I wish the Greek Orthodox would reunite with us

[Wandile]

The issue over here if you haven’t been following is dzheremi claimed that there was “great evangelism” in South Africa. With the facts presented I pointed out that that’s hard to believe.

 

[Wandile]

I believe that Coptic-internal data knows better than the Census of SA. It is extremely likely that, to the extent that the difference clearly exists on the ground (see: the video I posted of the Coptic liturgy; again, this is clearly not an Ethiopian church), it probably doesn’t on available census forms, given how the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church has only been autocephalous for maybe 60 years. This confusion is still common throughout the world, given that we’re talking about ~60 years of autocephaly vs. 1600 of governance by the Coptic Orthodox Church While there appear to be at least 11 EOTC churches in SA, they are not the same as the Coptic Orthodox churches there (e.g., you won’t find in this list St. Mark’s in Johannesburg).

The census has to be as accurate as possible. The twelve parishes (all personally visited and forms filled in by those parishes) identified as Ethiopian.

St Marks is a church composed of the Coptic community from immigrants… As per their own description.

The point being made is that its hard to believe a claim that there is great evangelism here when the reality is in stark contrast. Nevermind how long the copts havbeen in Africa and yet still haven’t evangelized the continent. The Latins came in 100 years and brogght to life a church 120 million strong. Stories like the martyrs of Uganda and the conversion of Lesotho and southern Africa can be called “great evangelism”. The OO probably do have places where the really do have “great evangelism” but South Africa is not one of those places

 

[Cider]

I’ve said it before, but the big thing that must happen before there is unity is we must agree on what “unity” is.

Orthodox do not want what most Catholics seem to call unity, and most Catholics do not want what Orthodox call unity. Any discussion before that is agreed on won’t go anywhere.

Well said.

 

[Cider]

I truly believe this will never happen-the issue is one of ethnicity-in the USA where our citizens are of many ethnic origins-the Orthodox stick to their own Churches-those of Greek Heritage go to the Greek Orthodox -the Serbians to the Serbian orthodox Church -the Russians to the russian Orthodox-so the Orthodox may be united in theology but surely not in Church attendance

just imagine a RC Parish where those of Irish extraction demanded their own church or service and the Italians demanded a Church for themselves-the RC unites the various ethnic groups-

so the Orthodox need to get their act together at least in the USA where only a small population perhaps 1 million are Orthodox - they show no signs of doing so

You mean just like the EC churches that are in communion with Rome are allowed to do. In the US I’ve seen Korean Catholic churches, do you have a problem with that too?

 

[dzheremi]

The census has to be as accurate as possible. The twelve parishes (all personally visited and forms filled in by those parishes) identified as Ethiopian.

My point is that you’re looking at two different communities, the Coptic and the Ethiopian. Just because they have a similar number of parishes doesn’t mean that the parishes are the same. Coptic churches are not Ethiopian churches and vice-versa. The Ethiopian parishes in that list on the website about the EOTC in SA that I linked earlier are not the same the Coptic parishes you can find information about elsewhere, since the EOTC and the COC are not the same particular church.

St Marks is a church composed of the Coptic community from immigrants… As per their own description.

St. Mark’s is an example to show how there are Coptic parishes which are not the same as the Ethiopian parishes you are talking about. And of course it’s composed from immigrants…and native people. Same as the COC or any other Orthodox Church anywhere outside of its homeland (are they supposed to reinvent Christianity on the fly whenever they go places, despite having set patterns of worship that they bring with them wherever they go [exactly the same as the Latins]?) . Did you not watch the liturgy clip I posted earlier? There was a Coptic priest, and two native priests (and one native deacon). And, just the same, among the laity there are Copts and native people (you can tell this by listening for the responses; all respond in Coptic or English at the appropriate points, but in the section that is in the native language, the native South Africans give the only responses, since obviously the other people don’t know the language).

The point being made is that its hard to believe a claim that there is great evangelism here when the reality is in stark contrast. Nevermind how long the copts havbeen in Africa and yet still haven’t evangelized the continent.

Yeah, you try living under Islam for 1400 years and counting, and then come back and criticize the Copts for having gotten a late start relative to the Western, colonial churches.

And “how long they have been in Africa”? You mean when the Coptic Pope shepherded the churches of Egypt, Libya/Pentapolis, Axum, and the Sudanese Christian kingdoms, in accordance with the canonical territory as it had been granted to him via the councils, and later developed with the Christianization of Sudan (in both Coptic and Byzantine forms, depending on which specific kingdom you were looking at)? Because that sounds like evangelizing the continent to me ( = contributing to the spread of Christianity outside of the homeland of the particular church). Or are you mad because the Copts did not make it to South Africa like the Portuguese did in bringing Christianity to the cape in the 15th century? Hmmmm…now what was going on in the 15th century in Egypt and surrounding areas that could’ve prevented them from doing that?

