The Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue: Where does it truly stand at present?

[Nine_Two]

Hey! I get to say that. :tsktsk:

But it had been 40 minutes! I didn’t know when you were going to show!

 

[nannu]

Situación Priviligiada.

Situados a menos de 300 metros del mayor balneario de agua salada de toda europa, un complejo de ocio y bienestar a un paso de su apartamento. Marina Dor, su ciudad de vacaciones.

 

[Marybeloved]

Although I, also, take issue with Dzheremi on some things (such as his occasional use of CAPS in the post in question) I also have to take issue with your labeling his disagreements with Mardukm as “[vicious] attacks on Mardukm”.

And I also ‘‘have to take issue’’ with your attempt to excuse his bad and totally unnecessary behaviour! If I did that to Dhzeremi, accusing him of apostasy and going after his conversion from CC to OO as if it mattered to the conversation, people on this subforum would be totally all over me in a second. Yet because a non-Catholic does it to a Catholic you want to defend it? Not cool, sir! :tsktsk: Yes, it is personal too, hence the ‘‘attack on Mardukm’’ comment. And Considering just what this term apostacy means in Christianity and its irrelevance to this conversation, it is indeed vicious.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother PeterJ,

What you said was

But, yes, tomorrow is certainly soon enough for you to provide a source for that claim.

What prompted the comment “What you said was….” I thought I explained it.

The High Petrine position is the position of the OOC’s. I’m not sure what you want. Do you want a comparison between the High Petrine position of the OOC’s versus the Absolutist Petrine position of many Latins, or a comparison with the Low Petrine position of many EO’s? I invented these terms because I realized the Catholic position according to Vatican 1 and 2 was not the exaggerated position of some Catholics (nor what non-Catholic polemicists were saying it was), nor was the OO position the position of what I read and heard from many EO (in discussions with EO when I was still in the OO communion). I’ve explained this before in the past here on CAF. The High Petrine position is really defined by what it is not. If you want a positive statement of it, I gather you will not find one. But I have attempted to define in a positive sense what I mean by it over the years here in CAF. I don’t know how long you have been on CAF.

So I guess it might depend on what you think I mean by “High Petrine.” Your comment seems to indicate you understand what I mean, but I’m not sure. Do you want me to explain what “High Petrine” means or are you just looking for the term “High Petrine” from an OO source?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Marybeloved,

And I also ‘‘have to take issue’’ with your attempt to excuse his bad and totally unnecessary behaviour! If I did that to Dhzeremi, accusing him of apostasy and going after his conversion from CC to OO as if it mattered to the conversation, people on this subforum would be totally all over me in a second. Yet because a non-Catholic does it to a Catholic you want to defend it? Not cool, sir! :tsktsk: Yes, it is personal too, hence the ‘‘attack on Mardukm’’ comment. And Considering just what this term apostacy means in Christianity and its irrelevance to this conversation, it is indeed vicious.

Thank you for your defense. I really do appreciate it. I can see how Dzheremi’s comments can be seen as an attack, but I’ve got pretty thick skin. I think we can appreciate the zeal of a new convert, so at least I think we can assume he is not saying these things out of malice.

In any case, it should be noted that there are many in the COC who consider just leaving the communion of the COC as “apostasy.” Though I personally have grown up in the COC understanding that “apostasy” means rejecting Christ Himself (which I obviously do not do), there are some in the COC (and I’m sure other apostolic Churches) who have a more rigorist mindset and don’t make that distinction. I do recall reading about (well-known in the Coptic world) the apostasy of a certain Max Michel from the Coptic Orthodox Church. He unapologetically stated he wants absolutely nothing to do with the mother Church, so I can see why many would call him an apostate. I really don’t think that applies to me, since I love my mother Church and long for the day of reunion.

It also has something to do with the belief of some, as Dzheremi has expressed here (though in mitigated terms), that Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians do not believe in the same Christ (due to the Christological controversy). If apostasy is rejecting Christ, and Chalcedonians do not believe in the same Christ, then it is logical that if I come into communion with the Chalcedonians, then I am an apostate. But I am confident that the common Agreed Statements absolves me of any apostasy (though, obviously, some have a different opinion).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Marybeloved]

Dear sister Marybeloved,

Thank you for your defense. I really do appreciate it. I can see how Dzheremi’s comments can be seen as an attack, but I’ve got pretty thick skin. I think we can appreciate the zeal of a new convert, so at least I think we can assume he is not saying these things out of malice.

