My Witness

  • Thread starter Thread starter mardukm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mardukm

Guest
Kristos Anesti!

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

In the past, I have received requests to give the experience of my translation. I was always reticent to do so for I did not feel I had enough time. My main concern, however, was that people might think something was wrong with my Coptic Orthodox faith. Recently however, since I came back online about two weeks ago, I have been receiving a good amount of requests by PM or e-mail (most are people I’ve never met on the CA forums; I assume they have the status of “lurkers,” or I’ve just never seen them) from Easterns, Orientals and Westerns to give the experience of my translation. After a good amount of prayer, I have finally decided to give this account of my translation. I have never ceased to defend and promote the Coptic Orthodox faith in these forums, so I feel I can be frank at this point, at peace regarding my main concern mentioned above.

Before I do so, I do want to address an observation that one of these requests made “I have never met an Oriental as knowledgeable and Roman as you.” In my Coptic Tradition, study is hailed as an important means to know God, especially study of Scripture, the Fathers, and the lives of the Saints. I have always been a studious reader (not recently, to my shame, as my real-world responsibilities have increased dramatically). I had about three years to come to a decision about my translation –given what Coptic Orthodox and Western Catholicism already had in common, that is equivalent to a Master’s degree, I think! I haven’t yet received my Doctorate, though. But, really, my statement about the similarity of Coptic Orthodoxy and Catholicism is only a matter of hindsight. I did not know anything about Catholicism except what non-Catholics said about her. It was only through intense study that I discovered just how much Coptic Orthodoxy and Catholicism shared in common. There are those who might view me as somewhat “Roman.” Rather, I would submit that my position as nothing more than patristic. A lot of the matters I defend about Catholicism is really a defense of my Coptic Orthodox heritage – the doctrine of Atonement, penitential spirituality (including the idea that suffering can lead to perfection), Faith and Reason, a juridical/ hierarchical ecclesiology, Augustinian (as distinct from so-called Cyprianic) ecclesiology, attitude of holy obligation towards God at the direction of the hierarchy, the simplicity of God, appreciation for different theological expressions and definitions within the Church, ecumenical outlook, indissolubility of marriage/utilization of annulment, identical canon of Scripture, doctrine of the Fall of Man from a state of Grace, the notion of Divine Justice, etc.

Interestingly (a euphemistic word indeed), Eastern Orthodox (especially polemicists) look upon all of these matters with opposition, and even hostility, when confronted with Catholicism, yet as regards the Coptic Orthodox (and Oriental Orthodox in general), they are somehow easily overlooked! It is not uncommon to hear the idea that the only difference between EO and OO is the issue of the two Natures of Christ. WRONG. I appreciate it when Eastern Orthodox look upon Copts (and Oriental Orthodox in general) as their brethren in Orthodoxy, and granted such views are very likely the result merely of a lack of knowledge of both Oriental Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but there are two very objectionable results of this type of false ecumenism: 1) It refuses to admit the distinctive Tradition and spirituality of the Oriental Orthodox Churches in general, and the Coptic Orthodox Church in particular; 2) it perpetuates a severe and objectively (or, in Latinspeak, “materially”) evil prejudice against the Catholic Church. This latter is the case not only for the bare facts of the matter, but also because it restricts the realization of CHRIST’S OWN PRAYER for the unity of His Body. Now, if at any time I highlight differences between OO, on the one hand, and EO, on the other, it is not for the purpose of promoting schism. Far from it! Aside from a desire for people to recognize the distinctive Tradition and spirituality of the OO, who are often underrepresented and unacknowledged, it is to get people, especially Eastern Orthodox, to think – “if you can overlook these differences with regards to your Oriental brethren, why can you not overlook them with regards to your Catholic brethren? Why highlight them to (perhaps inadvertently) perpetuate schism with Catholicism, while neglecting them in your assessment of Oriental Orthodoxy?”