Really, you might as well be mad at your own church too, by this rationale. What was stopping the LATINS from going there before they did? Why were the Latin churches limited to Northern Africa as well, during the pre-colonial period? It’s not as though Rome was ever living under the yoke of Diocletian, later unfriendly Chalcedonian rulers (heck…Rome itself was the home of later unfriendly Chalcedonian rulers!), and finally the Arab-Muslim horde that has occupied N. Africa ever since. So what is your justification for being disappointed in the Copts on this account, when your own church operated under not only much less restriction, but was even tied to various European monarchies that provided their people with the financial backing to sail around the cape and the world? I mean…was the Coptic Church supposed to ask the Caliph for money to go evangelize South Africa or something?

The Latins came in 100 years and brogght to life a church 120 million strong.

Eventually. Was that within their first 50 years on the continent, as we are looking at the Coptic Church in Subsaharan Africa today? No. It wasn’t. So you have no point.

Stories like the martyrs of Uganda and the conversion of Lesotho and southern Africa can be called “great evangelism”. The OO probably do have places where the really do have “great evangelism” but South Africa is not one of those places

I don’t know where you’re getting South Africa in particular out of Subsaharan Africa in toto…you realize you’re not the only country in Subsaharan Africa, right? I never claimed “great evangelism” (whatever that is supposed to mean) to be going on in SA in particular (I did link to one video there, prior to your going off on a tangent regarding your own country for not reason at all…what’s wrong with that? SA is one of the places where the COC has come recently and is finding people receptive to its message, whether they’re people you know or not), only that subsaharan Africa is one of the areas where the Orthodox Church is engaged in active mission work. Although now that you’ve put those words in my mouth, I would say that 400,000 people in the space of +/- 50 years great evangelism. Again, how does that compare to the first 50 years of the Latin church’s work in the same region? While I don’t know where to find the historical narrative of each and every country that might tell me that (I have posted several times now the SA Bishop’s history that admits that there was really no evangelism in the early days, though), I don’t think it’s too outlandish to guess that the RC probably did no better…or if they did it would not have been through means that the modern RC could be proud of, given your church’s historical connection with colonizing regimes throughout the world.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m not “bowing before big numbers”.

I’m simply judging the trees by their fruit and pointing out that the ‘small numbers’ of Orthodoxy illustrate that it has failed to make disciples of all nations and remains largely bound by ethnic and geographic constraints. Therefore, its claims to be the one true catholic (universal) Church cannot be supported by fulfillment of that divine commission by any stretch of the imagination. Is this not intuitively obvious?

Of course, I’m routinely excoriated by the politically correct…er…ecumenically minded members of this forum for stating this obvious fact of history (which someone encouraged me to read ), but there it is.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I’m not “bowing before big numbers”.

What I am simply pointing out is that the ‘small numbers’ of Orthodoxy illustrate that it has failed to make disciples of all nations. Therefore, its claims to be the one true Church cannot be supported by fulfillment of that divine commission.

I’m routinely excoriated for stating this obvious fact of history (which someone encouraged me to read ), but there it is.

This is an extremely fallacious argument (hence why you are “routinely excoriated” for advancing such a ridiculous claim). Going by this logic, the Catholic Church was not the one true Church in 200 AD.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Then why write it in a public forum, if you wish not to discuss it, have your views challenged, and “play it out again”?

Because I was answering someone else’s “why” question when you interjected your comments. So, for THEIR benefit - not yours - I responded to your “big brother syndrome” post.

You and I certainly don’t need to hash this out again.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is an extremely fallacious argument (hence why you are “routinely excoriated” for advancing such a ridiculous claim). Going by this logic, the Catholic Church was not the one true Church in 200 AD.

Oh?

Then, could you name the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ that existed in AD 200 and that was NOT the Catholic Church?

Additionally, could you provide some links to any articles that may describe that Church? Clearly, I have some reading to do.

Thanks in advance.

 

[RyanBlack]

I’m not “bowing before big numbers”.

I’m simply judging the trees by their fruit and pointing out that the ‘small numbers’ of Orthodoxy illustrate that it has failed to make disciples of all nations and remains largely bound by ethnic and geographic constraints. Therefore, its claims to be the one true catholic (universal) Church cannot be supported by fulfillment of that divine commission by any stretch of the imagination. Is this not intuitively obvious?