In any case, it should be noted that there are many in the COC who consider just leaving the communion of the COC as “apostasy.” Though I personally have grown up in the COC understanding that “apostasy” means rejecting Christ Himself (which I obviously do not do), there are some in the COC (and I’m sure other apostolic Churches) who have a more rigorist mindset and don’t make that distinction. I do recall reading about (well-known in the Coptic world) the apostasy of a certain Max Michel from the Coptic Orthodox Church. He unapologetically stated he wants absolutely nothing to do with the mother Church, so I can see why many would call him an apostate. I really don’t think that applies to me, since I love my mother Church and long for the day of reunion.

It also has something to do with the belief of some, as Dzheremi has expressed here (though in mitigated terms), that Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians do not believe in the same Christ (due to the Christological controversy). If apostasy is rejecting Christ, and Chalcedonians do not believe in the same Christ, then it is logical that if I come into communion with the Chalcedonians, then I am an apostate. But I am confident that the common Agreed Statements absolves me of any apostasy (though, obviously, some have a different opinion).

Blessings,
Marduk

Well, Thank you for that information. Apostacy and apostate as I’ve always understood are what you ascribe to someone who becomes a Muslim, a Hindu, an agnostic or atheist etc. Certainly not what you ascribe to a professing Christian! That really is something that would offend me deeply (and it has, clearly) and more so on a Catholic forum. But your explanation does put somethings in perspective and I can take it to mean that he simply meant you left what he believes is the true Church but not to equate you with a denier of Jesus Christ! Seriously I wouldn’t call a Catholic who leaves for the most anticatholic Protestant fundamentalist Apostate, just as I wouldn’t call these fundamentalists infidels or pagans.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, Thank you for that information. Apostacy and apostate as I’ve always understood are what you ascribe to someone who becomes a Muslim, a Hindu, an agnostic or atheist etc. Certainly not what you ascribe to a professing Christian!

Indeed, the standard definition, among Catholics, for the term “apostasy” is leaving Christianity entirely.

Which brings up the question, Should we expect non-Catholic posters on CAF to accept our definitions? (I could give examples.) I’ve been wrestling with that question for years.

 

[Peter_J]

The High Petrine position is the position of the OOC’s. I’m not sure what you want.

Hi Mardukm. Sorry if I was unclear; I’m looking for a source for your claim (that the Oriental Orthodox position is high petrine). I don’t think a source has been given on this thread, or at least, if one was given I missed it.

Thanks.

 

[Peter_J]

But it had been 40 minutes! I didn’t know when you were going to show!

Oh, I’ll 40 minutes you.

 

[Marybeloved]

Indeed, the standard definition, among Catholics, for the term “apostasy” is leaving Christianity entirely.

Which brings up the question, Should we expect non-Catholic posters on CAF to accept our definitions? (I could give examples.) I’ve been wrestling with that question for years.

That’s not just what it means in Catholicism, it’s the common meaning in English which would mean denying a religion like Islam or Christianity entirely, I believe. So the person using it should really qualify it. It is interesting that you cut out the rest of my quote and then proceed to ask me a question that is addressed in that part you left out, though

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother PeterJ,

Hi Mardukm. Sorry if I was unclear; I’m looking for a source for your claim (that the Oriental Orthodox position is high petrine). I don’t think a source has been given on this thread, or at least, if one was given I missed it.

Thanks.

Sorry if I was unclear. What I wanted to know is if you want a source that uses the term “High Petrine” or you want a source that indicates the same principles that are “High Petrine.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

Well I’m not aware of having asked a question of you, Marybeloved.

But leaving terminology aside, it’s quite clear from Mardukm’s posts that he started out as Oriental Orthodox, then came into communion with the Pope, and believes that the rest of the Oriental Orthodox should come into communion with the Pope. When we try to go further than that in description, posters are likely to disagree (e.g. “abandoning” vs. “coming home” etc).

 

[Peter_J]

Sorry if I was unclear. What I wanted to know is if you want a source that uses the term “High Petrine” or you want a source that indicates the same principles that are “High Petrine.”

Well, I don’t believe I’ve seen either, thus far on this thread. Either would be acceptable to me, but if I were you I would try for the latter.

 

[Marybeloved]

Well I’m not aware of having asked a question of you, Marybeloved.

