D
dronald
Guest
Just imagine that I’m Catholic.
- Status
T
TRH1292
Guest
Dronald,
At this point, I really just think you have a massive misunderstanding of this issue, because I just do not understand the statements you are making.
The Bishop of Alexandria is not infallible. They fell into heresy several times. So did the Bishop of Antioch. And Individual people in the Church also fell into heresy. I don’t understand how somebody falling into heresy or leaving the Church or going into schism has any relevance at all.
The teaching authority of the Church resides in the Pope and the Church united in an ecumenical council.
The answer to “Scripture Alone” is not “Scripture and Tradition”! We cannot interpret tradition ourselves any more than we can interpret scripture. Interpretation of the divine revelation revealed in Scripture and Tradition belongs to the magestirium of the Church, that is, the Pope and the Bishops united with him.
People leaving the Catholic Church or refusing to believe in it’s teaching no more disproves them than people refusing to believe in Jesus disproves him.
D
dronald
Guest
Thanks for a thoughtful response.Dronald,
At this point, I really just think you have a massive misunderstanding of this issue, because I just do not understand the statements you are making.
The Bishop of Alexandria is not infallible. They fell into heresy several times. So did the Bishop of Antioch. And Individual people in the Church also fell into heresy. I don’t understand how somebody falling into heresy or leaving the Church or going into schism has any relevance at all.
The teaching authority of the Church resides in the Pope and the Church united in an ecumenical council.
The answer to “Scripture Alone” is not “Scripture and Tradition”! We cannot interpret tradition ourselves any more than we can interpret scripture. Interpretation of the divine revelation revealed in Scripture and Tradition belongs to the magestirium of the Church, that is, the Pope and the Bishops united with him.
People leaving the Catholic Church or refusing to believe in it’s teaching no more disproves them than people refusing to believe in Jesus disproves him.
When I think “tradition” I think “what has always been taught.” If the Copts fell into heresy as you say, did they change what had always been taught or did they just make a mistake? I’m wondering how their tradition fell away from the one true holy apostolic Catholic Church?
D
dzheremi
Guest
Then you’d already know the answer to your question, right? Thread over?
This is what I was trying to get across to you in my earlier post. It seems that behind these questions is the assumption that because Alexandria and Rome were in communion at one point, that means they always had the same traditions. They never did, and that certainly predates Chalcedon (or else Pope Leo I of Rome would not have written to Pope Dioscoros six years prior to that council to urge him that Alexandria should adopt Roman practices that had never developed in Alexandria). So this talk about who “screwed up” is strange…nobody screwed up. They were different to begin with. Particular churches had different traditions while they were all still in communion. They didn’t all have one tradition which then the others began to degrade. As early as the Council of Nicaea (and undoubtedly earlier, though Nicaea is a milestone) we read in the canons of different customs of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, as well as of Antioch, which had parallels with those of Rome but were not the same. Likewise, an example could be made of the Armenians, who remained in communion with the rest of the Church for some time after the Council of Constantinople despite never having adopted its revised Nicaeo-Constantinopolitan Creed (as they had their own, traced to St. Epiphanius if memory serves). You can’t look to the Armenians and tell them they “screwed up” in having changed a creed they never adopted in the first place (read: so they didn’t really change it, but it looks that way if you assume that every church should have the same tradition so long as they are in communion). Do you see where I’m coming from? Even if RCs in this thread will tell you that we screwed up in not accepting the Tome of Leo/Chalcedon (which would not surprise me in the least; what else would they say?), tradition didn’t fail us. In fact, the more common explanation or recap of what went wrong there, at least that I’ve seen lately on this board from RCs looking to emphasize what unites us rather than what divides us (and bravo to all of them for that), is that we couldn’t agree to it because our tradition doesn’t match what our Fathers read in the Tome of Leo. So it is by upholding that tradition that all of this even happened in the first place. Now I suppose you could ask yourself how a tradition which was already present before the Tome could be said to “fail” because it wasn’t in keeping with a document produced later by someone from a different tradition, but that’s so wacky I’m not even going to go there…
Alike in certain basics, sure, but it takes more than agreeing that the sky is blue and that water is wet to commune in or with the Orthodox Church. Perhaps some day we will get there (and I hope we do, though I certainly won’t be alive to see it), but there are many things to be worked out beforehand if that’s ever going to happen. And that’s a topic for another thread (or five, or ten, or six hundred).
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Dronald,
You need to be more specific. And more specifically, why do you say that it was the Copts Oral Tradition the culprit in the separation?
Have you read:
2Th 2:15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.
Notice tradition is in plural. Why do you think there is only one tradition?
In a way, the different rites in the Catholic Church are a tradition. More over, in some cultures there are different traditions of the same rite. As long as the traditions are loyal to the deposit of faith, they are not against it.
Have you been able to identify the Oral Tradition from the Copts? If so, can you please share it for our benefit in understanding.
