Similarities of Copts to Eastern Catholics (and contrast to EO)

[Addai]

I was posting this for Marduck but others that are knowledgeable are welcomed to respond.

This topic is important to me since its a big issue at home. My wife believes outside of Chalcedon and the counsels there is no difference from Us then the EO. I have responed to her that there are some differences and noted a few of the things mentioned by Marduck in this previous post. I Basically said if she has heart burn over being EC then she should have some minor heart burn over being EO.

Similarites of Copts and Other OO given by Marduck

1. Penitential spirituality
2. A greater appreciation for juridic ecclesial authority (this is most evident among our Syrian brethren, who regard the primacy and authority of St. Peter among the Apostles, handed down in the heirarchy, as part of the DOCTRINAL FAITH - a point that has been a springboard for reunion talks between the Syrian Orthodox and the Catholic Church).
3. belief in the simplicity of God (though we accept a distinction between Essence and Energy of God, we believe, in conjunction with all the early Fathers of the Church, that God is simple; i.e., you won’t hear Oriental Orthodox say “the Essence IS God” and “the Energy IS God,” which our Eastern brethren are more likely to annunciate)

Coptic Orthodoxy in particular has these other distinctions:

1. Appreciation for study as a means to know God (this is distinct from the Palamite spirituality of our Eastern brethren).
2. Belief in the Natural Law (this is an especially prominent feature of the Alexandrian Fathers; modern Eastern Orthodox deny the Natural Law - if our discussions in this site with our EO brethren is any indication)
3. Identical Canon of Scripture as the Catholic Church.

Marduck would you expand on these and detail them out a bit more…

Addai’s list

1. Some EOs can equivocate on the issue of Hell, and Universal salvation, even embrace it. While there anathemas and catechismal declarations against Universal redemption you can squeeze through the loop holes around it as I’ve seen first hand.
   
   The OO has a dogmatic stance against this heresy It sees the declarations of Severus of Antioch as being Authoritative that reminds me of dogmatic stance of Catholicism with the Athanasian Creed, it Catechism and possibly even an infallible statment on the subject (not to knowledgeable on Excathedra on the subject).
2. also noticed there are strong patriarchs in the Coptic and Syriac Church that have exercised a form of primacy over bishops etc. under them.
3. There is a more primitive spirituality. I notice this especially on issues like Iconography. The 7th EC counsel makes this mandatory for the EO (which is bad for the Assyrians). I am hoping that the crucifixes in the Chaldean Catholic church were voluntary adopted… since this would have others been forcing the early Assyrians / Chaldeans to sin (they believed it violated the graven image commandment.
4. Their is more of a unified world wide policy in the Coptic church when it comes to standard doctrine and policy (Outside of classical Paradosis) as their can be in the Latin Church (And I presume EC churches), while EO are not just split along ethnic division, but in the dispersa even along national lines. So Greek Orthodox Canadians may do things or believe things differently then Greek O Americans, or Greek O Greeks, etc.

This can even go on a diocese level, where one bishop in the EO can show latitude over pastoral issues which one might expect should be a matter of national policy. Like having a single coherent policy or belief regarding Family planning / Birth Control.

1. In arguing with EO a few times I have realized that there Churches and Communion are far more Nationalist and Imperially driven then ours and might look like more Catholicism in a time other then Middle Ages (When Popes were trying to be King makers etc.)

Ok I’m speaking off the cough and casually (I hope that last comment doesn’t offend).

 

[bpbasilphx]

1) Some EOs can equivocate on the issue of Hell, and Universal salvation, even embrace it.

**In 30 + years of being Orthodox, I’ve never met a single Orthodox who did NOT believe in hell or who DID believe in universal salvation.

In fact, the Office of Orthodoxy celebrated on First Sunday of Lent anathemetizes all who hold the wrong beliefs on these matters.**

 

[Addai]

1) Some EOs can equivocate on the issue of Hell, and Universal salvation, even embrace it.

