Eastern Catholics how/why is Union with Rome is worth being divided from all the other Orthodox Patriarchs?

[twf]

In what world does one exist wherein one cannot speak of one’s experience of Orthodox Christians unless one is in the Orthodox Church? Any person who speaks to any Orthodox can get a gauge of what Orthodoxy is. You alone are not the sole determinant of what Orthodoxy is, brother.

And btw, I have a lifetime of experience being Orthodox. You have - what - 4 or 5 years (less?)? So do not dare to even begin to lecture me on what the mind of the Orthodox Church is.

You have a habit of going off in huff whenever anyone challenges you on any little thing. That’s OK. Know that you are still my brother in Christ, and I will always be willing to dialogue with you, and correct you if necessary.

Blessings

I simply cannot understand those Orthodox Christians who sincerely believe that Catholicism and Protestantism have more in common than Catholicism and Orthodoxy. To think that shared terminology on a few doctrinal issues, such as justification, is more common ground than the necessity of sacraments, the Christian priesthood, apostolic succession, the real presence of the Eucharistic, the Eucharistic sacrifice, the intercession of saints, the unique role of Mary as Mother of God and Ever-Virgin, etc. is beyond my comprehension. When I read the texts of the Eastern liturgies I think “this is the Catholic faith”…when I attend a Protestant service I think “how far they have fallen from the Apostolic faith”. It is night and day. Often these claims are based on a superficial understanding of both Catholicism and Protestantism. Years ago I was dialoguing with a distant cousin who is an Eastern Orthodox priest. He made the same claim (that Catholicism and Protestantism share more in common than do Catholicism and Orthodoxy). One of his arguments was that we, like Protestants, turn to one sole authority for our faith: the Bible for Protestants and the Papacy for Catholics. He insisted it was the same fundamental error - a departure from the holistic approach of Orthodoxy. This, of course, was based on superficial understanding of the role of the papacy in Catholicism. Authentic Catholic doctrine no more teaches “sola papa” than it does “sola scriptura”.

 

[josie_L]

I simply cannot understand those Orthodox Christians who sincerely believe that Catholicism and Protestantism have more in common than Catholicism and Orthodoxy. To think that shared terminology on a few doctrinal issues, such as justification, is more common ground than the necessity of sacraments, the Christian priesthood, apostolic succession, the real presence of the Eucharistic, the Eucharistic sacrifice, the intercession of saints, the unique role of Mary as Mother of God and Ever-Virgin, etc. is beyond my comprehension. When I read the texts of the Eastern liturgies I think “this is the Catholic faith”…when I attend a Protestant service I think “how far they have fallen from the Apostolic faith”. It is night and day. Often these claims are based on a superficial understanding of both Catholicism and Protestantism. Years ago I was dialoguing with a distant cousin who is an Eastern Orthodox priest. He made the same claim (that Catholicism and Protestantism share more in common than do Catholicism and Orthodoxy). One of his arguments was that we, like Protestants, turn to one sole authority for our faith: the Bible for Protestants and the Papacy for Catholics. He insisted it was the same fundamental error - a departure from the holistic approach of Orthodoxy. This, of course, was based on superficial understanding of the role of the papacy in Catholicism. Authentic Catholic doctrine no more teaches “sola papa” than it does “sola scriptura”.

He’s an EO priest and he said that about Catholicism.

 

[dzheremi]

“Going off in a huff”! Hahaha. That’s rich. More like “You’ve annoyed the heck out of me for a long time, and now that it’s Lent I’m finally coming around to the idea that I just shouldn’t discuss things with you, for the good of both of us.” I know it’s the internet and all, but nobody owes you a discussion they don’t want to have with you just because you have an opinion on what they’ve written.

twf: As for the differences and similarities between the various churches, of course there are many similarities between Orthodoxy and Catholicism that do not exist between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. But as far as the approach to the religion (what I was getting at in my post), there is a certain similarity between Catholics and their daughters the Protestants that does not exist between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, since (as I wrote before) the Protestants came out of the RCC, and hence retained to a greater or lesser degree much of its philosophical outlook (see, for example, Lutheran consubstantiation in answer/contradistinction to Catholic transubstantiation, whereas the Orthodox Church just says that the Eucharist is true body of Jesus Christ our God, without defining how). It is a matter of approach. The RCC and the Protestants have similar philosophical outlooks which drive their development and approach to the faith.

 

[josie_L]

In what world does one exist wherein one cannot speak of one’s experience of Orthodox Christians unless one is in the Orthodox Church? Any person who speaks to any Orthodox can get a gauge of what Orthodoxy is. You alone are not the sole determinant of what Orthodoxy is, brother.