(CONTINUED)
 
(CONTINUED)

This had a definite impact on my decision to translate to the Catholic Church. I’ve never met a Coptic Catholic attempt to proselytize a Coptic Orthodox, yet I’ve met Eastern Orthodox Copts, AND Eastern Orthodox who have translated to Oriental Orthodoxy, attempt to impose their particular Eastern views onto my non-Chalcedonian brethren, especially as regards (though not limited to) the Atonement, the simplicity of God, and their non-ecumenical outlook against Catholicism. I reject any attempts by Easterns to impose their positions onto the unique identity/Tradition of Orientals (what I call hellenization; a good gauge to determine to what extent an Oriental has been hellenized is his/her reference to Gregory Palamas as a Saint), just as Easterns reject Latinization. Eastern Orthodoxy has too many a member who would rather display intolerance, ignorance, and pride, rather than the spiritual fruits of kindness, understanding, wisdom and humility. I had this impression as an Oriental Orthodox before my translation to Rome; sadly, only little evidence to the contrary has presented itself to me as an Oriental Orthodox in communion with Rome.

So what began my journey to Catholicism? It was a very simple, almost imperceptible change in the Coptic Liturgy – the removal of the phrase “head of the Apostles” from the title of Sts. Peter and Paul. I wanted to find out the reason for the change, so I investigated the Church Fathers. What began as a PURELY academic exercise into the phrase “head of the Apostles” in the early Church eventually blossomed into a realization, and finally full acceptance, of the Truth taught by the Catholic Church.

Of course, there ARE doctrinal issues that distinguish Coptic Orthodoxy from the Catholic Church - distinct from Catholicism, and aligned with Eastern Orthodoxy, I might add - issues such as: Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos, Filioque, Purgatory, and Papacy (a distinct issue from ecclesiology, since Oriental ecclesiology is more similar to Catholic ecclesiology than EO ecclesiology) – I mention only these because these are the only things that really matter (issues such as Icons, use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, co-Mediatrix, etc. DO NOT). I don’t think I have to go over these particular points of doctrine here, since I do that elsewhere on other threads as the topics arise. And I invite those who wish to know my views to do a search on the threads for my responses on these topics/issues. I do, however, want to talk about my mental process in understanding, accepting, and being at peace with what I (heretofore as a Coptic Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome) perceived to be differences in doctrine.
  1. First and foremost, in understanding a particular issue, always choose the explanation that comes from the horse’s mouth, not from the cow. Distinguish between possible interpretations, on the one hand, and the actual doctrine on the other. IOW, accept these doctrines FOR WHAT THEY REALLY ARE, not the caricatures imposed on them by polemicists. This requires much study and understanding. For example, on the issue of Filioque, a common objection is that the doctrine blurs the distinction between the Persons of Father and Son (more polemic minds will go as far as to claim it blurs the distinction between ALL the Person of the Trinity). However, this interpretation is nowhere found in the actual teaching of the Catholic Church. Far from it, the Catholic Church POSITIVELY teaches the distinction of the Divine Persons.
  2. In understanding a particular issue, always let the arguments run its course to the end. At some point, one party will not be able to respond. Accept the final word, especially and ONLY if it is logical. This requires patience. For instance, with regards to the papacy, no matter what papal issue began the discussion (or argument), it always came down to an argument to which I had no response, “You believe in the apostolic principle of collegiality *. What makes you think the principle should stop at the level of Patriarchate? Why should it not apply to the Church as a whole, instead of just local Churches?” (Of course, I admit that such rhetoric would fail to convince an Eastern Orthodox who has a different ecclesiological paradigm).
  3. When interpreting a circumstance in history, choose the one that accommodates ALL the facts. This requires wisdom. For example, on the issue of the sacking of Constantinople, non-Catholics will very often blame the Pope for the entire episode. These polemicists simply never take into account that the Pope explicitly forbade the Crusaders from even going to Constantinople in the first place, and that it was a Greek from Constantinople who was the immediate and direct cause of the Crusaders’ presence in Constantinople.
(CONTINUED)*
 