You need to be more specific. And more specifically, why do you say that it was the Copts Oral Tradition the culprit in the separation?
Have you read:
2Th 2:15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.
Notice tradition is in plural. Why do you think there is only one tradition?
In a way, the different rites in the Catholic Church are a tradition. More over, in some cultures there are different traditions of the same rite. As long as the traditions are loyal to the deposit of faith, they are not against it.
Have you been able to identify the Oral Tradition from the Copts? If so, can you please share it for our benefit in understanding.
D
dronald
Guest
I read every word and I love what you have to say, because such is the open mind of the Orthodox Church. However, you have the “one true holy Catholic Church” claiming to have the fullness of truth, so even though you accept that your Church had different traditions to begin with; this just won’t fly with the Catholic Church.Then you’d already know the answer to your question, right? Thread over?
This is what I was trying to get across to you in my earlier post. It seems that behind these questions is the assumption that because Alexandria and Rome were in communion at one point, that means they always had the same traditions. They never did, and that certainly predates Chalcedon (or else Pope Leo I of Rome would not have written to Pope Dioscoros six years prior to that council to urge him that Alexandria should adopt Roman practices that had never developed in Alexandria). So this talk about who “screwed up” is strange…nobody screwed up. They were different to begin with. Particular churches had different traditions while they were all still in communion. They didn’t all have one tradition which then the others began to degrade. As early as the Council of Nicaea (and undoubtedly earlier, though Nicaea is a milestone) we read in the canons of different customs of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, as well as of Antioch, which had parallels with those of Rome but were not the same. Likewise, an example could be made of the Armenians, who remained in communion with the rest of the Church for some time after the Council of Constantinople despite never having adopted its revised Nicaeo-Constantinopolitan Creed (as they had their own, traced to St. Epiphanius if memory serves). You can’t look to the Armenians and tell them they “screwed up” in having changed a creed they never adopted in the first place (read: so they didn’t really change it, but it looks that way if you assume that every church should have the same tradition so long as they are in communion). Do you see where I’m coming from? Even if RCs in this thread will tell you that we screwed up in not accepting the Tome of Leo/Chalcedon (which would not surprise me in the least; what else would they say?), tradition didn’t fail us. In fact, the more common explanation or recap of what went wrong there, at least that I’ve seen lately on this board from RCs looking to emphasize what unites us rather than what divides us (and bravo to all of them for that), is that we couldn’t agree to it because our tradition doesn’t match what our Fathers read in the Tome of Leo. So it is by upholding that tradition that all of this even happened in the first place. Now I suppose you could ask yourself how a tradition which was already present before the Tome could be said to “fail” because it wasn’t in keeping with a document produced later by someone from a different tradition, but that’s so wacky I’m not even going to go there…
Alike in certain basics, sure, but it takes more than agreeing that the sky is blue and that water is wet to commune in or with the Orthodox Church. Perhaps some day we will get there (and I hope we do, though I certainly won’t be alive to see it), but there are many things to be worked out beforehand if that’s ever going to happen. And that’s a topic for another thread (or five, or ten, or six hundred).
So maybe you believe that Copts and Catholics came to different conclusions and that’s not such a big deal; but the CC takes it way more seriously in that you are broken bretheran who although accept infant Baptism and the Eucharist are still imperfect.
So while you are content with saying you have different beliefs but it’s a-okay, a Catholic will say that you must join Catholicism to have the fullness of truth. Therefore your oral tradition failed based on Christ’s nature and other things according to the Catholic Church.
So, assuming your Church was built on Mark, Mark would have the same beliefs as Peter and yet in the 5th Century Catholics must believe that oral tradition failed the Copts in that they did not believe the exact same thing as Rome. You may brush this off and say it’s not a big deal, but you must admit that Roman Catholics are far more determined for you to just accept what they know is true.
I hope my point has been defined a bit better here.
D
dronald
Guest
I agree! So Coptics are a part of the same Catholic Church that you are a part of? With the fullness of truth and everything, but from different traditions. Correct?
D
dzheremi
Guest
Well, wait a minute though: Are you speaking for the Roman Catholic Church, or are you speaking of what you understand of it? Because the modern Roman communion includes also those traditions which it inherited by virtue of establishing Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches from sections of preexisting Orthodox populations, including Copts. So in that way, there is a little bit of “Orthodox tradition” that is at least part of the patrimony of those particular churches, which are not prevented from union with Rome on that account. So I’m sorry, friend, but I think you may be overstating the degree to which different traditions “just won’t fly” with the Catholic Church. But I would welcome correction from any RC reading this (this is just the sense I’ve gotten from both having once been RC myself, and from continuing to interact with RC people since converting to Orthodoxy; they say that they like our traditions).
