True or False Unity

[yeshua]

Malphono,

This is all wonderful and interesting information, where do you get all that from?

Your PM box is full, I’d be happy to answer your questions, though.

 

[Mickey]

But what drives people away in discussion is stating that your one particular Catholic experience and knowledge is the tell all, and suddenly those who disagree with you become no less than “Non-Catholic polemicists.”

Indeed.

 

[Mickey]

If you think I am puffed up with pride for even suggesting this thread, go ahead and say so.

We are all puffed up with pride.

 

[antgaria]

No, actually Rome didn’t demand that either. The Maronites willingly accepted the offer of the Maronite College in Rome.

Probably somewhat in the same manner that the ACOE, not in communion with Rome, has been only too happy to have some of its clergy be trained in the colleges in Rome, away from abuses, and especially lacking its own resources after they had been dwindled by centuries of oppression.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Yeshua,

And here is my issue, and what has always been my issue: that you present the “facts” which are so often disputed by actual members of the Oriental Orthodox Tradition, and then making interpretations that are then deemed to be the actual beliefs of the Catholic Church. You trump your own experience of Oriental Christianity as the hallmark of our Tradition. In fact, you often write off others when they are attempting at your “open discussion” by simply stating that they have no right to tell you what the Catholic church believes. Is that not what this dialogue is about, even though they are our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters? Is it not the essential question in the Eastern and Oriental Catholic world of what we are to believe at this time in our history? It’s not a distinction between EO zealots and those who dutifully want to dialogue, it’s between those who agree with you and those who don’t, Orthodox and Catholic alike. And it is my wish that you some day come to see this distinction.

Marduk, I so wish that it was just as easy as you see it, I really do, but I disagree that our Communion is as romantic and ideal as you see it to be. And that’s okay! That is the point of discussing this issues. But what drives people away in discussion is stating that your one particular Catholic experience and knowledge is the tell all, and suddenly those who disagree with you become no less than “Non-Catholic polemicists.”

You need to distinguish two things in my statements:

First, you need to distinguish between the FACT that something is contained in the Oriental Orthodox tradition, on the one hand, and whether or not a particular OO chooses to accept or reject what is irrefutably contained in that Tradition, on the other. In other words, you need to distinguish between facts and interpretations of those facts. For instance, it is a fact that St. Ephrem stated that Mary and Eve were “UTTERLY EQUAL” before their respective decisions. Whether one believes that supports the dogma of the IC or not is an intepretation.

Second, I repeat, you really need to distinguish between someone asking others to suspend judgment, from someone claiming that something is heresy. That you can’t seem to distinguish the two is the crux of the problem it seems to me. I do not know why you support another person’s right to make a judgment of heresy. You’re right, I take every opportuniy to tell people they are wrong to judge my faith as heresy, and insist they have no right to make that judgment. I simply can’t fathom where you are coming from. I am not making any judgments on anyone’s belief, yet you defend others who make false judgments, even while chiding me for trying to convince others NOT to make a judgment. You are correct. We will never agree on that. Your principles of epistemology are different from mine.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

Probably somewhat in the same manner that the ACOE, not in communion with Rome, has been only too happy to have some of its clergy be trained in the colleges in Rome, away from abuses, and especially lacking its own resources after they had been dwindled by centuries of oppression.

Yes, I would think that situation is a modern-day synonym.

 

[yeshua]

First, you need to distinguish between the FACT that something is contained in the Oriental Orthodox tradition, on the one hand, and whether or not a particular OO chooses to accept or reject what is irrefutably contained in that Tradition, on the other. In other words, you need to distinguish between facts and interpretations of those facts. For instance, it is a fact that St. Ephrem stated that Mary and Eve were “UTTERLY EQUAL” before their respective decisions. Whether one believes that supports the dogma of the IC or not is an intepretation.

As I said before, I don’t support you being calling you a heretic, you have completely sidestepped my point and, again, married me with those that do believe you are a heretic.

