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

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1Tim215Mommy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
coptsoldier said:
Funnily Enough, the early church didnt ban intermarriages, like thw coptic church of today. St monica is one such example, and by her loyalty and devotion to christ her husband was baptised catholic on his deathbed.
Click to expand...
I say, I would put money on Paul talking about this somewhere…
 
St paul writes not to be unevenly yoked with unbelievers. Which is what the catholic church has always taught. However, the church knows people fall in love, and will get married. As such, they can apply to the bishop for dispensation. They can also still commune. Much better then the current coptic practise of excommunicating those who marry outside the oriental church, even if its the roman catholic church.
 
dzheremi said:
If you can think of more succinct terms by which to classify the likes of Oneness Penetecostals and their ilk and the various new age religions, feel free to substitute those, then.
Click to expand...
I would refer to them as non-Christians. 😃
 
coptsoldier said:
Funnily Enough, the early church didnt ban intermarriages, like thw coptic church of today. St monica is one such example, and by her loyalty and devotion to christ her husband was baptised catholic on his deathbed.
Click to expand...
That’s nice. I would add that the early church likewise did not have the vested interest in doing so that the Coptic Orthodox Church clearly does as a minority within a largely non-Christian society, and with regard to world Christianity also being a minority among many other Christian sects with doctrines opposed to its own. Still even with this rule a certain number of Copts are lost per year to Islam, which of course for social and political reasons they are powerless to stop (I can’t remember exactly how many from the source I read a few years ago – an article in a psychology journal about the ethical dilemmas involving the reported conversion of a mentally impaired Coptic man to Islam in Egypt – I believe it was in the high hundreds to low thousands, perhaps). So it is a good rule in the context in which the Church has lived for some time now.
 
dzheremi said:
That’s nice. I would add that the early church likewise did not have the vested interest in doing so that the Coptic Orthodox Church clearly does as a minority within a largely non-Christian society, and with regard to world Christianity also being a minority among many other Christian sects with doctrines opposed to its own. Still even with this rule a certain number of Copts are lost per year to Islam, which of course for social and political reasons they are powerless to stop (I can’t remember exactly how many from the source I read a few years ago – an article in a psychology journal about the ethical dilemmas involving the reported conversion of a mentally impaired Coptic man to Islam in Egypt – I believe it was in the high hundreds to low thousands, perhaps). So it is a good rule in the context in which the Church has lived for some time now.
Click to expand...
Yea, doesn’t that defeat the entire context of Judaism misunderstanding the role of being the source of salvation for the world, as opposed the way they took it of the risk of defilement? Either one is illuminated and thereby acts as illumination or all is for naught.
 
The early church were a minority, with paganism and arianism all around them, even at st monicas time. Also I can at least understand the rulling for in egypt, but not in australia, or the diaspora. Yet the same ruling applies. The reality is those who marry outside the faith are currently kicked out of the coptic church, which is wrong. They are insist on conversion for eastern orthodox and roman catholics as well, going as far as to even rebaptise catholics, which as I have stated before is absolute heresy.
 
coptsoldier said:
St paul writes not to be unevenly yoked with unbelievers. Which is what the catholic church has always taught. However, the church knows people fall in love, and will get married. As such, they can apply to the bishop for dispensation. They can also still commune. Much better then the current coptic practise of excommunicating those who marry outside the oriental church, even if its the roman catholic church.
Click to expand...
I note the terms you use concisely, but in case others might misunderstand, I just want to explain:

The COC does not excommunicate someone just for marrying a Catholic. In fact, if a CO becomes Catholic while in a marriage, the CO does not consider the marriage “invalid” and would not see it as sufficient grounds for divorce (i.e., apostasy). However, it is an excommunicable offense to marry outside of the COC.

Blessings
 
UbiCaritas15 said:
Yea, doesn’t that defeat the entire context of Judaism misunderstanding the role of being the source of salvation for the world, as opposed the way they took it of the risk of defilement? Either one is illuminated and thereby acts as illumination or all is for naught.
Click to expand...
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I don’t understand what you’re asking here. Can you rephrase your question?

(Judaism? What does Judaism have to do with the Coptic Orthodox Church’s stance on marriage? Are there even a significant number of Jews left in Egypt? Not since the 1960s at the latest, from what I understand…they’ve mostly left for Israel and the West since the 1967 war.)
 
mardukm said:
I note the terms you use concisely, but in case others might misunderstand, I just want to explain:

The COC does not excommunicate someone just for marrying a Catholic. In fact, if a CO becomes Catholic while in a marriage, the CO does not consider the marriage “invalid” and would not see it as sufficient grounds for divorce (i.e., apostasy). However, it is an excommunicable offense to marry outside of the COC.

