The Main reason I translated to Catholicism from Orthodoxy

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

mardukm

Guest
As many may already know, I translated (not converted) to Catholicism from Coptic Orthodoxy not because I perceived anything wrong with the doctrines of Coptic Orthodoxy, but because I discovered that what I had learned ABOUT Catholicism from my Coptic Orthodox teachers were false.

A case in point:
suscopts.org/literature/literature.php?subaction=showfull&id=1084916893&archive=&start_from=&ucat=3

While I accept wholeheartedly the section in that article entitled “The Coptic Orthodox view on the Prayer for the Departed,” most everything else in that article ABOUT the Catholic Faith is simply false. The Catholic Faith teaches that the efficacy of Purgatory relies on the one Sacrifice of Christ, for it is (in short) an application of the superabundant merits of Christ that originated from the Cross. Non-Catholics think that Purgatory is completely separated from the Sacrifice of the Lamb - “another way to heaven,” as many put it - but that is an utterly false notion about the Catholic teaching on Purgatory.

Just very recently in another thread, an EO poster claimed that the case of Honorius, who was declared a heretic by the Church, upends the Catholic teaching on “papal infallibility,” but when asked how a Pope being declared a heretic affects the Catholic teaching, he simply could not provide an answer (all he could do was robotically repeat, “he was declared a heretic”).🤷 (On a good note, another EO poster actually understood that the matter of Honorius does not affect the Catholic teaching on “papal infallibility,” but does refute the claim by certain Catholics that on matters of doctrine/morals, the Pope cannot be in error at all).

The examples can be multiplied and the misunderstandings cover every point about Catholicism (particularly Latin Catholicism) that Coptic Orthodoxy (and Orthodoxy in general) claims is wrong.

The plain fact of the matter is, the great majority of Orthodox (even those who used to be in the Catholic communion) don’t know what the Catholic Faith teaches, and almost everything they learn about Catholicism (doctrinally speaking) from Orthodox or other non-Catholic sources is, more often that not, sheer myth.

So I invite my Orthodox brethren, for the sake of peace and unity, to study and know about the Catholic Faith from the Catechism or other reliable sources (in union with the bishop of Rome). Take what you read ABOUT the Catholic Church from your own sources with a grain of salt. I invite my Protestant brethren to do the same.

I hope everyone can agree with the principle that if you want to learn about the horse, take it from the horse’s mouth.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Thank you, Marduk.
That was very enlightening.

God bless you,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
PRAY THE ROSARY DAILY

Eternal Father, I offer Thee the Adorable Face
of Thy Beloved Son Jesus, for the honor and glory of Thy Name,
for the conversion of sinners and the salvation of the dying.
AMEN.
 
A wonderful posting designed to build bridges of understanding.

May such bridges grow and multiply until every difficulty is covered over and filled in and wiped from our hearts so that East and West, Catholic and Orthodox, become once again a single entity.

Let us become One as Christ and the Father are one…(John 17:21)

Peace
James
 
Great post Marduk:thumbsup: Your post here should be displayed on the front page of Catholic answers (forums) because you describe beautifully what Catholic answers is all about.

You are a brave soul; and we are fortunate to have you here on our discussions, especially when you have the God given talents to bridge discussions between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. God bless you

Gabe:)
 
mardukm said:
As many may already know, I translated (not converted) to Catholicism from Coptic Orthodoxy not because I perceived anything wrong with the doctrines of Coptic Orthodoxy, but because I discovered that what I had learned ABOUT Catholicism from my Coptic Orthodox teachers were false.

A case in point:
suscopts.org/literature/literature.php?subaction=showfull&id=1084916893&archive=&start_from=&ucat=3

While I accept wholeheartedly the section in that article entitled “The Coptic Orthodox view on the Prayer for the Departed,” most everything else in that article ABOUT the Catholic Faith is simply false. The Catholic Faith teaches that the efficacy of Purgatory relies on the one Sacrifice of Christ, for it is (in short) an application of the superabundant merits of Christ that originated from the Cross. Non-Catholics think that Purgatory is completely separated from the Sacrifice of the Lamb - “another way to heaven,” as many put it - but that is an utterly false notion about the Catholic teaching on Purgatory.