And of course it is open to interpretation! That you can say that and end the discussion demonstrates the ENTIRE point I am trying to make. The mere facts both (a) someone (be it a church, heirarch, document, lay person) disagrees with you and (b) you unique perspective is not the tell all of the Oriental Christian/Catholic experience demonstrates such! Had you said that to a Syriac Orthodox, how would they take you telling them that Mar Ephrem’s words is an affirmation of the IC? And then buttress it with the “fact” that it is thus “compatible” in their tradition, as in telling them what they believe. Do you see my point? I’m not debating the merit of the quote you are referencing, I am pointing out the inappropriate nature, and double standard, with which it is given.

Second, I repeat, you really need to distinguish between someone asking others to suspend judgment, from someone claiming that something is heresy. That you can’t seem to distinguish the two is the crux of the problem it seems to me. I do not know why you support another person’s right to make a judgment of heresy. You’re right, I take every opportuniy to tell people they are wrong to judge my faith as heresy, and insist they have no right to make that judgment. I simply can’t fathom where you are coming from. I am not making any judgments on anyone’s belief, yet you defend others who make false judgments, even while chiding me for trying to convince others NOT to make a judgment. You are correct. We will never agree on that. Your principles of epistemology are different from mine.

Again, I don’t support people calling you a heretic, I support people, both EC and EO, offering their experiences and then being told not to dictate to you the Catholic faith when you in turn do the same to members not of our Church. Why would I condone another calling you, a fellow Catholic, a heretic? I of course do not, and this entire superfluous point of yours is taking away from my original defense which you continue to neglect.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Yeshua

As I said before, I don’t support you being calling you a heretic, you have completely sidestepped my point and, again, married me with those that do believe you are a heretic.

I have not sidestepped your point. You are comparing my pleas to NOT adjudge Catholic belief as heresy to judgments by others that Catholic beliefs are heresy. There is a HUGE a difference. I am not judging anyone’'s belief, but rather merely offering alternatives of thought. In contrast, other’s have made definite judgments on my beliefs, and judged it falsely, at that.

And of course it is open to interpretation! That you can say that and end the discussion demonstrates the ENTIRE point I am trying to make.

And the fact that you can say I tried to end the discussion demonstrates the point I am trying to make. That you are consistently trying to impose judgments on my motives that are not even there to begin with. I was the one who offered to continue the discussion publicly, and now you accuse me of trying to end it?

The mere facts both (a) someone (be it a church, heirarch, document, lay person) disagrees with you and (b) you unique perspective is not the tell all of the Oriental Christian/Catholic experience demonstrates such! Had you said that to a Syriac Orthodox, how would they take you telling them that Mar Ephrem’s words is an affirmation of the IC? And then buttress it with the “fact” that it is thus “compatible” in their tradition, as in telling them what they believe. Do you see my point? I’m not debating the merit of the quote you are referencing, I am pointing out the inappropriate nature, and double standard, with which it is given.

To SUGGEST that the IC is compatible with the OO Tradition, to claim that at most all an OO can say is that the belief is theologoumenon, and that it has never been absolutely condemned in the OO Tradition, is different from someone telling me my belief is a heresy. If anyone has closed the book on the discussion, it is the one who has made a definite judgment of heresy, not myself. Like I said, I don’t understand how you can compare the two actions. For me, in the spirit of open discussion, to ask for proof of a definite judgment of condemnation from OO hierarchs on the matter (where there is none, and no one can produce such documents), is absolutely different from a non-Catholic who has already judged our beliefs as heresy based on their misinterpretations of our documents, and will not even listen when we give proof that their interpretations are wrong.

Again, I don’t support people calling you a heretic, I support people, both EC and EO, offering their experiences and then being told not to dictate to you the Catholic faith

I realize that. What I am disturbed about is your comparison of my efforts to get people to have an open mind about matters versus the efforts of others who have made a definite judgment of condemnation on my beliefs.

when you in turn do the same to members not of our Church.

