Author Topic: Reception of Catholics into Coptic Church  (Read 11197 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 402
Re: Reception of Catholics into Coptic Church
« Reply #180 on: September 30, 2015, 12:07:14 PM »
I think my point still holds, which is that we must allow serious Catholics to explain the substance of what they believe, in whichever terms they choose, so that we can dialogue on the basis of that real substance, even if continued and necessary separation remains, rather than assuming we know what Catholics want to say by particular statements based on our own interpretations.

We have this problem ourselves with many EO assuming they can tell us what we believe, irrespective of what we actually believe. I don't want to treat Catholics or ACE in that way.
Fr Peter, can you explain how we first define who are "serious Catholics [who] explain the substance of what they believe, in whichever terms they choose"? Can we take, for example this Catholic website's article on Papal infallibility, as a the substance of what they believe? (The article is filled with strange information and logic which this author seems to believe is the Catholic faith) Is this view an example of "excesses" we Orthodox mistakenly treat as the norm of the Catholic Church? Is this really what the Catholic Church believes since it is coming from the mouth of Catholics?

Offline Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,123
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Reception of Catholics into Coptic Church
« Reply #181 on: September 30, 2015, 01:08:03 PM »
Shall I take what many Copts erroneously believe is the truth and use it as the measure of our Orthodoxy? The Catholic Church, as do we, has both an official structure and means of confessing what it believes. This is essentially the Catholic Catechism. But the official teaching of the Church may also be found in conversation with those who have taken time to study what their Church teaches.

If you want to know what Catholicism wishes to teach then start with the Catechism as an official expression.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 402
Re: Reception of Catholics into Coptic Church
« Reply #182 on: September 30, 2015, 01:45:29 PM »
If I want to know what Catholicism wishes to teach and I start with the Catechism as the official expression, I am back to assuming I know what I want Catholics and the Catholic Church to say based on my own interpretations of the Catechism rather than how Catholics express their own substance. Your solution that you stated before was to allow serious Catholics to explain the substance of their beliefs in their own words. But how do I know what Catholics say is their faith and not an erroneous interpretation of their faith? Must I go back to assuming I know what their official catechism teaches based on my interpretations to know if the Catholic is stating the faith and not error? It seems like I will be going into a constant cycle of assumptions.

By no means is this exclusive to the Catholic Church. Copts, EO, Protestants, etc, all make assumptions on the other's religion. How do we break that cycle for effective dialogue?

Offline Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,123
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Reception of Catholics into Coptic Church
« Reply #183 on: September 30, 2015, 02:23:10 PM »
Have you read the Catholic Catechism? It is deliberately written in a way that is intended to be understood. I don't have many problems understanding what it is saying even about controversial issues, and what it does say is not always what the stereotype of Catholic beliefs might propose. That does not mean by any means that I agree with all that is presented.

I have not found myself going round in a loop.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Reception of Catholics into Coptic Church
« Reply #184 on: September 30, 2015, 07:44:47 PM »
I think my point still holds, which is that we must allow serious Catholics to explain the substance of what they believe, in whichever terms they choose, so that we can dialogue on the basis of that real substance, even if continued and necessary separation remains, rather than assuming we know what Catholics want to say by particular statements based on our own interpretations.

We have this problem ourselves with many EO assuming they can tell us what we believe, irrespective of what we actually believe. I don't want to treat Catholics or ACE in that way.

I agree.  But we first have to be sure that said Catholics are speaking for the mainstream of their church.  I don't doubt that there are individual Catholics who feel they have an "orthodox" understanding of some of the various innovations that have taken place in their church (the Sacred Heart, Papal infallibility, Charismatic Catholicism, et al).  I don't know whether or not that jibes with reality, or with how the bulk of their communion understands such things.

