Convince me

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1Tim215Mommy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Where are the Melkite Churches in CA? Is there an on-line directory?
byzancatholic said:
No, you would not need to select an Eastern Catholic Church because of ethnic ancestry - you can and should select a community by its Eparchy leadership and pastoral service.
I am of Slavic and English heritage (my maternal grandfather was Greek Catholic from his birthplace in the old country) but I began worshiping with Melkite Greek Catholic in the USA. The Melkites have church locations in the USA, Canada and Mexico. Many of the Melkite Greek Catholics are of Mid-Eastern ancestry but there are church locations with Italians, French, Irish, English, German, Greek, Russian, Slovak and Polish. The Melkite Eparchy head in the USA ordained married deacons to the priesthood.

Of course I worship and pray with the Ruthenian and Ukranian Byzantine Catholic church communities in the Passiac NJ and Stamford CT Eparchy jurisdictions. And Russian Byzantine Catholic church in New York City and San Francisco (the NYC Russian Byzantine parish is served by a married Melkite clergy). But there is a deep treasure among the Melkites; the Melkites are near and dear to my heart! And soul!

Sorry to jump in here…but if you want to worship with the Melkites, we will welcome you. Please consider us!

God bless your spiritual journey!
Click to expand...
 
I actually just had the present conversation in miniature last night with an ACoE friend (see…I’m still nice to them! 😛 ), and after we had each said our peace, we decided that it would be best to pray instead of arguing, as we at least share in common Mar Isaac of Nineveh.
Click to expand...
dzheremi,

Peace! 🙂

I do find it ironic that your Coptic Orthodox Church (and Oriental Orthodox in general) does venerate one of our Saints of the historic Church of the East, Mar Isaac of Nineveh, considering that he subscribed to the Christological tradition of the Church of the East.

It appears to me that if you’re going to consider one of our Assyrian-Chaldean Saints as among your Orthodox, in regards his Christological tradition, then you should have no problem with the same Christology of the rest of this Mesopotamian tradition and Church.

Now, if you’re going to reject the Christological tradition of the Church of the East as a Nestorian heresy, then I find it quite strange for you guys to handpick one of our Saints and claim him as Oriental Orthodox among Nestorian heretics.

Mar Isaac was one of us, so if you think he’s Orthodox, then we are Orthodox as well, but if we are Nestorian heretics, then he is a Nestorian heretic as well. You can not have your cake and eat it too! 😃

The people of the Assyrian-Chaldean tradition confess as Mar Isaac confessed, that in the Lord Jesus Christ, there is only one Parsupa, with two Qnume, and two Kyane, without division, without separation, without confusion, and without change. This is how the Apostolic Faith is expressed by our Mesopotamian Fathers. 🙂

God bless,

Rony
 
ronyodish said:
dzheremi,

Peace! 🙂

I do find it ironic that your Coptic Orthodox Church (and Oriental Orthodox in general) does venerate one of our Saints of the historic Church of the East, Mar Isaac of Nineveh, considering that he subscribed to the Christological tradition of the Church of the East.

It appears to me that if you’re going to consider one of our Assyrian-Chaldean Saints as among your Orthodox, in regards his Christological tradition, then you should have no problem with the same Christology of the rest of this Mesopotamian tradition and Church.

Now, if you’re going to reject the Christological tradition of the Church of the East as a Nestorian heresy, then I find it quite strange for you guys to handpick one of our Saints and claim him as Oriental Orthodox among Nestorian heretics.

Mar Isaac was one of us, so if you think he’s Orthodox, then we are Orthodox as well, but if we are Nestorian heretics, then he is a Nestorian heretic as well. You can not have your cake and eat it too! 😃
Click to expand...
That may be true, but only because it’s fasting time. 🙂 Otherwise, nope. Mar Isaac is basically alone among the East Syriacs of his time in being venerated by both of the major communions outside of his own. This does not mean that the non-Chalcedonians nor the Byzantines confirm his church’s Christology any more than the fact that both also count Augustine as a saint mean that we confirm the matters on which he was likewise in error. No church is bound to endorse everything a particular saint said or wrote or did, and I have never observed Mar Isaac being consulted by any in the OO communion on Christological matters anyway. We know better. Rather he seems to be appreciated chiefly for his ascetical writings, as his writings were and are particularly valued by the monks.