Trying to convince people not to make a definite judgment is a wholly different animal than someone making a definite judgment without all the facts.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[yeshua]

Dear brother Yeshua

I have not sidestepped your point. You are comparing my pleas to NOT adjudge Catholic belief as heresy to judgments by others that Catholic beliefs are heresy. There is a HUGE a difference. I am not judging anyone’'s belief, but rather merely offering alternatives of thought. In contrast, other’s have made definite judgments on my beliefs, and judged it falsely, at that.

And the fact that you can say I tried to end the discussion demonstrates the point I am trying to make. That you are consistently trying to impose judgments on my motives that are not even there to begin with. I was the one who offered to continue the discussion publicly, and now you accuse me of trying to end it?

To SUGGEST that the IC is compatible with the OO Tradition, to claim that at most all an OO can say is that the belief is theologoumenon, and that it has never been absolutely condemned in the OO Tradition, is different from someone telling me my belief is a heresy. If anyone has closed the book on the discussion, it is the one who has made a definite judgment of heresy, not myself. Like I said, I don’t understand how you can compare the two actions. For me, in the spirit of open discussion, to ask for proof of a definite judgment of condemnation from OO hierarchs on the matter (where there is none, and no one can produce such documents), is absolutely different from a non-Catholic who has already judged our beliefs as heresy based on their misinterpretations of our documents, and will not even listen when we give proof that their interpretations are wrong.

I realize that. What I am disturbed about is your comparison of my efforts to get people to have an open mind about matters versus the efforts of others who have made a definite judgment of condemnation on my beliefs.

Trying to convince people not to make a definite judgment is a wholly different animal than someone making a definite judgment without all the facts.

I have already stated in another forum I will not discuss what occurred to me in that other website in the spirit of complaint or criticism, and I am bound by conscience to remain true to my word.

I never did that. I made suggestions, not judgments. I gave facts from my OO Tradition, and then offered interpretations for people to consider, in terms like “I think that…”, “I believe that…”, “Are you sure…?” I was trying to get people to stop and think. That is all. In general, anti-Catholics will say anything to put down a Catholic apologist, and it was a sad moment for me to have a fellow Catholic defend an anti-Catholic.

I don’t know who is there or not, but there are many more here (Latins) who would probably never go to that other website. You are the only one who has even mentioned that other website. There have been a few people from here who PM’d or e-mailed me to ask about the identity of the person to whom I was referring. I ignored their messages and did not respond to them - at least, not until you had already exposed yourself.

What site would that be? I can only think of one, and I made no reference to anything directly related to you, but only to what occurred to me in general. Maybe your own conscience got the better of you to interpret my words as a direct reference to you, but it was not.

No. Don’t be too hard on yourself. You never said you would not discuss this anymore. You only stated that you would be willing to discuss this in private. But I didn’t see any point in that, since you accused me of misrepresenting OO’xy in public.

How have I misrepresented you? Have you not stated (not here, but elsewhere) something to the effect that because I am making claims for others (or what you have interpreted as such), I should just let others make claims about my beliefs as well? If you wanted to exhort me to stop making claims for others, you could have easily done that without making it appear as though there was some level of acceptability to what anti-Catholics were doing.

Offering others alternatives about their way of thinking is not making claims FOR anyone, However, making definite judgments (i.e., calling something a heresy) based on faulty interpretations are exactly the kind of actions that could be said to be making claims (and faulty ones at that) FOR others.

Blessings,
Marduk

Alright, Marduk, I can not do this, this has become absurd, post chopping, and evidently unsuccsessful on my part. Apparently, now even my conscious is on your side?

The disrespect that you often hold which I have pleaded for you to recognize has kept me far away from these boards as a mere observer, and I did not even have to post here to be brought into another foray. I apologize for publicly harming you and questioning your motives.