**In 30 + years of being Orthodox, I’ve never met a single Orthodox who did NOT believe in hell or who DID believe in universal salvation.

In fact, the Office of Orthodoxy celebrated on First Sunday of Lent anathemetizes all who hold the wrong beliefs on these matters.**

That is good, I guess the internet gives a bad impression. But a few years ago I was scared what I read by some posters on OrthodoxChristianity.net

But besides this I recall the famous “River of Fire” essay, and a passage in “The Orthodox Way” that tries to be open minded on entertaining Saint Isaac the Syrians notion on it. Which I think gives some more liberal minded EO some wiggle room on it.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Addai,

I will post more this weekend regarding your request. For now, may I ask if you have ever asked your wife to consider one of the Eastern/Byzantine Catholic Churches?

Instead of highlighting differences, perhaps the best course of action would be to demonstrate to her how the Eastern and Western approaches are COMPATIBLE. For the only difference between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (aside from the papacy) is that Eastern Catholics highlight similarities and compatibility, whereas Eastern Orthodox (at least the polemic ones) attempt to highlight differences (where there are none), and attempt to make non-dogmatic or non-doctrinal differences a cause for division (i.e., use of leavened/unleavened bread, priestly celibacy, use of statues versus icons, etc. etc. etc., etc. etc.).

Of course, Oriental Christianity is inherently a middle-ground between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity, but that should be beside the point. Help her understand the compatibility of East and West. Work for understanding.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Addai]

Dear brother Addai,

Of course, Oriental Christianity is inherently a middle-ground between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity, but that should be beside the point. Help her understand the compatibility of East and West. Work for understanding.

Blessings,
Marduk

Well thats the thing she doesn’t really buy that. I actually gave some examples where the Coptic and Syriac patriarch were stronger then the EO one (assuming your position #1 in your other thread is correct). And highlighted that some examples went beyond the EO ecclesiology, but that hasn’t worked.

And she spends a lot of time reading EO books, articles, blogs, web sites, listening to “Ancient Faith Radio” etc. And as she related to me, she most likely would have been EO if she hadn’t met me. She joined the Copts purely because I was already a member.

She by the way is the reason why I brought up the “Aristotle East and West”, but she uses that as a reason or justification for polemical arguments made by Orthodoxy that Catholicism and EO are “Two Different Faiths”, Rome changed its Dogma when it changed the Creed etc.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Addai,

Well thats the thing she doesn’t really buy that. I actually gave some examples where the Coptic and Syriac patriarch were stronger then the EO one (assuming your position #1 in your other thread is correct). And highlighted that some examples went beyond the EO ecclesiology, but that hasn’t worked.

And she spends a lot of time reading EO books, articles, blogs, web sites, listening to “Ancient Faith Radio” etc. And as she related to me, she most likely would have been EO if she hadn’t met me. She joined the Copts purely because I was already a member.

She by the way is the reason why I brought up the “Aristotle East and West”, but she uses that as a reason or justification for polemical arguments made by Orthodoxy that Catholicism and EO are “Two Different Faiths”, Rome changed its Dogma when it changed the Creed etc.

I really feel for you. You are in a very difficult situation as your wife seems to be willing to listen ONLY to the more polemic elements of Eastern Orthodoxy.

But let’s take this a step at a time, with prayer. I think the first thing is to help convince her that the Sacraments of the Catholic Church are valid. This requires several things:

1. Demonstrate that the early Church accepted the validity of the Sacraments of SOME heretical groups.
2. Demonstrate that the criterion of the early church was Trinitarian belief,
3. Prove that the Latin doctrine of filioque is not heretical. In this regard, there are many Eastern Orthodox resources that can help, including the outcome of the Catholic-Orthodox Commission on Filioque, Bishop Timothy Ware, and some others which I cannot think of off hand (many in this website can help you in that regard).