By the way, doesn’t the ACoE have its own “Greek doctors”? Does that then mean that everyone keeping or descended from the East Syriac tradition therefore finds absolutely nothing wrong with the Greek Church? I would not think so. So why you’re trying to impose this view on my Church is beyond me. Whether you like it or not, or think it’s fair or logical or whatever, the Church can and most definitely already has done what you say it cannot do, and what’s more it venerated Mar Isaac centuries before either of us ever existed – again, not for whatever his errors may have been, but for what our fathers determined were his greatly spiritually beneficial and, yes, Orthodox writings and sayings on matters outside of the Christological controversy into which he was born. (I am not aware of any writings of his that deal with the Christological controversy separating the Nestorians from the Orthodox anyway, which should go a ways towards reinforcing why he is the exception that he is with regard to who venerates him.)
 
ronyodish said:
dzheremi,

Peace! 🙂

I do find it ironic that your Coptic Orthodox Church (and Oriental Orthodox in general) does venerate one of our Saints of the historic Church of the East, Mar Isaac of Nineveh, considering that he subscribed to the Christological tradition of the Church of the East.

It appears to me that if you’re going to consider one of our Assyrian-Chaldean Saints as among your Orthodox, in regards his Christological tradition, then you should have no problem with the same Christology of the rest of this Mesopotamian tradition and Church.

Now, if you’re going to reject the Christological tradition of the Church of the East as a Nestorian heresy, then I find it quite strange for you guys to handpick one of our Saints and claim him as Oriental Orthodox among Nestorian heretics.

Mar Isaac was one of us, so if you think he’s Orthodox, then we are Orthodox as well, but if we are Nestorian heretics, then he is a Nestorian heretic as well. You can not have your cake and eat it too! 😃

The people of the Assyrian-Chaldean tradition confess as Mar Isaac confessed, that in the Lord Jesus Christ, there is only one Parsupa, with two Qnume, and two Kyane, without division, without separation, without confusion, and without change. This is how the Apostolic Faith is expressed by our Mesopotamian Fathers. 🙂

God bless,

Rony
Click to expand...
St. Isaac had what I shall call a C.S. Lewis quality to him. He avoided the issues of contention and wrote on what was common to everyone.

His Sainthood does demonstrate that there is something more to salvation than Christology.
 
1Tim215Mommy said:
Tell me all the reasons why my family ought to leave the Greek Orthodox Church and become Eastern Catholic. Convince me.
Click to expand...
From my experience - both my own and others I have spoken to personally who have made the switch - the reason one or the other switches is not initially because of doctrine, but because of a very personal experience (sometimes a bad experience on the Orthodox side, or a good experience on the Catholic side). The same goes for the switch in the opposite direction (a bad experience on the Catholic side, or a good experience on the Orthodox side). Many do not consider the doctrinal differences that important; others do,

But the doctrinal bias is learned, not natural. Since the Catholic Church formally teaches that there is little that separates us from the Orthodox, Orthodox who become Catholic find an easier go of it. Orthodox who become Catholic actually agree with that paradigm in the first place (from my experience). Catholics who become Orthodox will literally have to become indoctrinated into believing that a lot of what they once believed was wrong.