Again, I’m sorry for my words and the harm it might have done to your good word here at CAF and elsewhere. To those who expressed private concerns about who said what on the other forum, I apologize to you as well for disrespecting your friend.

 

[JohnVIII]

Your question with regard to unity seems to be primarily with regard to the OO and the EO. In this context I agree with you, and I would vote for #3. But if you extend this question with regard to unity between the OO and the RC, this I see as a false unity. I don’t think the Coptic Church is in agreement with Rome in regard to the issue of the filioque. The “formal ties” of unity between the OO and the RC I don’t think are as strong as the “traditional ties” that exist between the OO and the EO. I’m well aware of the fact that there are many traditionalists in the Orthodox Church who are quick to condemn the Coptic Church as heretical. I am not one of them, but rather I think the Coptic Church is more orthodox than the EO to which I belong. I think in time barriers will be removed between the OO and the EO and greater degrees of true unity will exist. On the other hand I see the formal unity between the OO and the RC to not be based on a good enough foundation to be lasting.

 

[Addai]

When I first came on here to CAF, I came as a newly-translated Christian from the Oriental Orthodox communion (from Coptic Orthodoxy). I have always held to my roots, and there is absolutely no way anyone is going to get me to deny that I am not a genuine Oriental Orthodox (albeit in communion with Rome).

Given my identity, I am more cognizant of the distinctions between the Eastern Tradition and Oriental Tradition than perhaps Eastern and Oriental Catholics who have grown up together under the general umbrella “Eastern Catholicism” without, possibly, much recognition of the distinctions (not “differences”, but “distinctions”), in terms of theology and spirituality.

I have been accused of trying to sow division between Eastern and Oriental Catholics when I point out these distinctions.

Now, I’ve observed that among Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, there are generally four types of mindsets (there could be more in varying degrees of the following qualities, but the following four are the most easily identifiable):

1. Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox are the same. Unity is based on uniformity. The fact of unity is merely a formal matter, but not a material matter (to use some Scholastic terms). Any talk of differences or distinctions is quickly put down as nothing short of epistemological heresy (as distinct from theological) and anyone who would dare to bring up such matters is ostracized.
2. Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox are the same. This group has never really bothered to investigate the matter, but are merely content with the status quo of being named “Orthodox.”
3. Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox are distinct. This group recognizes the distinctions and seeks unity through understanding the distinctions instead of uniformity or simply pretending they don’t exist.
4. Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox are different. One group calls the other group heretics.

I am personally and solidly in the third group. I genuinely believe that the unity in group #1 is a false unity, and the only true type of unity that can and should be achieved is the one represented by group #3 (and this goes for our relationship with the Latins as well). Of course, the unity presented by group #2 can also be a true unity, but it is one that is not well-informed, IMO. As I stated several years back when I posted the thread “My Witness,” this has always been my purpose when pointing out the differences between Easterns and Orientals while pointing out the similarities between Orientals and Westerns (trying to consciously bring Latin Catholics into the fold).

However, it seems there are those who view my efforts at understanding and acceptance of our distinctions as divisive.

My question is: is your understanding of the unity between Eastern and Oriental Catholics based on the mindset of group #1, group #2, or group #3? I was just wondering how others feel about my witness here in this Forum. Do you think it is divisive, or is it OK?

I have thick skin, so don’t worry. If you think I am puffed up with pride for even suggesting this thread, go ahead and say so. No kid gloves. And I would ask the Mods to just let the comments fly. We are all Christians here, so I trust the Spirit inside all of us will temper the posts appropriately. I am not going to participate in the thread much, if at all. I just want to see what people think, if that is OK.

Also, understand that this thread is not really about me (heaven forbid). It is really about your own self-understanding of what kind of unity you (as an Oriental or Eastern Catholic) hold with your Eastern/Oriental brethren.