And btw, I have a lifetime of experience being Orthodox. You have - what - 4 or 5 years (less?)? So do not dare to even begin to lecture me on what the mind of the Orthodox Church is.

I’ve never heard you get angry before. I’m not saying you’re not justified though.

 

[coptsoldier]

How on earth would you know? You are an apostate from Orthodoxy, and hence your ability to speak on it is to be taken no more seriously than my own ability to speak regarding Roman Catholicism as an apostate from that church – something which you have frequently taken me to task for here when you felt I was speaking out of turn. Well, physician, heal thyself, and leave alone.

Edit: Do not bother replying to any more of my posts, Mardukm. I will not see any of your replies, as you are on my ignore list now.

Wow seriously dzheremi? That was completely uncharitable, and insulting to brother mardukm. He has a much greater right to talk about coptic orthodoxy as he was in it far longer then me and you combined. Also no coptic orthpdox priest or bishop thinks that roman catholicism and coptic orthodoxy are far apart. Most even believe communion will be returned in the next decade.

Also mardukm is not an apostate from orthodoxy, nor am I. We are orthodox in communion with rome. We are miaphysite, but we realise the nessessity for the primacy of st peter,

 

[coptsoldier]

“Going off in a huff”! Hahaha. That’s rich. More like “You’ve annoyed the heck out of me for a long time, and now that it’s Lent I’m finally coming around to the idea that I just shouldn’t discuss things with you, for the good of both of us.” I know it’s the internet and all, but nobody owes you a discussion they don’t want to have with you just because you have an opinion on what they’ve written.

Why do you post on a forum if you dont want discussion? In fact, ive seen you on multiple occasions share thoughts about us orthodox who commune with romenas being somehow betraying orthodoxy. Are you truly on here for dialogue? Or just to convert us heretics back to orthodoxy?

 

[twf]

“Going off in a huff”! Hahaha. That’s rich. More like “You’ve annoyed the heck out of me for a long time, and now that it’s Lent I’m finally coming around to the idea that I just shouldn’t discuss things with you, for the good of both of us.” I know it’s the internet and all, but nobody owes you a discussion they don’t want to have with you just because you have an opinion on what they’ve written.

twf: As for the differences and similarities between the various churches, of course there are many similarities between Orthodoxy and Catholicism that do not exist between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. But as far as the approach to the religion (what I was getting at in my post), there is a certain similarity between Catholics and their daughters the Protestants that does not exist between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, since (as I wrote before) the Protestants came out of the RCC, and hence retained to a greater or lesser degree much of its philosophical outlook (see, for example, Lutheran consubstantiation in answer/contradistinction to Catholic transubstantiation, whereas the Orthodox Church just says that the Eucharist is true body of Jesus Christ our God, without defining how). It is a matter of approach. The RCC and the Protestants have similar philosophical outlooks which drive their development and approach to the faith.

I can see where you’re getting at as far as it concerns the old “mainstream” Protestant traditions: Lutheranism, Methodism, Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, maybe even Baptists. But I still feel that modern Evangelicalism, and even more so Pentecostalism, which in terms of numbers have far surpassed the old mainline traditions, especially in the Third World, is now so far removed from any Catholic roots that they might have once had that this is no longer a valid point. If you asked a Pentecostal about the Eucharist they would answer “what’s that?”. They may have a symbolic bread and wine ritual that they occasionally celebrate (perhaps a few times a year?), in imitation of the Last Supper, but they certainly wouldn’t have any sort of developed theology about it - nor any concept of any kind of “substantiation” whether it be “trans” or “con”. It simply isn’t on their radar. Nor are sacraments in general. I recently had to explain to a Pentecostal why Catholics celebrate Good Friday / Easter. The notion of liturgically celebrating / commemorating the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ was completely foreign to her. She believes that these things happened and that they won her salvation, but her Pentecostal tradition is now so far removed from its Catholic roots, that we no longer speak the same language. The term “Protestantism” is tricky - it is an ever evolving movement. I emphasize this point because it is the Evangelicals and Pentecostals who are making massive inroads in traditionally Catholic (and even Orthodox) regions, not Lutherans or Anglicans. Lutherans and Anglicans definitely speak the same theological language as Latin Catholics.

 

[dzheremi]

Wow seriously dzheremi? That was completely uncharitable, and insulting to brother mardukm. He has a much greater right to talk about coptic orthodoxy as he was in it far longer then me and you combined. Also no coptic orthpdox priest or bishop thinks that roman catholicism and coptic orthodoxy are far apart. Most even believe communion will be returned in the next decade.