Of course, I’m routinely excoriated by the politically correct…er…ecumenically minded members of this forum for stating this obvious fact of history (which someone encouraged me to read ), but there it is.

The Catholic Church hasn’t made disciples of all nations either. Furthermore, the Catholic Church hasn’t always had the greatest numbers, among Christians, and it may not at some time in the future.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Catholic Church hasn’t made disciples of all nations either. Furthermore, the Catholic Church hasn’t always had the greatest numbers, among Christians, and it may not at some time in the future.

Care to elaborate on those three points?

 

[dzheremi]

Oh?

Then, could you name the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ that existed in AD 200 and that was NOT the Catholic Church?

Additionally, could you provide some links to any articles that may describe that Church? Clearly, I have some reading to do.

Thanks in advance.

Hahaha. Randy, are you being serious right now? Someone makes the point that arguing from numbers would have to mean that the RCC was not the true church before X (time period), when other churches were numerically larger than the RCC, and you respond with “name the true church that would’ve been around in that time, then”, as though your interlocutor is not also a Roman Catholic, who hence also believes that your church is the true church.

Think about that response for a moment, because it sure as heck does not make sense in any context. “You can’t argue from numbers without having to admit that you are shooting yourself in the foot, as your own church was not always as numerically significant as it currently is.” “Oh yeah? Well what other church could be as true as mine?” “Um…yeah :ehh:…did you hear what I just said?”

 

[LivingWaters7]

Oh?

Then, could you name the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ that existed in AD 200 and that was NOT the Catholic Church?

Additionally, could you provide some links to any articles that may describe that Church? Clearly, I have some reading to do.

Thanks in advance.

As a Catholic, I believe that the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ that existed in AD 200 was and is, indeed, the Catholic Church.

That doesn’t stop me from noting that the argument you are advancing against Orthodoxy is ridiculous, and that I am not surprised that you are “routinely excoriated” for advancing it. If one takes a moment to think logically, one will see that the “small numbers” of Catholicism anciently, as well as it being confined by geography at first, certainly did not prevent it from being the “one true Church”, “universal”, then (though it would if we used your logic).

Your argument is spurious, and it is no wonder no one else, including other Catholics, agree with you on it.

 

[dzheremi]

Care to elaborate on those three points?

I hate to quote myself, but since I already did the work a few posts ago there’s no reason Ryan Black should have to.

Here is a list of all the countries and territories in the world where the Catholic population comprise less than 3% of the country:

Afghanistan (0.0003%), Algeria (0.01%), Azerbaijan (0.03%), Bangladesh (0.22%), Bhutan (0.13%), Bulgaria (1%), Cambodia (0.16%), China (0.75%), Comoros (0.5%), Cyprus (1.28%), Denmark (2%), Djibouti (0.2%), Egypt (0.35%), Estonia (0.36%), Ethiopia (0.7%), Finland (0.14%), Gambia (2.1%), Georgia (0.8%), Greece (0.41%), Guinea (2.66%), India (1.58%), Indonesia (2.91%), Iran (0.02%), Iraq (1.19%), Israel (1.5%), Jamaica (2.6%), Japan (0.4%), Jordan (1.2%), Kazakhstan (0.66%), North Korea (0.017%), Kyrgyzstan (0.56%), Laos (0.6%), Libya (0.7%), Macedonia (1%), Maldives (0.02%), Mali (1.54%), Mauritania (0.15%), Moldova (0.46%), Mongolia (0.04%), Myanmar (1.05%), Niger (0.01%), Oman (0.1%), Pakistan (0.79%), Palestine (2%), Russia (0.53%), Saudi Arabia (2.5%), Sierra Leone (2.9%), Somalia (0.001%), Sudan (1%), Sweden (1.62%), Syria (2%), Taiwan (1.39%), Tajikistan (0.55%), Thailand (0.44%), Tunisia (0.22%), Turkey (0.05%), Turkmenistan (0.54%), Ukraine (2.2%), Uzbekistan (0.01%), Western Sahara (0.06%), Yemen (0.02)

(The 3% threshold was relative to Wandile’s dismissing the Orthodox since they are at most 3% of South Africa’s Christians.)

 

[RyanBlack]

Care to elaborate on those three points?

You have read Jeremy’s list of nations that have virtually no Catholic presence?

There was a time when the Assyrian Church was the largest Church. Was it, for that time, the one true Church? Although I don’t have actual numbers, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a time when the Eastern Orthodox outnumbered Roman Catholics. If that were the case, was the Eastern Orthodox then the one true Church?