But leaving terminology aside, it’s quite clear from Mardukm’s posts that he started out as Oriental Orthodox, then came into communion with the Pope, and believes that the rest of the Oriental Orthodox should come into communion with the Pope. When we try to go further than that in description, posters are likely to disagree (e.g. “abandoning” vs. “coming home” etc).

That’s not at all what I was referring to. Im not so naive (or foolish) as to expect an Orthodox to call leaving his communion for ours “coming home” (Seriously?) But what one understands when you call that apostacy is that the person is a denier of Christ our Lord, which is a very bad thing to suggest here, really. But M has explained the context. I once offended Nine Two by calling his belief on an issue a heresy in a debate and he was not laughing about it and I had to apologize. I hardly think it ok to act as if something much worse shouldn’t be called out as bad, and that those who do are out of line for doing so. Those terms are loaded and should not be lightly used without qualification. BUT there’s apparently a context to it that has been explained and I don’t find it so mean and unkind any more but a word with probably a narrow meaning. As a Catholic I can certainly understand that.

 

[Nine_Two]

Indeed, the standard definition, among Catholics, for the term “apostasy” is leaving Christianity entirely.

Which brings up the question, Should we expect non-Catholic posters on CAF to accept our definitions? (I could give examples.) I’ve been wrestling with that question for years.

I’ve always derived some slight pleasure from the belief that I’m an apostate from Calvinism.

 

[dzheremi]

And I also ‘‘have to take issue’’ with your attempt to excuse his bad and totally unnecessary behaviour! If I did that to Dhzeremi, accusing him of apostasy and going after his conversion from CC to OO

It would be true. What is a better term for someone who leaves one communion for another? So long as we are not united, it is not a simple matter or to be undertaken lightly (and I’m sure Mardukm didn’t take it lightly). You’re right that it is NOT the same as leaving for another religion entirely, but particularly within Orthodox ecclesiology, once you’re out, you’re out. We do not condemn anyone for being where they are, but we can’t say “Well, it’s fine so long as they join another church”. I thought this was the Catholic Church’s view, too, at least insofar as it believes that it is the true church and others are not (though, unlike the Orthodox Church, it also makes various pronouncements on the status of other churches and other religions relative to it, for some reason; maybe that’s why it seems inappropriate to you to use the term apostate/apostasy? Because it violates your understanding of how churches relate to one another? But we don’t have the same understanding of this matter, it seems.)

as if it mattered to the conversation

As I explained to you before, our understanding of these matters (and everything else) is directly influenced by our ecclesiastical affiliations, so it does matter. I’m sorry that you apparently do not understand that, but nevertheless it does very much matter.

people on this subforum would be totally all over me in a second.

I kind of doubt that. Now if I had said something about the state of Mardukm’s soul or the consequences for his decision, then there would be more than enough reason for me to be disciplined or censured, both from a Catholic and an Orthodox point of view, but I didn’t say that, as that violates my own understanding of how we as Orthodox people are to relate to those outside of our church. That’s why I wished him well and that God may bless him where he is, because it is not my business to say anything else about anyone else’s decision to join the Catholic Church. If that’s where he thinks he should be, then good. I’m glad he’s there. It’s better to be a faithful and committed Catholic than an unfaithful and uncommitted Orthodox (and vice-versa; there was a thread here recently on how Pope Benedict XIV has stated that those who cannot believe should be honest with themselves and leave, and that’s just what I did when I apostasized from the Roman Catholic Church, eventually ending up in Orthodoxy).

We need to be able to be intellectually honest with each other without fear that exposing honest difference will be taken as hostility.

Yet because a non-Catholic does it to a Catholic you want to defend it? Not cool, sir! :tsktsk: Yes, it is personal too, hence the ‘‘attack on Mardukm’’ comment. And Considering just what this term apostacy means in Christianity and its irrelevance to this conversation, it is indeed vicious.

I guess we will not see these things eye-to-eye. I have explained enough to you in multiple posts now why I write as I do, but you insist on calling me vicious. That is sad, really. I am sorry that I have hurt or offended you so much.

And, Mardukm, if you are offended (you don’t seem to be, but maybe you just don’t like to write about that sort of thing), I am also very sorry. I ask that both you and Marybeloved forgive me for having sinned against you in this way. It is not my intention to purposely offend anyone. I write in accordance with how I see the situation, and I use terms that I feel that we, as adults honestly discussing differing religious viewpoints on the religion that we love and are committed to, each in our own communion, can handle using or reading. I am frankly not sure what I am supposed to use if not certain words to describe certain situations, but I will certainly try to come up with alternatives when possible.