Blessings
Click to expand...
This is true, and perhaps I should have been a bit more concise with my own post originally. You may marry someone who later converts to the Catholic or EO church and not be divorced (I don’t know about other churches, since I don’t personally know anyone who has gone through that), but if you marry someone outside the Church (with the exception of EO within the Patriarchal territory of Alexandria, where it was determined several years ago that OO and EO would recognize each others’ marriages, baptisms, etc. due to the high number of mixed Coptic/Greek couples), you are excommunicated. In order to have your marriage sacramentally blessed and recognized within the COC, the non-Orthodox partner will have to convert. This can be a considerable challenge in the new experience of the diaspora, of course…
 
Exactly. In my case I have converted from coptic to catholic, however my wife has not. Nor will I force her. So I am glad she cant get a divorce 😛
 
dzheremi said:
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I don’t understand what you’re asking here. Can you rephrase your question?

(Judaism? What does Judaism have to do with the Coptic Orthodox Church’s stance on marriage? Are there even a significant number of Jews left in Egypt? Not since the 1960s at the latest, from what I understand…they’ve mostly left for Israel and the West since the 1967 war.)
Click to expand...
I’m sorry :o things are so clear in my head, I forget others don’t live there too. I was referencing the whole biblical Jewish issue with defilement from foreign idols and nations (influences) all of which was completely unnecessary after David and the call to convert the nations, which was the entire point of being chosen. Jesus points out that our job is to be the illumination of the world, not living in fear of being defiled by it. It just seems like a parallel this excommunicating and rebaptising thing. (Unless I misunderstand.)

Take my opinion as you will. I have a non-practicing Protestant husband, who was raised in an anti-catholic home. It is not ideal, but I have no doubt at all that he is supposed to be my husband, because discussing religion with him brought me back to the Church. I have faith in the recommendations of St Paul and St Monica 🙂
 
Erm…okay. There was no question anymore in your rephrase, so I take you were meaning to state your opinion rather than ask something. Okay. I’m glad you are happy in your marriage. 🙂
 
dzheremi said:
Erm…okay. There was no question anymore in your rephrase, so I take you were meaning to state your opinion rather than ask something. Okay. I’m glad you are happy in your marriage. 🙂
Click to expand...
Probably so, but you have more experience, so your opinion would be good to hear…

I am happy, but I wouldn’t recommend it to the faint of heart or weak willed, so I understand the importance of an eternal perspective (generally meaning marrying within the faith.)
 
mardukm said:
Dear sister 1Tim215Mommy,

I am puzzled. In all my years debating Eastern Orthodox on ecclesiology (both when I was in the OO communion and now in the Catholic communion), I have NEVER ever heard an EO make communion with their Patriarch a basis for ANY sort of argument. In fact, the EO I have debated more often than not insist that communion with your head bishop is of no consequence at all.

To be perfectly honest, unless you have simply not exactly intended what you wrote, I think you are a lot closer to being Catholic (I mean Catholic as an Orthodox in communion with Rome as distinct from an Orthodox who is not in communion with Rome) than you might think.🤷

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Are you sure you’ve been paying attention?

This is exactly the reason the Kievan Patriarchate isn’t considered Orthodox - because of who their bishops are not in Communion with.

To be Orthodox you must be in Communion with a Bishop who is in communion with a Bishop who is listed in the Dyptychs of the other Orthodox Churches.
 
UbiCaritas15 said:
It is important to call a spade a spade, not out of posturing but in hopes the spade unspades… Yep 🙂
Click to expand...
So you would call a person who professes a deformed (or lacking) version of Christianity a “heretic” and all non-Christians as “heathens”? And I never said we should not help or evangelize said peoples I just said we shouldn’t refer to them as “heretics” or “heathens”.
 
josie_L said:
So you would call a person who professes a deformed (or lacking) version of Christianity a “heretic” and all non-Christians as “heathens”? And I never said we should not help or evangelize said peoples I just said we shouldn’t refer to them as “heretics” or “heathens”.
Click to expand...
The way you ask the question implies that my opinion intends to belittle. That is your inference. It is a spiritual act of mercy to admonish sinners, that implies some informational conversation. Beating around the bush isn’t merciful. I wish that in times when I’ve been in grave error people had been blatant with me. It’s nice that I came back and all that jazz, but I could just as easily been hit by a bus first.

There is an obvious distinction in letting someone know they are treading into heresy and asking someone to wear a sand which board that says “heretic.”
 
They are only heretics if they were catholic and then left, otherwise they are just misguided.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top