I believe the main advantage of being Catholic (instead of Orthodox) is that it is easier to acheive Christ’s ideal for unity. It’s a matter of personal priority (imo). If you believe unity is important, I believe the Catholic Church is the place to be. In the Orthodox Churches, there are many great voices for unity, but there is no universal voice for that unity, and I think that is a big problem, since unity, according to our Lord, is supposed to be a witness to the world that does not know Christ.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
dzheremi said:
That may be true, but only because it’s fasting time. 🙂 Otherwise, nope. Mar Isaac is basically alone among the East Syriacs of his time in being venerated by both of the major communions outside of his own. This does not mean that the non-Chalcedonians nor the Byzantines confirm his church’s Christology any more than the fact that both also count Augustine as a saint mean that we confirm the matters on which he was likewise in error. No church is bound to endorse everything a particular saint said or wrote or did, and I have never observed Mar Isaac being consulted by any in the OO communion on Christological matters anyway. We know better. Rather he seems to be appreciated chiefly for his ascetical writings, as his writings were and are particularly valued by the monks.
Click to expand...
His spiritual writings are indeed what he became well known for among all Christians, in that Christianity, across the various Apostolic Churches, saw the depth of this man’s spirituality, and each Church adopted him as among one of their own.

But you can not build a healthy spiritual life, universally acknowledged as Orthodox, upon a heretical confession of who the Lord Jesus Christ is. “Who do you say that I am?” is fundamental to our faith as Christians, and from it flows our prayer, our life in the Spirit of Christ. There is no use for me to tell you about the love of Christ if my confession of Christ is based on a lie. I can not speak about spirituality, and have this message universally acknowledged, without first having a firm and correct confession in Christ as the Son of God.

What I’m trying to say is that you can disconnect this man’s spirituality from his Christology, because the former flows from the latter.
By the way, doesn’t the ACoE have its own “Greek doctors”? Does that then mean that everyone keeping or descended from the East Syriac tradition therefore finds absolutely nothing wrong with the Greek Church? I would not think so. So why you’re trying to impose this view on my Church is beyond me. Whether you like it or not, or think it’s fair or logical or whatever, the Church can and most definitely already has done what you say it cannot do, and what’s more it venerated Mar Isaac centuries before either of us ever existed – again, not for whatever his errors may have been, but for what our fathers determined were his greatly spiritually beneficial and, yes, Orthodox writings and sayings on matters outside of the Christological controversy into which he was born. (I am not aware of any writings of his that deal with the Christological controversy separating the Nestorians from the Orthodox anyway, which should go a ways towards reinforcing why he is the exception that he is with regard to who venerates him.)
Click to expand...
The reference to the “Greek Doctors” is a reference to three of them: Diodorus of Tarsus, Nestorius of Constantinople, and Theodore the Interpreter of Mopsuestia. The ACoE does not consider these Greek Fathers to have taught the heresy which has become known as the Nestorian heresy, therefore, the ACoE considers these Fathers to have been misunderstood and unjustly treated.

I’m not imposing any view on your Church; I simply find it strange that your Church has decided to pick one of our spiritual masters and turn him into an Oriental Orthodox among these supposed “Nestorian” heretics, even though he was their bishop and no different from them.

The Christology of Mar Isaac of Nineveh is the same Christology as that of the Church of the East. This same Christology is not in error regardless of what the Coptic Orthodox Church or any Oriental Orthodox Church teaches on the matter. Your Oriental Orthodoxy is not the standard upon which our Saints are judged. We determine the Orthodoxy of our Saints, not your COC or any of your OO Churches.

But you may continue to venerate this “Nestorian” Saint of Assyria as you wish… 😉

God bless,

Rony
 
Dear sister 1Tim215Mommy,
1Tim215Mommy said:
The purpose of Ecumenical Councils, historically, have Not been to promote greater Unity, but have been to squash heresy by clarifying dogma - such as God as Holy Trinity as opposed to rogue bishop Arius teachings.
Click to expand...
Isn’t the purpose of quashing heresy to ensure the unity of the Church?
There is no equivalent to a Catholic Pope in Orthodoxy. The Catholic Pope has immediate jurisdiction in every Bishop’s jurisdiction and the ability to depose Bishops without council. This is unheard of within Orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
To be concise, it is not the Pope that deposes, but the Law. What normally happens is that a bishop has violated the Law, is informally deposed by the Law, goes to trial, is given a chance to repent, and the Pope (through a tribunal) will confirm or dispense from the deposition. The true power of the Pope is NOT to depose, but to be able to DISPENSE from the deposing power of the Law. This dispensation from (or confirmation of) deposition comes after trial of the bishop. And actually, this is not unheard of in Orthodoxy. The Council of Sardica acknowledged that the Bishop of Rome is the highest appellate court in the Church. It was not ecumenical, but its decisions were confirmed by the Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Ecum Councils. Many modern EO either do not acknowledge this, or try their best to diminish the fact (not saying you are doing this).
My observation has been that Orthodoxy is no more or less nationalistic than Eastern Catholicism is. On Catholic Radio, it was announced this morning that the Pope has just declared his support of the Ukrainian Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I believe the issue of nationalism has nothing to do with nationalistic spirit, but more to do with creating patriarchates along national lines. Since these patriarchates are “autocephalous,” it has a greater danger of disuniting the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Rony,

