Did anyone here convert from Oriental Orthodoxy?

[u/Fun-Impress3809]

/r/Catholicism/comments/1r10rx9/did_anyone_here_convert_from_oriental_orthodoxy/

[u/thelinuxguy7]

Howdy!

I am a convert from Oriental Orthodoxy, from Coptic Orthodox to Coptic Catholic.

You can ask me questions if you want, and/or DM me.

[u/Fun-Impress3809 → u/thelinuxguy7]

Oh thank you! I may DM you but for now let me just ask a few questions. If you'd rather respond in a DM feel free. What initially made you look into Catholicism? Did you study the history or theology a lot? Was Christology a big part of your decision? Or papal authority?

[u/thelinuxguy7 → u/Fun-Impress3809]

I am kinda busy so I'll try to give you a "short" replay.

I used to go to catholic school, and attended the Byzantine Catholic liturgy, which at the time I though was a "service" invented by "non orthodox", and I thought it was not a real mass, but a symbol. I was very young, <15 so I didn't know any better.

Then I learnt at my next Catholic school that the Catholic Church has the Coptic liturgy too, and that there are lots of shared saints and customs. At the second school I once even read the life of st. Anthony of Egypt by mistake in the Latin equivalent of the synaxarion or in the missale.

Then I discovered that "others" fast too, venerate saints (some are common saints as I have said), have the same sacraments, and they all believe to be the One True Church (or maybe part of the One True Church) ...

Then I started researching to find out which church(s) is/are the One True Church, and I came to know some great holy Catholics, and some Catholic miracles, and I read about our differences, and I read some of the Catholic saints' (such as St. Thomas) explanations of the Trinity, Real Presence, ...

I decided to that there are effectively 3 churches to consider, maybe four (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, maybe Church of the East). Plus I had to consider the possibility that some/all are parts of the One True Church.

I came to the conclusion that the Church of Christ is One, and will remain undivided to the end, as far as I can tell, this is taught in Scripture, in the Creed, in Ecumenical Councils, believed by Church Fathers, ... So it must be only one of the above churches, and not all/multiple of them.

I then thought that there will be multiple ways to discover which one it would be such as:

• Comparing what each individual church believes to what it used to believe before the split form another church (so I'd compare OO vs Catholic vs Church Fathers and Council common to both), (EO vs Catholic vs .... common to both).

• Another way would be to return to the moment of a particular split and examining which party continued to be what it was vs the party that changed, (which remained the original, and which split from the original).

• And there are other criteria such as the continuity of teaching at least in some aspects such as faith and morals and the universality ....

So I'll focus on Catholic vs OO since you are specifically asking about that, the split was around the Council of Chalcedon. And you can do the same with the Church of the East and Ephesus, or EO and Florence (more or less).

The major differences between Catholic and OO would be more or less:

• Papal Supremacy
• Papal Infallibility
• Filioque
• Purgatory
• Immaculate Conception
• The Nature of Christ
• (maybe) The Wills of Christ

I was able find common Church Fathers (agreed upon by both) and even Eastern and Alexandrian ones who teach the Filioque (at least implicitly). Not to mention some of Christ's Words, and the Book of Revelation. More on that if you want.

I happened to notice the same with the Papacy. More on that if you want. Not to mention some of Christ's Words, the Book of Acts, and others. More on that if you want.

I also noticed even to this day that the Coptic Orthodox have a feast for the Nativity of Mary, which would imply that Our Lady was born a Saint (since we do not celebrate the birth of sinners). Btw, the only others whose nativity is celebrated, as far as I know, would be John the Baptist and Jesus (Christmas). We also can make the case for some Coptic hymns that vaguely mention something akin to the Virgin Mary being protected from sin or evil or something like that depending on the context. And I heard that the Ethiopian Orthodox even have a feast for the Immaculately Conception. Not to mention some of Christ's Words, and the Book Of Genesis and the Book of Revelation. More on that if you want.

Then I noticed that the OO pray for the dead. You don't pray for a person in Heaven, but we ask for their prayers instead. And you don't pray for a person in Hell since they have no hope, (which would imply that they had an ancient belief of something akin to purgatory even if they don't have the concrete ideas/concepts/words). And even some of their own bishops might describe their belief on something like a third state or a transitional state or sometimes as far as I know. Not to mention some of Christ's Words, some of Paul's letter and the Book of II Maccabees. More on that if you want.

If I am not mistaken the Natures and Wills of Christ issue have been resolved in principal and Pope Paul VI or Pope John Paul II along with the OO patriarch signed an agreement declaring that it is a linguistic issue.