 

[mardukm]

Indeed, the standard definition, among Catholics, for the term “apostasy” is leaving Christianity entirely.

Which brings up the question, Should we expect non-Catholic posters on CAF to accept our definitions? (I could give examples.) I’ve been wrestling with that question for years.

“Because when he defiles his celibacy and returns back to the world he enters into marriage which is but adultery and apostate. Because any one who leaves the communion of Christ, his angels, and his saints and breaks the promise which he made to Him in front of the altar…”
(The Collection of Church and Civil Laws by Safey Ibn Al-Assal, 1245 A.D.)

“For those who deny Christ (Apostasy) or profane their bodies by adultery, the Church does not grant, in the first place, the Sacrament of Confession on their return, but rather prays for them the ‘Prayer for the Apostate’, or ‘Prayer of capability’ as they call it, which requests forgiveness for grievous sins which need God’s mercy.”
copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/3_repentance_confesstion.html

There are obviously more rigorist views in the Coptic Orthodox Church, but it should never be denied that rejection of Christ is the Traditional understanding of “apostasy” among all Christians.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

It also has something to do with the belief of some, as Dzheremi has expressed here (though in mitigated terms), that Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians do not believe in the same Christ (due to the Christological controversy). If apostasy is rejecting Christ, and Chalcedonians do not believe in the same Christ, then it is logical that if I come into communion with the Chalcedonians, then I am an apostate. But I am confident that the common Agreed Statements absolves me of any apostasy (though, obviously, some have a different opinion).

I thought I went out of my way in the other thread (and even bringing up here) to explain that it is no longer common understanding among non-Chalcedonians that Chalcedonians are crypto-Nestorian? (Maybe I didn’t bring it up here, but meant to; I’m sorry, Mardukm…I am having trouble having the same argument with you across multiple threads. ) That the problem really is with the Tome of Leo’s wording, and the fact that many EO would have us accept it (and all the Council) as a precondition for reunion, when we cannot do so without violating our understanding of Orthodox Christology? (Hence why it was rejected in the first place.)

In other words, you will find little in my posts to suggest that Chalcedonians, by virtue of being Chalcedonians, worship a different Christ. Although I don’t doubt that there are some among the OO who would say that, but even my very much anti-Chalcedonian priest confines his comments against the council to the content of the Tome that is objectionable to OO, the unacceptable deposition of St. Dioscoros by the the council (and the subsequent usurping of the chair by a Chalcedonian impostor), etc. He does not say anything about Chalcedonians as people beyond that we will not commune them in our church here in Albuquerque, and I suspect that this is because there is no need for it, as they have their own churches, both Catholic and Orthodox (who knows; if that weren’t the case, maybe things would be different, as the Greeks used to commune Copts here back in the 1980s, before we got our own priests and started having liturgies, and we maintain very good relations with the Greek Church and the local Catholic churches).

 

[Marybeloved]

I’m cool Dzheremi. I really was taken aback by the statements, I don’t know if you think Catholics deny Jesus, I don’t think you do. I won’t assume that you think I’m an infidel. I see you as a brother even though there are differences and I appreciate the humility and good will you’ve shown in your last paragraph above and I apologize too for the occasions in which I’m sure I’ve offended you too.

 

[mardukm]

Well, Thank you for that information. Apostacy and apostate as I’ve always understood are what you ascribe to someone who becomes a Muslim, a Hindu, an agnostic or atheist etc. Certainly not what you ascribe to a professing Christian! That really is something that would offend me deeply (and it has, clearly) and more so on a Catholic forum. But your explanation does put somethings in perspective and I can take it to mean that he simply meant you left what he believes is the true Church but not to equate you with a denier of Jesus Christ! Seriously I wouldn’t call a Catholic who leaves for the most anticatholic Protestant fundamentalist Apostate, just as I wouldn’t call these fundamentalists infidels or pagans.

Like I said, there is not a single authoritative view in the Coptic Orthodox Church on this. Some may think this is confusing, but a lot of it has a lot to do with oikonomia. For example, the Coptic Orthodox Church allows divorce for apostasy, but its (at least current, AFAIK) canon law would not permit divorce if one of the partners becomes Protestant or Catholic. So there are different circumstances.

Blessings,
Marduk