(CONTINUED)
  1. Study the early Fathers. This requires faithfulness. A deep study into the early Church history of the first millennium will evince the Truth of what it will take to become united as one body of Christ again. It will demonstrate how much more all the Apostolic Traditions share with each other, than what many perceive or misperceive to be matters that separate us.
  2. ALWAYS suspend judgment and ALWAYS be willing to approach issues as a student. This requires self-control and humility.
  3. ALWAYS be willing to admit that you are wrong when the facts call for it. This requires humility.
  4. Make certain that your conscience is clear of any and all signs of hypocrisy when one accuses the other party of something. This requires understanding and humility. This mental approach has been most helpful for me. The more I was able to look at the log in my eye, the more I was able to understand that I had no real grounds for most, if not all, of my misconceptions about the Catholic Church. For example, re: the Immaculate Conception. I once told a Catholic friend (before my translation), “If the IC deprives Mary of the ability to sin, then it deprives her of free will.” He responded, “Jesus did not have the ability to sin. Do you claim as well that Jesus had no free will?” This was irrefutable logic, in my mind’s eye. I often use that rhetoric myself nowadays, always with the same result – either acknowledgment, or silence. Of course, this mode of thinking depends just as much on point #6 above – willingness and humility to accept when one is wrong.
  5. Forgive.
In my study of Catholicism, I applied every single one of these points, putting into practice, with much prayer, the fruits of the Spirit. I admit that part of my impetus for this outlook was/is my experience as an Arab-American who has been on the receiving end of prejudice since I was a child. Growing up, I was faced with three possible choices: 1) Give in to hate, or do unto others as they have done unto you; 2) Give in to apathy; 3) ALWAYS look for the goodness first, instead of perceived evil, or do unto others as you would have them do unto you. By the Grace of God, I chose the last of these options. Example: when HH Pope John Paul II of blessed memory wanted to visit Russia with the Icon of Kazan (I believe that was the name), an Eastern Orthodox observer had two options: 1) Look for the good, and view the gift as a gesture of humility; 2) Look for the bad, and view the gift as a mere bribe. I gather many EO chose option #1, though sadly, those who gave in to option #2 were more boisterous and obtained greater media attention. Because of my experience with prejudice, I abhor hypocrisy and ignorance. I am more understanding of ignorance, and always seek to correct it with knowledge accompanied with patience, but when I perceive hypocrisy, I admit I may get somewhat zealous in my defense of the Catholic Church.

I’ve also been asked how I feel about the Liturgical changes in the Western Church. Shouldn’t this have been a sign for me that the Catholic Church was betraying its Traditions and prevented me from becoming Catholic? This, again, demonstrates a similarity between the Coptic and Catholic paradigms. To Copts, the bishops are the guardians of our souls, as indeed Scripture states, and it is within their authority to bind and loose to determine the ways and helps by which we are divinized; the form of the Liturgy is under the purview of the bishops. The Liturgy, for Copts, like the Catholics, is intended primarily to draw us closer to Christ, the summit of the Liturgy being the Eucharist, all other elements of the Liturgy regarded as a means to prepare ourselves for or to properly meditate upon the Eucharist. Given these two elements, I as a Copt have really no business judging the Liturgy of the Westerns. IF I was to judge them, I would judge them based on the two criteria above – 1) were changes to the Liturgy made by the proper authorities; 2) Are the changes made to permit or enhance union with Christ? I find the Western Catholic Church has met both criteria (of course, notwithstanding particular elements in a Mass or Liturgy that are absolutely required for Mass/Liturgy to be valid). Sensationalist accusations of a local church doing this or that in the Liturgy are obviously not the fault of the Catholic Magisterium, since these occur at a parish level (i.e., these extreme practices were not instituted by the local bishop).