The Catholic Church may well be the one true Church. I, as a Catholic, believe that it is. However, numerical superiority is not what makes it so.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I’m not “bowing before big numbers”.

I’m simply judging the trees by their fruit and pointing out that the ‘small numbers’ of Orthodoxy illustrate that it has failed to make disciples of all nations and remains largely bound by ethnic and geographic constraints.

The Orthodox churches are present on all inhabited continents, so I am not sure what you mean by failing to make disciples of all nations. If you’re looking at the numbers within those continents, then you’re still judging by big numbers.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hahaha. Randy, are you being serious right now? Someone makes the point that arguing from numbers would have to mean that the RCC was not the true church before X (time period), when other churches were numerically larger than the RCC, and you respond with “name the true church that would’ve been around in that time, then”, as though your interlocutor is not also a Roman Catholic, who hence also believes that your church is the true church.

Think about that response for a moment, because it sure as heck does not make sense in any context. “You can’t argue from numbers without having to admit that you are shooting yourself in the foot, as your own church was not always as numerically significant as it currently is.” “Oh yeah? Well what other church could be as true as mine?” “Um…yeah :ehh:…did you hear what I just said?”

To be clear: the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon Peter, the rock (cf. Mt. 16:18-19), was originally known as “the Way” and by the end of the first century as the “Catholic Church” as seen in the letter of Ignatius of Antioch.

Obviously, that Church was small in the beginning, but it was understood from the get-go that valid apostolic succession and communion with Peter and his successors were necessary components of the true Church. Any group calling themselves “Christian” during that era would either be in communion with the bishop of Rome or not. Those groups not in communion with Rome were considered heretical. The ECF’s make this clear.

Now, over time, the Catholic Church grew, and splinter groups split off now and again, but the mainline of Catholicism continued to grow and to fulfill the Great Commission as commanded by Jesus. The gates of hell have not and will not prevail against her.

At every point in history, the Catholic Church (meaning all Christians who were in full communion with the Bishop of Rome) has always been the largest Christian grouping in the world, and those who hived off in the 14th and 16th centuries have not achieved the type of universal “success” that the Catholic Church has had. By their fruit you will know them.

Personally, I think there is a divine reason for that. I also think that Orthodox would do well to swallow their understandable but ultimately unhelpful ethnocentrism and be re-united with the Vicar of Christ.

Of course, some will say that I (and other Catholics to varying degrees) need to swallow my/our pride in order to make this re-unification possible. And that might be a reasonable argument…if it were actually THE problem hindering re-unification. But it isn’t, and this is the nub of it: most Catholics don’t think about the EO at all. I don’t…except when posting occasionally in a thread like this. That was the point of my “little brother syndrome” comment. Orthodoxy is largely invisible to most Catholics (except in a few well-known Eastern countries). But Orthodoxy is conscious of and feels the weight of Catholicism EVERY DAY.

Think I’m wrong? Then consider this obvious fact: Nobody gives a rip what any of the Patriarchs have to say about Israel and Gaza right now. But let the Pope comment, and it’s headline news around the world. And that’s just one small example. I could think of lots more. It’s that constant front-page, headline-news-type coverage of the Roman patriarch that every Orthodox faces almost daily (except in Russia where they get their news from Pravda).

+++

Now, four things are about to happen:

1. All the usual (EO) suspects are going to tee off on me. Big whoop. :coffeeread:
2. A few well-meaning Catholics (western and eastern) are going to point out how “unhelpful” it is for me to be saying these things out loud (even though this is an apologetics not ecumenical forum).
3. MOST Catholics will simply remain silent because dialoguing with EO is not terribly fruitful (frankly, it’s on par with JW’s and Mormons).
4. I’m going to ignore most of the chatter because I’ve heard it all from most of you before (and you know who you are).

Finally, I want to say that I personally have no beef with anyone who is EO, and I like a lot of their spirituality, etc., but my experiences (which, to be transparent, are exclusively based on discussion in these forums) lead me to believe that the response to the OP, at least for the foreseeable future, is that such a re-unification is wishful thinking at best.

 

[Novocastrian]

At every point in history, the Catholic Church (meaning all Christians who were in full communion with the Bishop of Rome) has always been the largest Christian grouping in the world…

I’d say that you’re almost certainly incapable of proving that. And that you’re likely plain wrong. I’d say there’s very good reason to believe that both the Nestorian and the Eastern Orthodox Churches have at times been larger than those in communion with Rome.

 

[wynd]

Orthodoxy is conscious of and feels the weight of Catholicism EVERY DAY.

 

[wynd]

As to the rest of your post, I’m just going to go ahead and assume that you’re trolling. No one can be that ignorant.