How did oral tradition fail the Copts?

[dronald]

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.

So were these just separate theories and one prevailed in Egypt while a separate prevailed in Rome? Or were they both rooted in tradition, yet one was wrong? Or did the tradition of one of the Church’s change?

 

[spina1953]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that there are Coptic Churches in union with Rome and there are Coptic Churches who are not and in union with the Orthodox. It is also my understanding that not just in the Catholic Churches but also in the Orthodox Churches, there is much in the way of traditions that reflect their beliefs and how the understand and pass on in the particular Churches. I think it is more in how one understands and interprets what has been taught that disagreements come about.

 

[AbideWithMe]

It appears you are set to discredit tradition from the onset.

.

Jose, I don’t think that’s what Dronald was doing. He asked some honest questions, and for that he’s received borderline mockery from some posters.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So were these just separate theories and one prevailed in Egypt while a separate prevailed in Rome? Or were they both rooted in tradition, yet one was wrong? Or did the tradition of one of the Church’s change?

Elaborating on what spina said.

People. Plain and simple. People. We have an innate ability to make a mess…

I don’t think you can point to a specific incident or causality other than people.

Like I said before. What you are interpreting as being oral tradition’s fault, I can, in turn, turn into Scriptures. Except that I don’t dare blame Scriptures, because they are not the ones causing the divisions and error. It’s people. In like manner, you can’t say that it was oral tradition. The Orientals did not agree with the Council’s definition and as such, separated. They, in turn, think that we departed from an established definition.

In the end, it comes down to the authority of the Church as ordained by our Lord. Whatever you lose on earth will be loosed in heaven and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. It says: whatever.

We are all in need of vast amounts of Mercy.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Jose, I don’t think that’s what Dronald was doing. He asked some honest questions, and for that he’s received borderline mockery from some posters.

That why I said that “it appears”. The way the questions are phrased and the presuppositions that they carry just raised all sorts of flags.

 

[Peter_J]

Jose, I don’t think that’s what Dronald was doing. He asked some honest questions, and for that he’s received borderline mockery from some posters.

I’m quite short on time today, but fwiw I don’t think the Internet is too great regardless of whether you go on Catholic forums, Protestant forums, or whatever. I try to make it a little better, like avoiding some of the worst forums, but I haven’t any delusions that I will make any huge difference.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I’m quite short on time today, but fwiw I don’t think the Internet is too great regardless of whether you go on Catholic forums, Protestant forums, or whatever. I try to make it a little better, like avoiding some of the worst forums, but I haven’t any delusions that I will make any huge difference.

You actually do make a difference, Peter. There are a number of posters on here who seem pretty consistently even-handed, you among them.

I realize we all can get irritated, ruffled, and short with each at times. I’ve had a question kind of similar to Dronald’s for several years, about the Quartodeciman controversy (I’m not concerned with differences in received Tradition unless they’re potentially or actually Church-dividing differences [and I think that’s the kind of differences which Dronald is asking about, too] but seeing the responses he’s gotten, I’m discouraged from asking. I don’t need more stress in my life.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It all depends on how well we think about our question.

If I ask Peter:

How did you beat your wife today?

First - I am presupposing Peter is married.
Second - I am presupposing that he beats his wife.

And I have not provided any basis for my question!

Dronald’s question is:

How did oral tradition fail the Copts?

I have to ask back -

Why do you think oral tradition failed the Copts?

What if I ask:

How did Scriptures fail the Protestants?

And my reasoning is: because there is not one single Protestant Church and there is division among them, and they all claim to follow Scriptures, then the causality for the division must be Scriptures.

You see where my logical process doesn’t really follow?

I am setting Scriptures up for failure from the start. It doesn’t matter that it wasn’t my intention, I am -nonetheless- doing exactly that.

We also need to be more thin skinned and not take everything personally. Especially on an impersonal medium like the internet and forums where tone is missing from the posts.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I realize we all can get irritated, ruffled, and short with each at times. I’ve had a question kind of similar to Dronald’s for several years, about the Quartodeciman controversy (I’m not concerned with differences in received Tradition unless they’re potentially or actually Church-dividing differences [and I think that’s the kind of differences which Dronald is asking about, too] but seeing the responses he’s gotten, I’m discouraged from asking. I don’t need more stress in my life.

You can PM the question. I know I have sent personal message to posters when I have specific questions about their faith or about the history of their faith. And I have received PM’s as well.

You are free to PM me if you’d like!

 

[pablope]

Well, I do like this position because it seems so open; but when I look at the Catholic position it seems more “my way or the highway, the Coptic Church is wrong.” And I know everyone is taking a shot at me but I don’t see where I’m going wrong here.

From the Catholic point of view, did oral tradition fail the Coptic Church seeing as they did not reach all of the same conclusions that the CC did?

In what realm, or can you cite the instance where they did not reach the same conclusion with the CC?

 

[TRH1292]

Thanks for a thoughtful response.

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?

Doctrine develops. As time goes along, the Church understands in a fuller way the revelation handed onto her. As new controversy’s erupt, the Church defines further what she believes. Sometimes when this happen, certain groups refuse to accept the new formulations and separate themselves from communion with the rest of the Church.

 

[TRH1292]

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?