But before I let the comments fly, let me add one more thing. I have been told by non-Catholics that I have no right to call myself an Orthodox. If people perceive this is a cause of division (my calling myself an Orthodox - albeit in communion with Rome), go ahead and express that opinion. However, just let it be known, as I stated in the beginning, that there is absolutely no way anyone is going to get me to admit that I am not Orthodox (albeit in communion with Rome), for I cherish my Coptic Orthodox heritage just as much in communion with Rome, as when I was not.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hey man, my Coptic priest has said a number of times “all Orthodox Churches are the same” when I and others question him about the differences between Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy. Besides the obvious difference of Chalcedon it is basically “the party line” that the differences that exist are very minor, that in essence, philosophy, mind set they are the same, and that the separation of the two Communes was largely “political”.

I have however seen that folks in my Church often don’t have a deep understanding of folks outside their Tradition. Even Pope Shenouda who actually makes a point to try to study things like Comparative Theology can paint different groups like Protestants, Latin Catholics, Assyrian Church of the East with very very broad brush strokes, or over simplifies things etc., and make statements that can be often very inaccurate (When you study the history, or group in depth, study current theological statements etc.). So I’m not really surprised. Trying to relate to another group outside your tradition at times seems about as difficult as learning a new language.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Addai,

Hey man, my Coptic priest has said a number of times “all Orthodox Churches are the same” when I and others question him about the differences between Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy. Besides the obvious difference of Chalcedon it is basically “the party line” that the differences that exist are very minor, that in essence, philosophy, mind set they are the same, and that the separation of the two Communes was largely “political”.

I have however seen that folks in my Church often don’t have a deep understanding of folks outside their Tradition. Even Pope Shenouda who actually makes a point to try to study things like Comparative Theology can paint different groups like Protestants, Latin Catholics, Assyrian Church of the East with very very broad brush strokes, or over simplifies things etc., and make statements that can be often very inaccurate (When you study the history, or group in depth, study current theological statements etc.). So I’m not really surprised. Trying to relate to another group outside your tradition at times seems about as difficult as learning a new language.

That is also my experience. That was a good way of putting it - “the party line.” I believe OO and EO who think there are no differences (and who simulateneously belive there are no similarities with Catholicism), have not really studied the teachings of the other group that much. When they say “there are no differences,” they are merely repeating hearsay, but have not really experienced or learned about what the other Churches teach. A perfect example was evident on an Orthodox website I was recently. An EO gentleman (not sure if he was a catechumen) came onto the OO Forum of the site and flatly noted that when he attended a Coptic Orthodox Liturgy, he was aware of a very noticeable difference in the matter of the Atonement from what he experieced in an EO Liturgy. That gentleman actually took the time to experience Coptic Orthodoxy, and realized that there were differences. Of course, the key to unity is to understand these differences, discuss them, and realize that there is common ground for unity - not merely overlook them - whereby these differences are recognized as mere distinctions between brethren of a COMMON FAITH. And the same is true between Orthodoxy and Catholicism in general. And that is my own mission in life - to inspire others to seek common ground.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JohnVIII

I respect your opinion, and I will only comment on this portion:

I don’t think the Coptic Church is in agreement with Rome in regard to the issue of the filioque.

As far as I’m aware the CO’s main disagreement with the CC on the matter only concerns the addition of filioque to the Creed. The theological arguments, if any, have been borrowed from the EO, which I think is very dangerous. The CC should be allowed to speak for themselves on the matter, not through the filter of EO polemics. I would point out to you that during the Middle Ages, it was the CO who approached the CC for formal unity THREE TIMES (not exactly sure of the number of times, but it was not more than three - two other times, I believe it was the CC who approached the CO). There was not found to be any divisive theological differences from the CO side of the matter. The efforts did not bear its proper fruit primarily because of the issue of what was perceived to be unacceptable (and overbearing) claims of submission to papal authority. Like I said, if there seems to be any theological basis for the CO’s rejection of the doctrine behind filioque, it’s my sincere belief that it is not by virtue of any Tradition from the CO, but by virtue of infection by EO polemics on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ASimpleSinner]

yeshua;5076167:

But what drives people away in discussion is stating that your one particular Catholic experience and knowledge is the tell all, and suddenly those who disagree with you become no less than “Non-Catholic polemicists.”