I didn’t say it was no big deal. I said the presence of different traditions is not the result of schism, but predates it, and anyway is not a problem. The OO communion of which the Coptic Orthodox Church is a part is very diverse. And that’s fine…the RCC can say whatever it wants about us. I’m attempting to defend the outlook and operating principles of my Church while not putting down any other communion. Of course we also say that the RCC and indeed all outside of Orthodoxy are wrong in some ways. We would not be out of communion with each other if we didn’t feel that there was a reason to be (sometimes many reasons).
Again, okay. I mean, I’ll wait for one of them to say that, but after they do, I’ll shrug and continue on my way. I am unconcerned with the claims of churches that I believe to be false, and so should everyone be. I mean, do I really expected a committed Roman Catholic to shelve all of their beliefs regarding the Roman Pope as the sole successor of St. Peter, and infallible, and possessing universal jurisdiction, etc. just because I and my Church do not believe in those things? No. That would be silly.
This is a fair assumption.
I don’t think I need to admit that, really. Or, rather, it’s not anything that any church couldn’t or wouldn’t say. Orthodox want Catholics to accept the truth as they see it, and vice-versa. It has always been this way since either Rome stopped being Orthodox or Alexandria (Antioch, Etchmiadzin, Axum, etc.) stopped being Catholic – depending on who you ask.
I hope so too…hopefully some Catholics can answer it now that you’ve fleshed it out a bit more.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
My patience has not been perfected yet. Goodbye…
P
Peter_J
Guest
Ah, I knew eventually you would come to realize that we Catholics are omniscient.
P
Peter_J
Guest
If you’re asking this as a student of Coptic history (or just plain Early Church history) then I encourage you to study up on it.
If you’re asking this to demonstrate that lack-of-Sola-Scriptura isn’t some kind of “silver bullet” then I say: Okay, but I never claimed that it is.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I could be wrong, but from these statement I get the impression that one of two things is happening: Either you’re reading statements from Catholic bloggers as if they were official documents from the Vatican; or you are reading official documents from the Vatican but oversimplifying them.
D
dronald
Guest
Yes, it’s mostly what I read online from here and there.
So what is the official position in regards to Coptic Christians from a Catholic point of view? Are they broken members, or lacking fullness; or are they exactly as legitimate as the RCC?
So what is the official position in regards to Coptic Christians from a Catholic point of view? Are they broken members, or lacking fullness; or are they exactly as legitimate as the RCC?
D
dronald
Guest
P
Peter_J
Guest
Fair enough. Quite a lot of people are in the very same boat.
I would have to say “lacking fullness”.
D
dronald
Guest
That’s what I thought Catholics believe about the Coptic Orthodox, but what I don’t get is how they’re suddenly “lacking fullness.”
I’m trying to get a better idea here. I’ve been told that different traditions are okay by Catholics and then when I apparently misunderstand people “lose patience” or mock me.
If different traditions can lead to different conclusions, shouldn’t they be considered having the same fullness of truth that the CC has? But if they’re lacking fullness based on different traditions, when and how did tradition fail them? Was it oral tradition that brought contradicting conclusions, or simply interpretation of Scripture?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I did not say that different traditions lead to different conclusions. It leads to a different practice of the same conclusion.
You have not answered any of the questions I asked you in this thread. We cannot have a reasonable argumentation about this ghostly oral tradition that you have not identified, or you have not been able to demonstrate that the separation is because of the oral tradition.
Of course I will lose my patience…It’s a one way conversation…
D
dronald
Guest
I believe the main schism was a misunderstanding on what the Copts believe to be Christ’s nature and His will. What I fail to understand is why are they lacking the fullness of truth from a Catholic perspective if they really do believe all the same things and yet practice them differently.
I’m wondering who failed who, and how. Does the Coptic Church recognize Jesus as having one nature working with complete unity; or do they believe that Christ has two nature’s that are separate from each other.
I’m wondering why they do not believe the exact same things and why it makes them lacking fullness.
D
dzheremi
Guest
We believe in one nature of the Word of God incarnate (μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη mía phýsis toû theoû lógou sesarkōménē).
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
And you are blaming oral tradition because? It appears you are set to discredit tradition from the onset.
This is much complicated subject and you need to look into history.
You can look at Nestorianism first. Which was condemned at the Council of Ephesus (431AD). Nestorianism placed a strong emphasis on the division of Christ’s divine and human nature - so much that they presented Christ as 2 persons (This is very simplified and open to correction).
What Jeremy quoted above is Cyril of Alexandria (Major oponent of Nestorianism).
From Nestorianism we see another extreme: Eutychianism - Where it presented that Christ’s divinity consumes his humanity (This is very simplified and open to correction).
Eutychianism was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon (451AD).
What I understand the Orientals to hold is Miaphysitism. Miaphysitism holds that in the one person of Jesus Christ, Divinity and Humanity are united in one or single nature (“physis”), the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration. (Jeremy can expand on this much better than I can and correct if my understanding is wrong).
We understand that they are lacking in fullness because they separated from the Church at the time (Chalcedon). That’s why Jeremy calls us (Catholics) and the EO - Chalcedonians.
- Status