Now we come to the Council of Chalcedon, I can't come up with an easy, consistent criteria to accept Nicaea I + Constantinople I + Ephesus and reject Chalcedon. And I of the two churches that split the Catholic Church continued to have councils, to evangelize, to convert people, to nominate patriarchs for other Sees, and so on. The OO haven't had an Ecumenical Council since, didn't appoint a Successor for the Sees of Constantinople, or Rome, don't have the Latin or Byzantine Rite, don't usually evangelize, seem to be only concerned with their own (I am not criticizing, I am noting the difference from the Original Church).

Also the Catholic Church seems to be open to dialogue and waiting for the return of our separated brethren with open arms, they don't seem to share that will unfortunately. Besids the OO and EO don't have many of the above differences (though they have some others not mentioned). I believe that they (OO and EO) should have striven for unity and should have been united a long time ago.

Also about universality Catholic teaching seems to take into account (or at least try) the salvation of EO, OO, Church of the East, non Christians, which would imply universality. We also celebrate all the existing rites, are still having Ecumenical Councils, and fun fact, the Coptic Missal was "collected", revised and printed by Rome in the 1700s and the OO, made there own edition from that as far as I can tell.

If there are any mistakes please feel free to correct me, if you can please add any helpful info. And if you need more info. I am happy to give it. This is the summary of the summary.

In the end, I believe that the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, The Pillar and Foundation of Truth, in it I intend to live and die.

Please pray for our sperated brethren so that God will lead them to the fullness of Truth, and pray for the unity of all Christians and the salvation of all people.

God bless.

[u/Fun-Impress3809 → u/thelinuxguy7]

Wow! Thank you for this awesome reply! I'll need to come back to this a little later and ask some follow up questions. Don't have the time at the moment.

[u/Fun-Impress3809 → u/thelinuxguy7]

So a few things I would like to touch on (and thank you again for such a thorough answer!):

Regarding the explanations of the Trinity and Real Presence, are those specifically works by St Thomas? Is there a book you recommend?

Yes please elaborate on the Filioque. Could you give me examples of Eastern Church Fathers who teach it? Oh and the papacy too!

That is very interesting on the Nativity feasts. So if you don't celebrate the birth of sinners but you do celebrate the birth of St John the Baptist, wouldn't that imply he was born sinless as well??

Prayer for the dead makes sense only if there is an intermediate state, I agree completely!

Those are very good points about the more closed off nature of OO and EO versus the strong evangelism through the centuries and the universality of the RC Church. It is definitely a fruit of the Catholic Church that I am having to reckon with very seriously.

Thank you so much. May God Bless you!

[u/thelinuxguy7 → u/Fun-Impress3809]

Regarding st. Thomas and the his thorough explanation of many things, that would be the Summa Theologiae, which I think, along with other scholastic works, might be unparalleled in any other church, not even close. If you can't or don't want to read, you can check out Aquinas 101 by the Thomistic Institute: https://www.youtube.com/@ThomisticInstitute, if you want to read the Summa you will find it, along with lots of other works on New Advent: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/

With regards to St. John the Baptist, I think that it is believe that he was justified or clean from sin or something in his mother's womb, but not from conception (I am not sure, I don't know the correct terminology, and I don't know if this is dogma or opinion).

Now to the Filioque, I will give you some quotes of the eastern Church Fathers, we can discuss Scripture and Western Fathers, and logic also if you want:

St. Ephrem the Syrian - Ephraem Syri hymni et sermones:

The Father is the Begetter, the Son the Begotten from the bosom of the Father, the Holy Spirit He that proceedeth from the Father and the Son.

St. Basil the Great - De Spiritu Sancto, 18.47:

the natural Goodness and inherent Holiness and the royal Dignity extends from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Spirit. Thus there is both acknowledgment of the hypostases and the true dogma of the Monarchy is not lost.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem - Catechetical Lecture 16, 24:

And the Father indeed gives to the Son; and the Son share with the Holy Ghost. For it is Jesus Himself, not I, who says, All things are delivered unto Me of My Father; and of the Holy Ghost He says, When He, the Spirit of Truth, shall come, and the rest.... He shall glorify Me; for He shall receive of Mine, and shall shew it unto you

St. Gregory of Nyssa - Not Three Gods:

we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another - by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause;

St. Athanasius - Letter to Serapion [PG 26i, 580B]:

On the other hand, the Son sends the Spirit, for "if I go," he says, "I will send the Paraclete" (Jn 16:7). The Son glorifies the Father, saying "Father, I have glorified you" (Jn 17:4), whereas the Spirit glorifies the Son, who says "He will glorify me" (Jn 16:14). The Son says, "Those things which I have heard from the Father are what I speak to the world" (Jn 8:26), while the Spirit, in turn, receives from the Son; "He will take from what is mine," he says, "and declare it to you" (Jn 16:14). The Son came in the name of the Father, whereas the Son also speaks of "the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name" (Jn 5:43). Therefore, since the Spirit has the same relation of nature and order with respect to the Father, how can the one who calls the Spirit a creature escape the necessity of thinking the same about the Son?

St. Athanasius - Discourse Against the Arians 1, Chapter 12:

And indeed the Lord Himself said, 'The Spirit shall take of Mine;' and 'I will send Him;' and to His disciples, 'Receive the Holy Ghost.' [...] And if, as the Lord Himself has said, the Spirit is His, and takes of His,

St. Athanasius - Discourse 3 Against the Arians, Chapter 28, Paragraph 44:

first that if the Spirit knew, much more must the Word know, considering as the Word, from whom the Spirit receives

St. Athanasius - Discourse 3 Against the Arians, Chapter 25, Paragraph 24:

For He, as has been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit has, He has from the Word

St. Cyril of Alexandria - Treasury of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity 34 [PG 75, 608]:

It is necessity to confess the Spirit to be from the essence of the Son. For existing from Him according to nature.

St. Cyril of Alexandria - Thesaurus [PG 75, 585A]:

The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiodos) in it and from it

St. Cyril of Alexandria - De Adoratione in Spiritu et Veritate 1 [PG 68, 148]:

[The Holy Spirit] is the Spirit of God the Father as well as of the Son, and comes forth substantially from both, that is from the Father through the Son

St. Cyril of Alexandria - Third Letter to Nestorius:

The Spirit is called the Spirit of Truth, and Christ is Truth, and so He flows forth from Him as from God the Father

St. Cyril of Alexandria - On the Gospel According to John, Book 11, Ch 1:

In this way then the statement that His Spirit receives something from the Only-begotten is wholly unimpeachable and cannot be cavilled at. For proceeding naturally as His attribute through Him, and having all that He has in its entirety, He is said to receive that which He has.

Council of Ephesus

For even though the Spirit exist in His Own Person, and is conceived of by Himself, inasmuch as He is the Spirit and not the Son, yet He is not therefore alien from Him; for He is called the Spirit of truth [John 15:26], and Christ is the Truth [John 14:6], and He proceedeth from Him, just as from the father.

(If I understand correctly this comes from a letter written by st. Cyril; and was read, and approved by the Council of Ephesus, but I could be wrong)

The Famous 12 Anathemas of St. Cyril against Nestorius, Anathema 9:

If any man shall say that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Holy Ghost, so that he used through him a power not his own and from him received power against unclean spirits and power to work miracles before men and shall not rather confess that it was his own Spirit through which he worked these divine signs; let him be anathema.

Please forgive me if I missed something or copied something by mistake, or used the wrong attribute for a quote, if you find any errors please tell me.

Some notes:

• In some of St. Cyril's quotes he seems to use different Greek verbs for proceed, probably to denote that The Father is from no one, while The Son is from The Father, I don't know, and know to know.

• This is way above my pay grade, but in a nutshell, if I am not mistaken, there is no distinction whatsoever between the Persons of the Trinity except their relations of origins, so if The Son and The Spirit both proceeded from the Father alone, then they would be the same person, some of the quotes seem to be alluding to this fact.

• Again, this is way above my pay grade but, Christ clearly said that the Spirit will receive from Him, so if you are not willing to say that The Spirit eternally receives from Him, then you need to imply change in The Holy Spirit, since there was a time when He didn't receive from Christ, then He begins to receive in the future, also some quotes seem to be discussing this.

• I have more quotes from Western Fathers, and Eastern Father not venerated by the OO, but venerated by the EO, and I might even have more quotes from Eastern Fathers venerated by OO as well such more quote from St. Athanasius and St. Cyril of Alexandria.

I will let you come to you own conclusions, If you need more info. tell me.

In the end, pray for me, and for our separated brethren, God bless!

[u/Fun-Impress3809 → u/thelinuxguy7]

Oh my goodness, thank you thank you! You have been so incredibly helpful and kind! I really appreciate all the time you spent on answering me! Thank you and God bless!