The ACE is another matter.  I don't believe there's been much (if any) development of doctrine there.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Ousia

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Reception of Catholics into Coptic Church
« Reply #185 on: October 03, 2015, 04:10:43 PM »
Greetings in Him,

I admittedly did not have the time to read thru all 5 pages of this discussion, so please, forgive me if this has been previously pointed out/raised. The whole issue, as far as I am concerned, as a former (c)atholic, and as should concern most OO and EO is the issuse of whether the Novus Ordo (c)atholic church, is the genuine (C)atholic Church which I think most have in mind when speaking here on this thread, or any others, on this forum. What has to sink in to the OO and EO weltanschauung, is the reality that the post Vatican II Novus Ordo church all but forfeited it's claim to her ancient Tradition(s) and Apostolic lineage, by the massive secularist objectives influenced by many forms of modernist thought. Modern neo-catholics are oblivious, for the most part of the true doctrines of the Traditional Church. And as such, most laity, and even clergy, are uninformed about the fact that the Church hierarchy inverted, revised,or flat out rejected the sacraments and documents which illuminated the lives of centuries of saints. God forbid they were permitted to wake from there Eternal Slumber and visit with modern neo/Vatican (c)atholics and see how they conduct there personal prayer lives compared to that of old, or discuss with them issues of doctrinal import; let alone to have these Saints attend a modernist "mass".

All this is not to say that Grace does not issue forth into the hearts of believers on an strictly individual level, to what ever degree, though there must be a dilution as a whole. But rather, as I see it, that Grace is no longer held within the palms of its clergy via the Holy Spirit and the individual catholic is completely at the mercy of Divine Grace between his/her own individual spirit and the Holy Spirit. As that is the only way the Spirit could remedy the labyrinth of error and deception branded into the hearts and minds the neo-catholic. The rites of the Catholic Church became null and void, for the most part, with the wholesale eradication of the Tridentine Mass and the Churches long held ancient Traditions and catechismal edicts. There is an infitine gaping chasm, between Traditional Catholics and "Vatican" catholics. Despite repeated denials by the Church hierarchy, the fact is that many basic theological principles have been radically altered, and the forms and intent of the sacraments - especially Eucharist and the Holy Orders, as well as the form for consecrating bishops - have been changed so much that, anyone who knows what the Church's teaching and practice have been for two thousand years will be forced to conclude that their validity is now seriously in doubt. The only (C)atholics that should be allowed reception into OO or EO Churches, if the debate of reception were wholly agreed upon, would clearly be sedevacantist Traditionalist Catholics, without exception.


"The book by Rama P. Coomaraswamy, "The  Destruction of the Christian Tradition" (...) is a presentation brilliantly written and well documented on what took place immediately before, during and after Vatican II. The author is primarily concerned with what is orthodox and what is heretical, and so to be quite clear, direct and simple which he treats his subject is based on the decisions of previous councils and the statements of the highest Church authorities through the centuries. What he wrote is sufficient and does not need additives. But, from a slightly different angle and in a way to face the modernists on their own ground, which is that of the psychic opportunism, however, we would add the following comments. Official changes in question argued that religion must conform to the times, to which one must respond: no, if compliance means to stop being yourself and become complicit with the times. The real line is different: medicine, for example, to comply at a time, must be able to provide antidotes to anything that looks like diseases. Similarly, it would not be unreasonable to maintain that in order to comply with an age characterized by violent changes and disorders, religion must be more prepared more than ever to demonstrate, and even proclaim her unwavering stability without which as a vehicle of Eternal Truth, it can not be, in any case, true to itself. There is little doubt that the human soul deeply needs in her life something that would always remain the same, and has the right to expect its religion to be the one unwavering infallible constant that satisfies this need. Such considerations were scattered to the four winds by the Second Vatican Council. It is therefore not surprising that it has precipitated an unprecedented crisis. The gravity of the situation can be measured, to some extent, by the following figures: from 1914 to 1963, there were only 810 priests in the Catholic Church asked for leave to surrender the priesthood, and Only 355 of these requests were accepted. Since the council, there were more than 32,000 defections among the clergy. We must consider that these figures relate in part to those guilty of the crisis and partly to those who are its victims; regarding the latter, which are members of the clergy or the laity, it is significant that not only the use of the traditional liturgy was discouraged but that was even expressly prohibited. This strategy would have totally failed if it had not been for the fact that the vast majority of laymen - and this also applies to some extent to the clergy themselves - imagine that obedience due to the clerical hierarchy is absolute. One of the great merits of the work of Rama Coomaraswamy is to show when, according to strictly traditional Catholic teaching, obedience becomes a sin and when authority, even that of a pope becomes zero and void. [Martin Lings - Ancient Beliefs and Modern Superstitions 1964 (Pardes), Appendix II.]"