I don’t really want to argue this point. I brought up Mar Isaac as a positive focus towards my Assyrian friend who was hurt that HH Pope Shenouda III had apparently said that we cannot accept the faith of the ACoE as being Orthodox, and a source of commonality between what are otherwise disparate traditions, not to argue with a different person on the internet. You are free to believe whatever you wish, but for whatever it’s worth, we do not make Mar Isaac into an Oriental Orthodox saint (in the sense of claiming that he is Coptic, Ethiopian, Syriac Orthodox, etc.) so much as we recognize those teachings of his which we do accept as being Orthodox (same as the Byzantines do, also without accepting his Christology). So go ahead and continue to think it’s unhealthy. I don’t care. What the Orthodox Church has declared as being correct and true I recognize, and whatever others say I just can’t be bothered with, so all this piffle about “your OO church is not the standard by which blahblahblah” is needless antagonism and not appreciated nor warranted. I never once claimed to decide anything for the ACoE or other East Syrians, so go vent at somebody else. You are free to continue in your belief that all of the people recognized as saints by the ACoE but condemned by others are in fact saints. Nobody is stopping you, least of all me by recognizing that one from within the cultural, theological, and Christological world of the ACoE is also a saint to others who do not share all those things in common with the ACoE.
 
mardukm said:
To be concise, it is not the Pope that deposes, but the Law. What normally happens is that a bishop has violated the Law, is informally deposed by the Law, goes to trial, is given a chance to repent, and the Pope (through a tribunal) will confirm or dispense from the deposition. The true power of the Pope is NOT to depose, but to be able to DISPENSE from the deposing power of the Law. This dispensation from (or confirmation of) deposition comes after trial of the bishop. And actually, this is not unheard of in Orthodoxy. The Council of Sardica acknowledged that the Bishop of Rome is the highest appellate court in the Church. It was not ecumenical, but its decisions were confirmed by the Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Ecum Councils. Many modern EO either do not acknowledge this, or try their best to diminish the fact (not saying you are doing this).
Click to expand...
Well, no, actually. The canons from the Council of Sardica were only confirmed explicitly at Trullo, and your Church does not recognize the authority of that council, as far as I know. The others you mention are all implicit rather than explicit. Also, canonical commentators interpreted the canons of Sardica as applying only to the West (though the truth is that they were likely forgeries, which is why there are very few occasions when they were appealed to successfully in the century coming immediately after the council of Sardica).
mardukm said:
I believe the issue of nationalism has nothing to do with nationalistic spirit, but more to do with creating patriarchates along national lines. Since these patriarchates are “autocephalous,” it has a greater danger of disuniting the Church.
Click to expand...
How do you define autocephalous, and why do you seem to believe it not to be a good principle of governance?
 
dzheremi said:
]That’s all fine and well, but who is willing to give up the theological and ecclesiological distinctives that keep them apart to make way for this unity? If I apologize to Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox for not agreeing with them about Chalcedon, to use but one example (which I’m absolutely not going to do, and I do not expect them to do to me, either), then what? Saying that we wish schisms would end and apologizing for poor treatment isn’t unity. Communing together openly and honestly and without any sort of hindrance is unity, and that’s not going to happen just because RCs say they love the Orthodox or vice versa.
Click to expand...
I have been married forty years. When we were first married we had some arguments. All were resolved. We did not resolve them by persisting in whatever issue was at hand to prove which was right. We would both go off and think about what happened and realize our own contribution to the strife. Then confront one another and simultaneously apologize. It was my fault. Forgive me. Never failed.