Indeed.

Oh the irony.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Yeshua,

The disrespect that you often hold which I have pleaded for you to recognize has kept me far away from these boards as a mere observer, and I did not even have to post here to be brought into another foray. I apologize for publicly harming you and questioning your motives.

I know you have been around long enough to be aware that way back when the ECF was still designated the “Eastern Christianity Forum,” we had many Orthodox who would freely call our beliefs heresy. Many thought this was very rude, disrespectful and insulting. Our Orthodox brethren would simply turn around and say, “it might sound insulting to you, but that’s the Truth.” Is it possible that what you perceive as disrespectful from me is something along similar lines - that certain EO might be insulted just by my mere claim that there are actual differences/distinctions between OO and EO, and similarities between OO and CC?

Since I have never once accused my EO brethren of heresy, it seems that is the only reason for you to feel I have been disrespectful. If that is the case, I would like to point out that I have been just as “disrespectful” with my Latin brethren on numerous occasions. I have butted heads with my Latin brethren on the issues of ecclesiology, papacy, penance, indulgences, the dormition (against “immortalists”), the IC (on the possibility of Mary being able to sin), etc. etc. etc. It would probably not be a stretch of the imagination to think that my pointing out these distinctions to my Latin brethren would not be “disrespectful” in your eyes. Which leaves me puzzled as to why you would think that my pointing out distinctions to my EO brethren is somehow “disrespectful.” You have indeed expressed to me your concern that pointing out these distinctions will have ramifications for the unity of OC and EC. But, if I may be so bold to say, I don’t think pointing out these distinctions will affect the unity of OC and EC, for the unity of the members of the Catholic Church is based on the #3 model given at the beginning of this thread (with appropriate amendment given by brother johnnykins), as many here have already expressed.

Thank you for the honest discussion.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I do feel bad that you feel you need to apologize fto me. As I stated several days ago in that second website you mentioned, I already forgave on the matter. I have always respected your opinions, and I always viewed our discussion here as merely academic. I just wanted explanations, not recriminations, between us. You have your view and I have mine, and we happen to disagree - that is all.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Anthony,

Within the Catholic Church definitely united… but outside of the Catholic Church to say that Eastern and Orientals are the same is either: 1- misguided and has no bearings of historical reality, 2- due to ecumenical proceedings that foster the similarity while trying to minimize differences, and hopeful of future reconciliation, or 3- a recognition by groups within the two that are polemically and vehemently anti-Catholic, and want to further alienate people away from the Catholic Church by saying that they are more alike in that they are anti-Catholic.

That being said, brother mardukm, no reason to stop calling yourself Orthodox. We are members of the Church, Holy, Catholic, Orthodox, and Apostolic.

Thank you for your post and your kind comment. I was trying to defend your Tradition (vis-a-vis the Cristological Agreement signed between the CC and ACOE) several days ago, to EO, and even my fellow OO, brethren. It did not go well, but I am still blessed to be able to hold communion with you.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Oh the irony.

Right back at ya!

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Right back at ya!

You’ll have to explain, dear brother. That retort makes no sense to me at all.

 

[mardukm]

I thought the following would be most appropriate for this thread, given by brother Formosus from another thread:

"Our attitude practically is that between the Orthodox and ourselves there are no differences in faith. Questions like purgatory, the Immaculate Conception or the filioque are theological concepts, not faith. And they of course are very different, but they are ultimately complementary. So they do not represent a different faith. They represent a different understanding of the gift of faith. " - Patriarch Lubomyr Husar

Blessings

 

[LumenGent]

Wouldn’t the denial of Papal primacy, infallibility etc constitute a different faith? I can add more but let’s leave it at that.