Also mardukm is not an apostate from orthodoxy, nor am I. We are orthodox in communion with rome. We are miaphysite, but we realise the nessessity for the primacy of st peter,

Good Lord…what is this? Annoy the actual Coptic Orthodox poster day?

A few points:

• In no religion does one get to be “grandfathered” in. Even when Anba Athanasius of Jerusalem, who had been up to that point in his life Orthodox and even reached so high as to be granted the honor of being the bishop of the city of Jerusalem, became Roman Catholic, he did not continue to be considered an Orthodox bishop. Once you are no longer within the fold of the Orthodox Church, you are no form of Orthodox Christian. Period. It doesn’t matter how long you were Orthodox. You are not Orthodox. (The same is true of me and Catholicism, by the way: I could be a candidate for the Papacy of Rome, but once I leave that church for something else, I’m no longer Catholic. The Orthodox do not share Rome’s “indelible mark” theology, and there is nothing like Rome’s idea of “episcopi vagantes” in Orthodoxy. Once you’re out, you’re out, unless you choose to come back as Anba Athanasius eventually did. What you and Mardukm are playing at is not Orthodoxy, even if your combined “time served” were a million years.
• “Also no coptic orthpdox priest or bishop thinks that roman catholicism and coptic orthodoxy are far apart. Most even believe communion will be returned in the next decade.” I can’t decide whether or not this is hearsay or slander or both, but I highly, highly doubt that “most Coptic Orthodox priests or bishops…believe communion will be returned in the next decade”. That is just ludicrous. Tell that to my own priest, Fr. Marcus Mansour, or our bishop HG Bishop Youssef. Tell that to HE Metropolitan Bishoy. Tell that to basically anybody, from a bishop on down to a layperson. Your quixotic hyperbole is not echoed by the people who have actually remained in the Coptic Orthodox Church, so be prepared for a lot of confused looks and/or dismissals. It is much more realistic to say we’d hope that communion would be restored soon, but at the same time recognize that we have a lot of work left to do before that is even remotely possible.
• Yes, you are apostates. You are an apostate from Orthodoxy, just as I am an apostate from Catholicism. Let’s not muddy the waters with wishful thinking. Wishes don’t make reality anything other than what it is. If you are in communion with Rome, you are not in communion with Orthodoxy, as there is no Orthodox church that is in communion with Rome. Orthodoxy means something and you cheapen and degrade it by claiming it as some sort of proprietary right to be held by yourself and Mardukm by virtue of your having once been Orthodox. That is not how things work. That is fantasy, and I will not indulge you in it no matter how many times you repeat it or how deeply you believe it to be reality.

 

[dzheremi]

Why do you post on a forum if you dont want discussion? In fact, ive seen you on multiple occasions share thoughts about us orthodox who commune with romenas being somehow betraying orthodoxy. Are you truly on here for dialogue? Or just to convert us heretics back to orthodoxy?

I do want discussion. But I don’t owe discussion to anyone I don’t want to have it with (just as nobody owes me or anyone else a discussion that they don’t want to have). Personal agency is a great thing. You don’t want to talk to someone or hear/read what they have to say? You don’t have to. It’s great. The ignore button is my friend, and yours too.

Anyway, no, I’m not here to convert anyone to or from anything. I’m here because I’ve been here a long time and I still find a great many wonderful people and things to discuss here. I love this community, even if I’m entirely over having conversations with some of its members who have proven to me by their posting habits that there is nothing to be gained by discussing things with them. I’m sure there are some here who feel the same about me, as is their right.

 

[dzheremi]

I can see where you’re getting at as far as it concerns the old “mainstream” Protestant traditions: Lutheranism, Methodism, Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, maybe even Baptists. But I still feel that modern Evangelicalism, and even more so Pentecostalism, which in terms of numbers have far surpassed the old mainline traditions, especially in the Third World, is now so far removed from any Catholic roots that they might have once had that this is no longer a valid point.

For all I know, this is true (about modern Evangelicals). I do not keep up with all the permutations of that belief, so there is probably some really wacky stuff out there. I was probably subconsciously thinking of mainline Protestants, since that’s historically what Protestantism consists of. Of course I guess these newer mainline denominations are themselves generally offshoots of mainline denominations, aren’t they? So the same principle still applies, it just results in something that is even more diluted.

To that end, there is something to be said for the relativity of it all. I’ve had similar discussions off board with Oriental Christians of various churches (Catholic and Orthodox) wherein the conclusion was basically that if the EO and OO did not both have Rome to compare each other to, it is possible that we would not see one another as being very close at all. But that’s not the world as it is, I suppose. (I mean that as no offense to Rome or its believers; it’s just another way of looking at this question of the relative closeness of one communion or church to another.)