They are lacking fullness because they are separated from communion with the Bishop of Rome and the rest of the Church.

Another thing: Sacred Tradition is different from individual liturgical traditions of particular Church’s and of simple legends.

Sacred Tradition is divine revelation that can be interpreted by the magisterium of the Church alone.

Individual Church’s such as Rome or Coptic Alexandria or Antioch have different liturgical traditions and practices and that is not only acceptable but encouraged.

And then there are “traditions” in the sense of stories and legends around the faith.

 

[dronald]

In what realm, or can you cite the instance where they did not reach the same conclusion with the CC?

I believe the Schism was in regard to the nature of Christ.

They are lacking fullness because they are separated from communion with the Bishop of Rome and the rest of the Church.

Another thing: Sacred Tradition is different from individual liturgical traditions of particular Church’s and of simple legends.

Sacred Tradition is divine revelation that can be interpreted by the magisterium of the Church alone.

Individual Church’s such as Rome or Coptic Alexandria or Antioch have different liturgical traditions and practices and that is not only acceptable but encouraged.

And then there are “traditions” in the sense of stories and legends around the faith.

Thanks again. So when we’re speaking of oral tradition, does that include Sacred Tradition?

The reason I ask is it seems that something so simple such as how we define Christ’s nature (and a few other things) can deem an ancient Church in heresy; and I just don’t get how.

What makes the Copts officially considered “separated” from Rome?

 

[dronald]

Elaborating on what spina said.

People. Plain and simple. People. We have an innate ability to make a mess…

I don’t think you can point to a specific incident or causality other than people.

Like I said before. What you are interpreting as being oral tradition’s fault, I can, in turn, turn into Scriptures. Except that I don’t dare blame Scriptures, because they are not the ones causing the divisions and error. It’s people. In like manner, you can’t say that it was oral tradition. The Orientals did not agree with the Council’s definition and as such, separated. They, in turn, think that we departed from an established definition.

In the end, it comes down to the authority of the Church as ordained by our Lord. Whatever you lose on earth will be loosed in heaven and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. It says: whatever.

We are all in need of vast amounts of Mercy.

There is no evidence of what the oral teachings were though. At least Scriptures are tangible, but I honestly have no idea what Mark would have taught outside of Scripture. Different old Church’s think they know.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

There is no evidence of what the oral teachings were though. At least Scriptures are tangible, but I honestly have no idea what Mark would have taught outside of Scripture. Different old Church’s think they know.

What do you consider evidence?

 

[dronald]

What do you consider evidence?

Take textual criticism for example. Based on the early manuscripts we can say for certain what the Bible intended to say. People have interpreted words this way and that, but we now have the ability to scientifically deduce what was written in the original autographs. Your best Catholic New Testament translation is equal to mine. You can’t say yours is better or mine is, because strong work has gone into creating a great English translation; Catholic or Protestant.

With oral tradition we can’t be certain what the official belief was for 400 years when one Church believed one thing and the same Church miles away had a different belief. Then a council is called and a group of Egyptians is no longer called the same Church. The Bible’s remained the same, but the oral tradition failed to reach the same conclusions.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Take textual criticism for example. Based on the early manuscripts we can say for certain what the Bible intended to say. People have interpreted words this way and that, but we now have the ability to scientifically deduce what was written in the original autographs. Your best Catholic New Testament translation is equal to mine. You can’t say yours is better or mine is, because strong work has gone into creating a great English translation; Catholic or Protestant.

With oral tradition we can’t be certain what the official belief was for 400 years when one Church believed one thing and the same Church miles away had a different belief. Then a council is called and a group of Egyptians is no longer called the same Church. The Bible’s remained the same, but the oral tradition failed to reach the same conclusions.

How do you place scientific evidence on oral tradition?

If you acknowledge textual criticism, you must then acknowledge that the textual criticism came from oral tradition. Those things that were practiced and done before a word was penned. Do you not find it significant that Christ on earth did not leave a single book for us to read, but instead gave us the Apostles?

This teaching develops and through the actions of the Church it carries forward the deposit of faith.

Being that you enjoy scientific evidence (ironically being my line of work) - Let me ask you a forensics question:

How do you validate the writings without the originals?

 

[dzheremi]

There is no evidence of what the oral teachings were though. At least Scriptures are tangible, but I honestly have no idea what Mark would have taught outside of Scripture. Different old Church’s think they know.

St. Mark established the Catechetical School of Alexandria, so its students were taught what he taught. He appointed St. Justus to be its first dean, and that same saint in the last year of his life (118-119 AD) served as the sixth Pope of Alexandria.

 

[TRH1292]

What I have attempted to express to you, dronald, both on this forum and on other occasions(and something I think you are also trying to say), is that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition together hardly illuminates the faith any more than just scripture. Tradition can be and often is as confusing in some respects as just scripture alone.

But Catholicism is not just Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. That is basically orthodoxy, and there are infinite amounts of disagreements over what is and is not orthodox.

Catholicism is Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition interpreted by the magisterium.

 

[Peter_J]

What I have attempted to express to you, dronald, both on this forum and on other occasions(and something I think you are also trying to say), is that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition together hardly illuminates the faith any more than just scripture.

That’s news to me.

(We should have one of those Smilies with the straight-across mouth, i.e. neither smiling nor frowning.)