Just very recently in another thread, an EO poster claimed that the case of Honorius, who was declared a heretic by the Church, upends the Catholic teaching on “papal infallibility,” but when asked how a Pope being declared a heretic affects the Catholic teaching, he simply could not provide an answer (all he could do was robotically repeat, “he was declared a heretic”).🤷 (On a good note, another EO poster actually understood that the matter of Honorius does not affect the Catholic teaching on “papal infallibility,” but does refute the claim by certain Catholics that on matters of doctrine/morals, the Pope cannot be in error at all).

The examples can be multiplied and the misunderstandings cover every point about Catholicism (particularly Latin Catholicism) that Coptic Orthodoxy (and Orthodoxy in general) claims is wrong.

The plain fact of the matter is, the great majority of Orthodox (even those who used to be in the Catholic communion) don’t know what the Catholic Faith teaches, and almost everything they learn about Catholicism (doctrinally speaking) from Orthodox or other non-Catholic sources is, more often that not, sheer myth.

So I invite my Orthodox brethren, for the sake of peace and unity, to study and know about the Catholic Faith from the Catechism or other reliable sources (in union with the bishop of Rome). Take what you read ABOUT the Catholic Church from your own sources with a grain of salt. I invite my Protestant brethren to do the same.

I hope everyone can agree with the principle that if you want to learn about the horse, take it from the horse’s mouth.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Thank you Marduk. As always your posts are excellent and I’ve learned a lot, once again.
 
I think Honorius is a prime example as to why papal infallibility is an innovation of Pius IX and the ultramonatanists in 1870.

He supported heresy. He was declared a heretic. And yet we are led to believe that somehow he still retained this charism of supremacy and infallibility?

The successive Councils and multiple popes did not declare that he was a heretic…but still infallible.

There was no such doctrine then…and there was no such doctrine until 1870…and I believe that today’s modern day RC apologists (especially markudm) go to extreme measures in an attempt to somehow prove that Honorius has nothing to do with the 1870 doctrine. Well…in a sense…markudm is correct…because the fathers and councils knew of no such doctrine.

Honorius embraced a heresy. In my book…that is the same as teaching it (by example).
 
His condemnation is found in the Acts in the 13th Session, near the beginning. His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same session as being “hurtful to the soul.” This includes the letter that contains the phrase e}n qevlhma oJmologou`men (hen thelema homologoumen).
 
In the decree of faith published at the 18th Session it is stated that “the originator of all evil… found a fit tool for his will in… Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, etc.” Further, this Ecumenical Council said that Honorius taught the heretical doctrine. They said that Satan had “actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy …”
 
The Papal legates, representatives of Pope Agatho, made no attempt to stop the burning of the letters, and subscribed to every anathema placed upon Honorius, as well as to the statement that Satan himself had used the bishop of Rome as a “tool for his will.”
 
The imperial decree speaks of the “unholy priests who infected the Church and falsely governed” and mentions among them “Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself.” The Emperor goes on to anathematize “Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.”
 
The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus taken by each new Pope up to the eleventh century, states in no uncertain terms, “smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.” Every single Pope who took to the chair of Peter for three hundred years did so by anathematizing his predecessor, Honorius.
 
In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II in the Roman Breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod, and the name remains there until the sixteenth century!
 
This step into Monotheletism, which he was first to make, is the famous fall of Honorius, for which the Sixth ecumenical council condemned him (681) a condemnation which, until the early Middle Ages, would be repeated by all popes at their installation, since on such occasions they had to confess the faith of the ecumenical councils. It is understandable, therefore, that all the critics of the doctrine of papal infallibility in later centuries–protestants, Orthodox and anti-infallibilists at Vatican I in 1870–would refer to this case. Some Roman Catholic apologists try to show that the expressions used by Honorius could be understood in an orthodox way, and that there is no evidence that he deliberately wished to proclaim anything else than the traditional faith of the Church. They also point out quite anachronistically that the letter to Sergius was not a formal statement, issued by the pope ex cathedra, using his charisma of infallibility, as if such a concept existed in the seventh century. Without denying the pope’s good intentions which can be claimed in favor of any heresiarch of history, it is quite obvious that his confession of one will, at a crucial moment and as Sergius himself was somewhat backing out before the objections of Sophronius, not only condoned the mistakes of others, but actually coined a heretical formula, the beginning of a tragedy from which the Church (including the orthodox successors of Honorius on the papal throne) would suffer greatly (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood:St. Vladimir’s, 1989), p. 353).
 
Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition but by profane treachery tried to subvert its spotless faith" ~ Pope Leo II
 
Pope Leo II (682-3) even spoke of Honorius as the one who “instead of giving glory to this apostolic church [Rome] by teaching apostolic tradition, has tried to subvert the immaculate faith by impious treason.”
 
SESSION XVI. **
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1010.)
[The Acclamations of the Fathers.]
Many years to the Emperor! Many years to Constantine, our great Emperor! Many years to the Orthodox King! Many years to our Emperor that maketh peace! Many years to Constantine, a second Martian! Many years to Constantine, a new Theodosius! Many years to Constantine, a new Justinian! Many years to the keeper of the orthodox faith! O Lord preserve the foundation of the Churches!O Lord preserve the keeper of the faith!
Many years to Agatho, Pope of Rome! Many years to George, Patriarch of Constantinople! Many years to Theophanus, Patriarch of Antioch! Many years to the orthodox council! Many years to the orthodox Senate!
To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!** To Pyrthus, the heretic, anathema!
To Paul the heretic, anathema!
To Peter the heretic, anathema!
To Macarius the heretic, anathema!
To Stephen the heretic, anathema!
To Polychronius the heretic, anathema!
To Apergius of Perga the heretic, anathema!
To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema!
May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecumenical Council!
 
Remember, the issue is not whether you think Honorius taught the heresy, the issue is that the Church has always believed that he did. And never did anyone till the 19th century feel compelled to come up with the theory that Honorius didn’t teach heresy.

But I digress…I am sure that markudm converted for many reasons…but I don’t think issues regarding Honorius was one of those reasons.

I think that markudm likes to argue…and the Honorius thread was closed down before he could finish. 😃
 
So you “translated” to the Catholic faith because Orthodox don’t know much about it and often misrepresent it?

While this is most certainly true (Not necessarily the fault of the Orthodox, I’ve been told things by Catholics and when I repeat it to a Catholic I am told I am misrepresenting their beliefs), the inverse is also undeniable (Again I grant not necessarily the fault of the Catholic).
 
Dear brother Nine_Two,
Nine_Two said:
So you “translated” to the Catholic faith because Orthodox don’t know much about it and often misrepresent it?
Click to expand...
I should add that I know that the misrepresentation is many times not on purpose. People just believe what they are taught with no real reason to believe otherwise. One needs to intentionally step out of the box and make a decision to be open to what the other party says. I cannot tell you how many times I’d heard the Catholic responses to my Orthodox objections when I was not yet in communion with Rome. It just never entered my mind that I could trust what they were saying, and was always looking for mistakes in their arguments instead of listening to what they said. It was not until I made a conscious and willful decision to study the Fathers on my own (the impetus was the removal of the phrase “leader of the Apostles” from the title of Sts. Peter and Paul in the Coptic Orthodox Liturgy - I wanted to find out the ins and outs of that change) that I began to be (strangely, I felt at first) open and receptive to what Catholics were saying. And it was not that Catholics were saying it, but that my studies of the Fathers helped me connect the dots in what Catholics were claiming.
While this is most certainly true (Not necessarily the fault of the Orthodox, I’ve been told things by Catholics and when I repeat it to a Catholic I am told I am misrepresenting their beliefs), the inverse is also undeniable (Again I grant not necessarily the fault of the Catholic).
Click to expand...
Very well said. We need to spend more time listening to each other, rather than trying to nitpick what is wrong with the other. As I’ve stated very often, it is only through the spiritual fruit of understanding whereby true unity will be achieved.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top