Lutherans and Anglicans definitely speak the same theological language as Latin Catholics.

Sure, but is this in comparison to the Pentecostals you mentioned, or an observation of both in their own right? That’s kinda what I’m getting at here – it depends on what the standard of comparison is. Certainly, I would say that Orthodoxy has more in common with Roman Catholicism if I was to adopt your signposts as a measurement of relative distance or closeness (e.g., do the have some developed theology regarding the Eucharist, or do they celebrate Easter, etc). But on my own (or, rather, separate from that standard), I don’t really have any reason to do so. Certainly the Orthodox Church is not minimalist such that any developed theology is taken as an automatic point of contact, so we’d have to look at and compare the substance of what is believed, and that is precisely why I mention the idea of differing approaches; as in the Lutheran consubstantiation example, Western Christianity whether Catholic or Protestant often concerns itself with things that the East does not. I don’t think that’s an accident, and I also do not think that it is something that makes Catholicism similar to Orthodoxy just because Protestants don’t generally know enough or bother to do the same.

So I guess I agree with you in some ways, but still agree most with me.

 

[coptsoldier]

Yeah you are right I shouldnt have said most. But alot I knpw here want communion with rome, most not even knowing or caring why we arent one church. Also met bishoy is a bad example as he is an extremist, and unfortunately has a very closed mind to different expressions of the faith.

 

[dzheremi]

I have my own problems with HE Bishoy, but that does not make him not a metropolitan. He is just as much an example of a Coptic Orthodox leader as anyone you would not label and extremist. I do not consider HG Youssef to be an extremist in the slightest, having met the man several times and discussed matters with him, and there is no indication from him or anyone else I have ever spoken to or corresponded with in the COC that there communion forthcoming with the RCC. And, for whatever its worth, our priest here at St. Bishoy COC steadfastly refuses to commune anyone outside of the communion for any reason, and has said as much to visitors to our church from other traditions (Catholic and non) who are not in communion with us. He is likewise not an extremist, just doing his job to guard the chalice so that only those who are baptized and believing Orthodox may approach.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Coptsolider,

Thanks for the defense. When posters are wrong, I don’t let that get under my skin. I understand that Copts use the term “apostate” not in the traditional sense of leaving Christ, but simply as one who leaves the visible structure of the COC. This is obvious because Dzheremi claims that he is an “apostate” from the Catholic Church. Of course, the Catholic Church would never call Dzheremi an “apostate” because the Catholic Church uses that term only in its traditional sense as one who leaves Christ.

That Dzheremi gets annoyed just by speaking with posters who can challenge his statements really exposes something about Dzheremi himself. That’s nothing for us to worry about, but we can pray for him.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

• In no religion does one get to be “grandfathered” in.

That’s not the point. The fact is, since I have 45+ years of being Orthodox, I have had a LOT more contact with Orthodox Christians than you will have had in your short time within Orthodoxy. The very great majority of the Orthodox Christians I have encountered do not share your opinion that the CC is closer to Protestants than the CC is to Orthodox. So you are incorrect about your overgeneralization of “the Orthodox way” of looking at things.

Blessings

 

[Peter_J]

• Yes, you are apostates. You are an apostate from Orthodoxy, just as I am an apostate from Catholicism.

I’m a bit reluctant to “butt” in here, both because of the many complications in this discussion that I haven’t time to address, and also because it has become a bit heated on both sides.

Nevertheless, I need to respond because here you’ve hit upon one of my pet peeves. Please realize that I’m not saying this out of naivete … I realize that “leaving Orthodoxy” = “apostasizing from Orthodoxy” is one valid definition/usage of “apostasy”. Nevertheless, I find it inappropraite (just as I would if it were used in the opposite direction) … might I suggest you substitute the word “schisming”?

Good Lord…what is this? Annoy the actual Coptic Orthodox poster day?

No. You’re making a mockery of bell day! (-Coach Ernie Pantusso)

 

[Peter_J]

That’s not the point. The fact is, since I have 45+ years of being Orthodox, I have had a LOT more contact with Orthodox Christians than you will have had in your short time within Orthodoxy.

Good point. However, I would assume that dzheremi’s point (not, of course, that I can speak for you dzheremi ) was that length-of-time in a church/communion can be made out to mean something that it doesn’t. Perhaps you’ll understand his point better if you consider how many years Pierre Teilhard de Chardin spent in the Catholic Church.