Number 3 is necessary because the doctrine of filioque is used by EO polemicists to demonstrate that there is something wrong with the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, the root cause of denying the validity of her Sacraments.

But once #3 is done, then she must at least accept the validity of Catholic Sacraments, which would technically place the Catholic Church on the same level as the Oriental Orthodox Churches in the eyes of the EO, AND according to the standards of the early Church.

It might take a while, but it is worth it and will at least put a crack in the polemic Eastern Orthodox wall which your wife seems to have placed around herself. She needs to be shown that NOT ALL Eastern Orthodox are as polemic or anti-Catholic as some of her sources seem to be.

After that, demonstrate to her from the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils themselves that the ecclesiology of the Eastern Orthodox is NOT patristic. Show her FROM THE CANONS that when the Councils spoke of head bishops (i.e., Metropolitans and Patriarchs), the canons evince an authority and jurisdiction of the head bishop over his brother bishops in particular regions. Certainly, she cannot deny the witness of the Canons. The ecclesiology of the early Church was semi-monarchical, not the more democratic form of the modern EOC. You can get those canons from CCEL’s site on the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

I hope that helps. But take it slow, and a step at a time. Don’t focus on more than one issue at a time.

If your wife (or you) needs help understanding/discussing the two particular issues above, then feel free to ask our members here for help. Even invite your wife to set up her own account here, if she is willing to discuss openly and fairly about the issues which concern you both.

I’ll be back this weekend.

Abundant blessings, and you certainly have my prayers,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Rome changed its Dogma when it changed the Creed etc.

It was more gradual than that.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Addai;3937836:

And she spends a lot of time reading EO books, articles, blogs, web sites, listening to “Ancient Faith Radio” etc. And as she related to me, she most likely would have been EO if she hadn’t met me. She joined the Copts purely because I was already a member.

Dear brother Addai,

I really feel for you. You are in a very difficult situation as your wife seems to be willing to listen ONLY to the more polemic elements of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Marduk

These things aren’t always solved by a detectable chain of logical progression, either. She may need more space to come to her own conclusions, too, and as she reads and discusses with others and you, her conclusions may change.

I’m not familiar with Eastern teachings on the sacrament of marriage (or much else - a big reason I lurk at this forum most of the time I’m at CA), but it sounds like you’ve got an excellent foundation there. Ministering the sacrament of marriage is glorious but very hard work. There’s a lot of disagreement to work through in marriage, but that’s part of what you sign up for. I think the other sacraments (and issues of authority and whatnot) should be easy by comparison, but working them out still involves a lot of work. Don’t be dismayed when things aren’t resolved by a nice logical chain of reasoning! Reasoning helps, but changes of heart and mind, and coming into agreement, involve a lot more than mere reasoning.

Let your disagreements with your wife inspire you to show love to her more. For every disagreement, do something special for her. Love convinces where polemics fear to tread, or something like that.

 

[Addai]

Let your disagreements with your wife inspire you to show love to her more. For every disagreement, do something special for her. Love convinces where polemics fear to tread, or something like that.

That actually is kind of where I’m at right now. She’s actually said she’s had her mind made up, because of all the studying that she’s done.

I realize that there are elements in my spiritual life that are lacking. So I’ve decided to work on those. Rather then get caught up in debates and arguments in real life and online.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

That actually is kind of where I’m at right now. She’s actually said she’s had her mind made up, because of all the studying that she’s done.

I realize that there are elements in my spiritual life that are lacking. So I’ve decided to work on those. Rather then get caught up in debates and arguments in real life and online.

Good for you! :extrahappy: Doctrinal and apologetic knowledge is good, no question about it, but it seems to me that a real sign of spiritual maturing is the ability to take a disagreement and notice your own shortcomings as much as the shortcomings of the opposite side. And then, of course, do something about it. I hope you’ll be willing to post some of the insights you gain as you learn practical ways to love your wife as Christ loves the Church. That would be valuable to us all.