(CONTINUED)
 
(CONTINUED)

It is possible that a lot of Oriental Christians are overly hellenized. Granted much of the accessible literature under the heading of “Orthodoxy” comes from the Eastern Orthodox. Understandably, these Oriental Christians view Eastern Orthodoxy as the standard for their understanding of spirituality, the meaning of Liturgy, eschatology, ecclesiology, etc., etc., etc. The sad thing is that along with this understanding, comes a definite anti-Latin mindset. Anything that looks and smells Latin, must be an intrusion into “genuine” Eastern/Oriental Tradition. This is FAAAR from the truth, my brothers and sisters in Christ. The Easterns have their own venerable Tradition, and Orientals have our own unique identity, not influenced by the polemics of the 12th thru 15th centuries between East and West.

One last thing I want to say, something I’ve often repeated: I never came into Catholic communion on the perception that something was wrong with Coptic Orthodoxy. I had to reject nothing of my Coptic heritage in order to become Catholic; I simply had to reject misconceptions and misapprehensions of the Catholic Church that I heretofore had held. This is why I have never and would never regard my decision to become Catholic as a conversion, but rather a mere translation. This is a starkly unique blessing that one can only find within the Catholic Church among the family of Apostolic Churches. And I invite everyone to investigate the Catholic Church to enjoy the peace of Christ that knows no comprehension.

I pray this has been a sufficient answer to those who have asked me to give an account for the hope that lies in me. Please forgive me if I have insulted anyone. And feel free to contact me about any other questions.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
I would just like to publicly thank Catherine for re-posting this thread of mine. I did not have a copy of it. I hope others can read it to their advantage.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
I’ll be honest. I can’t tell any real different between the Coptic and Greek Orthodox in faith. Even the services are similar.

This is esecially seen in the Divine Office (Agpeya) where the structure not only parallels each other, but MANY of the prayers are even the same.
 
bpbasilphx said:
I’ll be honest. I can’t tell any real different between the Coptic and Greek Orthodox in faith. Even the services are similar.

This is esecially seen in the Divine Office (Agpeya) where the structure not only parallels each other, but MANY of the prayers are even the same.
Click to expand...
I think one of the points being made is that closeness in appearance of the liturgy does not mean identical theologies. For example to listen to some of the Eastern Orthodox prayers one would be hard pressed to not (on the surface) interpret a more juridical understanding of judgement beyond what an Orthodox theologian might say. So similarity in Liturgy can also point to the fact that some differences are overemphasized as Marduk suggested some polemicists do. The reality is, the liturgy does not speak to every specific doctrine or a churches ecclesiology. Were we to strip away the cultural aesthetics, the western and eastern liturgies follow nearly the same exact structure. The differences lie more in the form than the structure.

Mel
 
:mad:
Melchior said:
I think one of the points being made is that closeness in appearance of the liturgy does not mean identical theologies. For example to listen to some of the Eastern Orthodox prayers one would be hard pressed to not (on the surface) interpret a more juridical understanding of judgement beyond what an Orthodox theologian might say. So similarity in Liturgy can also point to the fact that some differences are overemphasized as Marduk suggested some polemicists do. The reality is, the liturgy does not speak to every specific doctrine or a churches ecclesiology. Were we to strip away the cultural aesthetics, the western and eastern liturgies follow nearly the same exact structure. The differences lie more in the form than the structure.

Mel
Click to expand...
A Thomist like myself might say that the Eastern and Western Liturgies differ more in accidents than in substance. 😉
 
bpbasilphx said:
I’ll be honest. I can’t tell any real different between the Coptic and Greek Orthodox in faith. Even the services are similar.

This is esecially seen in the Divine Office (Agpeya) where the structure not only parallels each other, but MANY of the prayers are even the same.
Click to expand...
I follow the teaching of the most holy Pope St. Cyril who asserted at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus that our Faith is contained not just in the Creeds, but in the Liturgy, the Tradition and in the living witness of our Faith. We must look at ALL sources of knowledge that tells us about the Faith of another, not just one of those sources.

Thus, there are similarities in some areas with the Easterns, and similarities in other areas with the Westerns.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
I am glad that this thread was also restored!
It is very inspiring.

Great testimony, Mardukm 👍
God Bless you!
 
Thank you so much! 😃

I cannot express to you how fulfilling your witness was to me.

I am an eighteen year-old revert to Catholicism from Fundamentalist Protestantism.