 

[dvdjs]

• In no religion does one get to be “grandfathered” in. Even when Anba Athanasius oferusalem, who had been up to that point in his life Orthodox and even reached so high as to be granted the honor of being the bishop of the city of Jerusalem, became Roman Catholic, he did not continue to be considered an Orthodox bishop. Once you are no longer within the fold of the Orthodox Church, you are no form of Orthodox Christian. Period. It doesn’t matter how long you were Orthodox. You are not Orthodox. (The same is true of me and Catholicism, by the way: I could be a candidate for the Papacy of Rome, but once I leave that church for something else, I’m no longer Catholic. The Orthodox do not share Rome’s “indelible mark” theology, and there is nothing like Rome’s idea of “episcopi vagantes” in Orthodoxy. Once you’re out, you’re out, unless you choose to come back as Anba Athanasius eventually did. What you and Mardukm are playing at is not Orthodoxy, even if your combined “time served” were a million years.

This discussion of being a member in one religion or another is largely irrelevant. No one made a false claim about affiliation; the claims were about experience with and knowledge of the religion and its members. That experience and knowledge does not simply evaporate when a person is “out”. And surely no one would suggest that membership imparts some special insight that is somehow lost when a person is “out”.

A better argument might be that this have changed so much since a person had left that their knowledge is no longer current. Or that for all the time spent, one never really worked to develop the insight. But membership of itself is a poor proxy for actual experience and knowledge.

 

[Peter_J]

This discussion of being a member in one religion or another is largely irrelevant.

I completely agree. (That probably goes without saying, in view of my comment about Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, but I want to say it anyhow.)

 

[Vico]

After reading the responses to another question I asked, it triggered for me a new question.

I am now curious as to how/why Eastern Catholics feel that being in Union with Rome is worth being divided from all the other Orthodox Patriarchs?

I’m hoping that the responses will potentially lead me to new areas/issues to focus research - things I’ve not thought to consider previously.

Because the Church is in reality one.

The question can be reversed, why is it worth being divided from Rome?

The issue of primacy is both a reason for union and a reason for disunion depending on the belief of each particular Church. The issue is to accept the teaching authority of the Councils in union with the Roman Pontiff or rather to accept the teaching authority of the Councils without the concurrence of the Roman Pontiff. It was declared at Florence that the Roman Pontiff is the “father and teacher of all Christians”. For the Roman Pontiff to have teaching authority means that dogmatic definitions must have approval of Rome, yet some of the eastern Church have contradicted that saying that the Roman Church is heretical because of the filioque.

If one believes that what was said to Peter applies to each Apostle, it certainly does not exclude the Roman Pontiff.“thou art Peter; and upon this rock” (cf. Mt 16:18-19)
“strengthening his brothers” (cf. Lk 22:32)
“Feed my lambs… Tend my sheep” (Jn 21:15-17) implications.
“As the Father has sent me, so I send you” (Jn 20:21; cf. 17:18)

 

[Nine_Two]

I simply cannot understand those Orthodox Christians who sincerely believe that Catholicism and Protestantism have more in common than Catholicism and Orthodoxy. To think that shared terminology on a few doctrinal issues, such as justification, is more common ground than the necessity of sacraments, the Christian priesthood, apostolic succession, the real presence of the Eucharistic, the Eucharistic sacrifice, the intercession of saints, the unique role of Mary as Mother of God and Ever-Virgin, etc. is beyond my comprehension. When I read the texts of the Eastern liturgies I think “this is the Catholic faith”…when I attend a Protestant service I think “how far they have fallen from the Apostolic faith”. It is night and day. Often these claims are based on a superficial understanding of both Catholicism and Protestantism. Years ago I was dialoguing with a distant cousin who is an Eastern Orthodox priest. He made the same claim (that Catholicism and Protestantism share more in common than do Catholicism and Orthodoxy). One of his arguments was that we, like Protestants, turn to one sole authority for our faith: the Bible for Protestants and the Papacy for Catholics. He insisted it was the same fundamental error - a departure from the holistic approach of Orthodoxy. This, of course, was based on superficial understanding of the role of the papacy in Catholicism. Authentic Catholic doctrine no more teaches “sola papa” than it does “sola scriptura”.

And yet Catholics and Protestants approach theological issues from the same viewpoint. You both try to reason your way to God. Afterall what is 5-point Calvinism but a bunch of reasoned syllogisms based on pre-existing Catholic precepts (I’m not saying they are correct, only reasoned).

We’ve also seen Catholicism and Protestantism continue to influence each other. You have a branch of the Catholic Church which has followed the antinomianism of the so called “mainline”, you have the Charismatic Catholics who have followed the spirituality of the Pentecostals, you have the ultra-montanists who follow their authority bullheadedly like the Sola scripturists.

But similar to us? I don’t think there is any part of the Latin Church which takes an apophatic view as we do.