What is necessary to reestablish unity is grace. Disobedience is sin. Division is clearly disobedience. Sin results from a lack of grace. Division is a sign of grace being absent.

How can we find the grace necessary to overcome this sin? You seem to say there is no way and throw up your hands in defeat.

We believe the sacraments are a means of grace. Prayer is a means. We believe the Holy Spirit unites souls.

What has not worked?

Suppose you had a school where for the last ten years not a single class passed a reading comprehension test. Year after year you saw failure after failure. There has to be a problem somewhere. Is it the teachers? Is it the method of teaching, the textbooks? You have two options. Keep doing what you are doing or change what you are doing. If the grace necessary to unite us lacking we are doing something wrong. Stop doing it.
Click to expand...
 
I see that my point is not understood or appreciated. Let me make it more explicit, then: you in the Roman Catholic communion are just as disunited from the Church (Orthodoxy) as the Orthodox are disunited from you. So why on earth should the Orthodox have to give up their faith to join yours? (And make no mistake, regardless of how you wish to frame it, to the Orthodox that is what coming into union with Rome in its present form would mean.)

This is why I find all this talk of Christ’s command to unity to be disingenuous, no matter who it comes from. Everyone wants to point to the other people and say “they don’t want unity!” or some such, when you’re not budging either. At least be honest with yourself and admit that you are where you are not somewhere else because you find these other faiths or variations on the faith to be wrong, and your own to be right. That’s not damaging to unity – that’s the first step to actual progress towards unity, which frankly I do not believe that anyone who argues as the people in this thread have is actually interested in.

As an Orthodox Christian, I know that I and everyone in my Church has very definite ideas of what it means to be in unity. They are not the same as what the Roman Catholic Church and those of that communion envision as unity, or (arguably) what the Eastern Orthodox/Byzantine Church envisions as unity. So we remain apart because while we all read and believe in Christ’s command, we literally have different and irreconcilable ideas of what it means.
 
Thank you for sharing 🙂

On your last point, I don’t understand. I don’t see any unity in the Catholic Church - not in Liturgy or Creed. Where is the unity that you see or notice in the Catholic Church? What am I missing?

Thanks!
mardukm said:
From my experience - both my own and others I have spoken to personally who have made the switch - the reason one or the other switches is not initially because of doctrine, but because of a very personal experience (sometimes a bad experience on the Orthodox side, or a good experience on the Catholic side). The same goes for the switch in the opposite direction (a bad experience on the Catholic side, or a good experience on the Orthodox side). Many do not consider the doctrinal differences that important; others do,

But the doctrinal bias is learned, not natural. Since the Catholic Church formally teaches that there is little that separates us from the Orthodox, Orthodox who become Catholic find an easier go of it. Orthodox who become Catholic actually agree with that paradigm in the first place (from my experience). Catholics who become Orthodox will literally have to become indoctrinated into believing that a lot of what they once believed was wrong.

I believe the main advantage of being Catholic (instead of Orthodox) is that it is easier to acheive Christ’s ideal for unity. It’s a matter of personal priority (imo). If you believe unity is important, I believe the Catholic Church is the place to be. In the Orthodox Churches, there are many great voices for unity, but there is no universal voice for that unity, and I think that is a big problem, since unity, according to our Lord, is supposed to be a witness to the world that does not know Christ.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
 
dzheremi said:
I see that my point is not understood or appreciated. Let me make it more explicit, then: you in the Roman Catholic communion are just as disunited from the Church (Orthodoxy) as the Orthodox are disunited from you. So why on earth should the Orthodox have to give up their faith to join yours? (And make no mistake, regardless of how you wish to frame it, to the Orthodox that is what coming into union with Rome in its present form would mean.)