I am currently in RCIA and the last doubt about the Catholic Faith I have to deal with before Confirmation is the claims of the Eastern Orthodox.

You have helped me beyond words.

Christ be with you always!!! :signofcross:
 
mardukm said:
(CONTINUED)
  1. In understanding a particular issue, always let the arguments run its course to the end. At some point, one party will not be able to respond. Accept the final word, especially and ONLY if it is logical. This requires patience.
  2. When interpreting a circumstance in history, choose the one that accommodates ALL the facts. This requires wisdom.
    (CONTINUED)
Click to expand...
It sounds like Love has not been the primary translator between the churches. I certainly find this to be true. I’m Orthodox (convert from Protestant), and noticed that Love vanishes when any other church is discussed. This can come from either side. “Love is patient, kind, etc” This should be recited and meditated upon before ANYONE speaks on the subject of another tradition. There’s just too little Love. As a result the “tongues” of discussion are not “translated” well. Funny to think that we are speaking in tongues when we are using the same language, but when Love is not the primary language, it comes to nothing.
 
mardukm said:
(CONTINUED)

One last thing I want to say, something I’ve often repeated: I never came into Catholic communion on the perception that something was wrong with Coptic Orthodoxy. I had to reject nothing of my Coptic heritage in order to become Catholic; I simply had to reject misconceptions and misapprehensions of the Catholic Church that I heretofore had held. This is why I have never and would never regard my decision to become Catholic as a conversion, but rather a mere translation.
Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
So beautifully put.
I was struck by Orthodoxy by the faith of the common Orthodox in Russia. I am in awe of St. Theresa of Calcutta (believe her to be a saint), though she is Roman. I love the nun who prays night and day in that little chapel in St. Peter’s in Rome. The faith and the Love is what crosses all boundary, not rhetoric and law. Christianity is all about Love, and there is an abundance of it in the Roman Catholic Church.

God bless you
 
Dear brother Jofantioch,
Jofantioch said:
It sounds like Love has not been the primary translator between the churches. I certainly find this to be true. I’m Orthodox (convert from Protestant), and noticed that Love vanishes when any other church is discussed. This can come from either side. “Love is patient, kind, etc” This should be recited and meditated upon before ANYONE speaks on the subject of another tradition. There’s just too little Love. As a result the “tongues” of discussion are not “translated” well. Funny to think that we are speaking in tongues when we are using the same language, but when Love is not the primary language, it comes to nothing.
Click to expand...
You have a GREAT perspective on the matter!!!

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Jofantioch said:
So beautifully put.
I was struck by Orthodoxy by the faith of the common Orthodox in Russia. I am in awe of St. Theresa of Calcutta (believe her to be a saint), though she is Roman. I love the nun who prays night and day in that little chapel in St. Peter’s in Rome. The faith and the Love is what crosses all boundary, not rhetoric and law. Christianity is all about Love, and there is an abundance of it in the Roman Catholic Church.

God bless you
Click to expand...
Brother, you have put it beautifully. Love is the Law. What you are expressing here is True Christianity! God bless YOU!
 
Semper_Fi said:
Brother, you have put it beautifully. Love is the Law. What you are expressing here is True Christianity! God bless YOU!
Click to expand...
I made the same mistake. “Brother” Jofantioch is actually SISTER Jofantioch.:o

Blessings
 
Jofantioch has spoken of her fiance, so I hope she is a *sister *in Christ. 🙂
 
Jofantioch said:
So beautifully put.
I was struck by Orthodoxy by the faith of the common Orthodox in Russia. I am in awe of St. Theresa of Calcutta (believe her to be a saint), though she is Roman. I love the nun who prays night and day in that little chapel in St. Peter’s in Rome. The faith and the Love is what crosses all boundary, not rhetoric and law. Christianity is all about Love, and there is an abundance of it in the Roman Catholic Church.

God bless you
Click to expand...
On all of the forums I have been on this week, this post is BY FAR the BEST I have seen.

EXCELLENT POST!

Thank you my sister!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top