’s not be snowflakes here and understand that I am a Catholic and will use Catholic terms.

 

[Traces95z]

While I do not really defend someone damning you to Hell as that is not on human authority at all, we believe it is important to be in communion with Pope for Salvation. That condition can be excused in some circumstances (and I dare not judge which circumstances would or would not apply), but it is an exception. In other words those people do try to help you, as much as anyone who believes you are walking wrong path is trying to help you by explaining you their point of view (Protestants, Pagans or Atheists all qualify there even though I believe they are wrong and Catholics are not, principle remains).

I feel some will be “offended” by your comments. I have a much more benevolent view of the Orthodox faith than you apparently.

“I do not really defend someone damning Orthodox members to Hell”? This is an odd thing to say if you believe they are our brother’s in Christ. I would completely admonish anyone who would suggest that an Orthodox would be damned to hell just for being Orthodox.

Also, I would not use the phrase “walking down the wrong path”. I would use that description for Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses and some Protestants, but not our Orthodox brothers in Christ who have seven sacraments just like us Catholics. They are given all means necessary to attain their heavenly reward. I would just say, as vatican documents state, that their union with Christ’s Church is “imperfect”. They lack the fullness of the faith and it is through the Catholic Church that they will receive salvation, be it in this life or the next.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

You “ Do not really defend someone damning Orthodox members to Hell”? This is an odd thing to say if you believe they are our brother’s in Christ. I would completely admonish anyone who would suggest that an Orthodox would be damned to hell just for being Orthodox.

I can’t say I admonish someone because I don’t- not at the moment. I simply pointed out I do not defend anyone doing so. I am not saying that is all, I am not saying it’s all we have to do or anything. I never put limit on that. So either we should not defend them and I am correct, or we should defend them and I am wrong. It is very commendable you would admonish those people who condemn anyone to Hell.

Also, I would not use the phrase “walking down the wrong path”. I would use that description for Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses and some Protestants, but not our Orthodox brothers in Christ who have seven sacraments just like us Catholics

So Sedevacantists are not walking down the wrong path…? Sacrament argument is easily refuted by how many Church Fathers and Saints dealt with heretics who retained 7 sacraments. Keeping Apostolic Faith? Sure, now that is much more sound argument because Orthodox do it.

They are given all means necessary to attain their heavenly reward.

Entire human race was given all means necessary to attain their heavenly reward.

I would just say, as vatican documents state, that their union with Christ’s Church is “imperfect”.

Yes, exactly. So if we point out their union with Ark of Salvation (Church) is imperfect, how is that bad?

They lack the fullness of the faith

No they don’t. Their faith is Apostolic in it’s entirety. They are not considered heretics. They just deny authority of current Magisterium (much like Sedevacantists do), which puts them at Schism with Catholic Church.

 

[Isaac14]

Well that is either a misinterpretation of their comments due to your hypersensitivity or they were wrong in their attitude.

I suspect it is my hypersensitivity. I mean, I only think of the example where one Catholic here asserted multiple times in one thread that the Orthodox were led by Satan due to their being in schism. He’s obviously right.

This is a Catholic forum. I have used both “serparated brethren” and “schismatic church” to describe the Orthodox Church and its members.

Sure, but in common, casual conversation, “schismatic” tends to carry a negative connotation that “separated brethren” doesn’t. While both are describing exactly the same situation (and are both technically correct), one is likely to be well received by another.

My post is about my situation and most of you are fixated on terminology. Let’s not be snowflakes here and understand that I am a Catholic and will use Catholic terms.

I don’t see anyone arguing against your use of Catholic terms, but people here (esp those Eastern Catholics) seem to be saying that you’re using the wrong terms to describe them. Use of proper terminology indicates a respect for those with whom you’re conversing.

But, as you’ve so kindly pointed out, I’ve totally hijacked this thread, so I’ll quietly withdraw and cease posting.

 

[Traces95z]

I can’t say I admonish someone because I don’t- not at the moment. I simply pointed out I do not defend anyone doing so. I am not saying that is all, I am not saying it’s all we have to do or anything. I never put limit on that. So either we should not defend them and I am correct, or we should defend them and I am wrong. It is very commendable you would admonish those people who condemn anyone to Hell.

Okay, I misunderstood.

So Sedevacantists are not walking down the wrong path…? Sacrament argument is easily refuted by how many Church Fathers and Saints dealt with heretics who retained 7 sacraments. Keeping Apostolic Faith? Sure, now that is much more sound argument because Orthodox do it.

Indeed Sedevacantists are. But the Orthodox are invited to ecumenical councils…whereas sedavacantists aren’t…so there is a difference.
Yes, anyone walking down any path other than that of the Catholic Church is technically walking down the wrong path but this phrase denotes a more serious departure from the faith as exhibited by the aforementioned groups.

Entire human race was given all means necessary to attain their heavenly reward.

I think you know to what I was referring.
Indeed all have been given the grace to find the Church and be saved…And there are those that actually found the Church and now benefit from it.

Yes, exactly. So if we point out their union with Ark of Salvation (Church) is imperfect, how is that bad?

You didn’t use the word “imperfect”, I did.

No they don’t. Their faith is Apostolic in it’s entirety. They are not considered heretics. They just deny authority of current Magisterium (much like Sedevacantists do), which puts them at Schism with Catholic Church.

Indeed. And I didn’t say they were heretics. They are not. On the contrary, I said they are our brothers in Christ. What I did say was that they are in schism.
You don’t have to be a heretic to lack the fullness of faith.
To be in schism is to have split from the one true Church. Any church other than the Catholic Church lacks the fullness of faith. Though you mentioned the most obvious, there are more differences between our two churches than just the pope. But their non-recognition of the one true pope as being the successor of Peter is enough to say they lack the fullness of faith.

 

[Traces95z]

This is a Catholic forum, hence my use of Catholic terminology. If this was an Orthodox forum or an ecumenically based forum, then your criticism would be valid. I do not consider this a “casual conversation”. This is a Catholic forum where Catholic theology, morality, and Canon Law are often discussed.

I would indeed prefer people respond to my dilemma in Post #1.

 

[Vico]

To be honest, I didn’t know the meaning of beanie.

Sorry, English isn’t my native language

The proper name is white zucchetto. It is similar to the Jewish kippah.