This is why I find all this talk of Christ’s command to unity to be disingenuous, no matter who it comes from. Everyone wants to point to the other people and say “they don’t want unity!” or some such, when you’re not budging either. At least be honest with yourself and admit that you are where you are not somewhere else because you find these other faiths or variations on the faith to be wrong, and your own to be right. That’s not damaging to unity – that’s the first step to actual progress towards unity, which frankly I do not believe that anyone who argues as the people in this thread have is actually interested in.

As an Orthodox Christian, I know that I and everyone in my Church has very definite ideas of what it means to be in unity. They are not the same as what the Roman Catholic Church and those of that communion envision as unity, or (arguably) what the Eastern Orthodox/Byzantine Church envisions as unity. So we remain apart because while we all read and believe in Christ’s command, we literally have different and irreconcilable ideas of what it means.
Click to expand...
Has anything changed within Orthodox churches, from what Card Kasper wrote about back in 2002?

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

zenit.org/en/articles/the-crisis-of-ecumenism-according-to-cardinal-kasper

otoh, Catholics have unity with Peter and unity with those in union with Peter going back to Jesus. So I have to disagree with your statements above.

Q: It was advanced by the pope to E Orthodoxy, as an olive branch, that the Orthodox churches, would only be expected to accept what was universally accepted in the 1st millenium (before the split) concernng papal authority. Now I understand that no ONE speaks for Orthodoxy. But whatever happened with that overture from the pope to the Orthodox…from the Orthodox side, what was the response?
 
1Tim215Mommy said:
Thank you for sharing 🙂

On your last point, I don’t understand. I don’t see any unity in the Catholic Church - not in Liturgy or Creed. Where is the unity that you see or notice in the Catholic Church? What am I missing?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Pope/Magesterium. One body. One head. Period.

Not hundreds.

I’ll put it in simplistic terms. How many Presidents/Senates
do we have?
ONE.
If every state in the US was completely autonomous-
How long would it survive?
 
marywarfield said:
Pope/Magesterium. One body. One head. Period.

Not hundreds.

I’ll put it in simplistic terms. How many Presidents/Senates
do we have?
ONE.
If every state in the US was completely autonomous-
How long would it survive?
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree that the central final authority in the Catholic Church is a good thing.

But…

The Pope does not equal the Magesterium. The Magesterium of the Catholic Church consists of the Pope and the Bishops in Communion with him. They cannot be separated and the Pope turned into an autonomous ruler.

The Orthodox Churches have survived quite well for just as long as the Catholic Church has, while lacking our central authority. Certainly, they struggle with many issues that could be more easily resolved if they had a central authority, but their lack of such has certainly not caused permanent damage to their communion.
 
steve_b said:
Has anything changed within Orthodox churches, from what Card Kasper wrote about back in 2002?

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

zenit.org/en/articles/the-crisis-of-ecumenism-according-to-cardinal-kasper

otoh, Catholics have unity with Peter and unity with those in union with Peter going back to Jesus. So I have to disagree with your statements above.

Q: It was advanced by the pope to E Orthodoxy, as an olive branch, that the Orthodox churches, would only be expected to accept what was universally accepted in the 1st millenium (before the split) concernng papal authority. Now I understand that no ONE speaks for Orthodoxy. But whatever happened with that overture from the pope to the Orthodox…from the Orthodox side, what was the response?
Click to expand...
  1. Fr. Casper and you see unity as oragnization/juridical unity. That is important, but that is not the essence of unity, in the context of the Church. The essence of unity is unity of faith; the sharing of the Apostolic Faith.
  2. I think you are referring to a statement by Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope Benedict. I thought it was a very hopeful statement at the time. However, I am not aware it was ever made a formal proposal to the Orthodox Church. I discussed this with fellow Romna Catholics at the time (I was RC then) and their take was that it was an off-hand statement which had no official status. They generally pooh-poohed it. So I don’t think you can blame Orthodox prelates for not taking it as a formal overture. If it is ever made a formal proposal, I would expect it to be taken very seriously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top