Jihad Is A Much Larger Threat Than Nazism

[KnightofChrist]

I'm not roman

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Mateo'][quote name='Reza']It did endorse germany as a whole, and didn't outwardly declare hitler. Here's the facts: You can quote pro-roman sources and I could quote sources from the other side of the coin and we're never going to agree.[/quote]You asked for proof that the Catholic Church spoke out. Who else but the Catholic Church should I quote? Interestingly, some of the latest scholarship in defense of Pope Pius XII comes from Jewish historians. In any event, you have quoted ZERO sources; I'm still waiting to see your "other side of the coin." If you are married to your point of view, despite overwhelming proof to the contrary, you are not going to grow in knowledge.

[quote name='Reza']I'd like to see where the German Bishops explicitly excommunicated all active Nazi Party Members but again, what about Mussalini? The Romans didn't attempt to take a stand against him initially.[/quote]As far as the excommunication, this is not a point of controversy in history. Even the anti-Pius XII book "Hitler's Pope" acknowledges the early and clear opposition to Nazism, as being wholly incompatible with the Catholic Faith; though the author doesn't explicitly use the term "excommunication". Frankly, I'm a little curious why you're hung up on the word excommunication? Back then, Nazi party members were denied the sacraments, denied a Catholic funeral, etc; not unlike pro-abortion Catholics of today (also denied access to the sacraments). In both cases, there are [i]ipso facto[/i] ex-communications. Should future anti-Catholics complain that today's pro-abortion politicians haven't been formally excommunicated? This anti-Catholic argument is just a word game, designed to favor half-truths, when the facts aren't convenient.

Unchallenged by the most anti-Catholic source is the fact that the Catholic Church's German bishops forbad Catholics from belonging to the Nazi party, before they came to power, more than ten years before WWII even began.

[quote name='Reza']Roman History maybe, but not history as a whole, see the Roman Church doesn't write history. Are you familiar with Reichskonkordat? Do you know what it said? Do you know that it was signed by Hitler's regime and the Vatican?[/quote]The reality: the Catholic Church had made many concordats with countries in the years before WWII. The contents of the treaties in each case amounted to asking for religious freedom for Catholics in those countries. In the case of Germany, the Catholic Church followed the path of other churches in Germany which were strong-armed into signing their own concordats with the Third Reich. If you had read my quotes and link regarding "Mit Brennender Sorge", you would have seen the answers to your questions. Your questions lead me to believe that you're not even reading my posts.

[quote name='Reza']It would be wrong to say that Germany never made an agreement with Germany's government because that isn't the truth, the truth is that numerous documents have been signed between Hitler's Regime and the Vatican, now surely the church didn't go along with Hitler at the end, but initially it didn't say nothing about him, same goes for Mussalini.[/quote]First, your confused straw man. I believe you meant to say something like, "It would be wrong to say that Vatican never made an agreement with Germany's government because that isn't the truth..." My answer: Yes, it would be wrong. So, who said such a thing?

Second, could you list the "numerous documents"? I think you're using the term "numerous" just to exaggerate your position. Let's stick with facts. I've already quoted the papal encyclical that cites the Concordat.

Third, I'm really trying to wrap my head around your allegation that somehow the Catholic Church hesitated and "initially it didn't say nothing about [Mussolini and Hitler]." Maybe they should have excommunicated Hitler before he was conceived in his mother's womb? Exactly what do you consider to be a sufficiently timely response to Hitler and the Nazi party? I'm afraid that you are a victim of anti-Catholic propoganda which flies in the face of the undisputed facts of history.

As far as denouncing Mussolini goes, what exactly would you like the Catholic Church to have denounced? In any event, you might know that Mussolini had something to do with the Fascist party in Italy...the Fascists were his party! If you can get beyond the "Mussolini wasn't mentioned by name" argument, you may want to read about the opinion of the Catholic Church toward the Fascists. Again, ten years before the start of WWII, Pope Pius XI presented the encyclical "On Catholic Action in Italy", which details many of the complaints against the Fascist government:

[url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11FAC.HTM"]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11FAC.HTM[/url]

The Fascists were no friends of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was no friend of the Fascist regime in Italy. There was the minor detail that the Catholic Church didn't have a standing army to protect Italian Catholics against persecution.

If you'd like to discuss Mussolini and the Italian Fascists more than what I have responded, I think it would be appropriate to start a new thread. Things are getting off topic enough as it is.

[quote name='Reza']As I'd mentioned previously, I could give you 50,000 sources like Budge that testify of what I'm saying to you right now, and you could do the same on the other side of the coin and it wouldn't prove nothing. The purpose of quoting from Wikipedia is that it's a neutral source, nothing something that is for or against me. Now I'm not going to say that it's neutral 100% of the time, but generally it's the most neutral source found on the web.[/quote]I didn't ask for 50,000 sources. I just want one solid source...preferably a primary source (i.e. not a citation of a citation of a citation).

[quote name='Reza']That's YOUR INTERPRETATION but definately not theologically correct. The Roman Church isn't the only Holy See, it's just 1/4th of the Universal Church of Jesus Christ. You can attempt to discredit the other 3 Holy Sees that disagree with you, with your "lower case this..." propaganda but that's doesn't prove your point. As I'd mentioned the original 4 rites and Holy Sees are the Catholic Church, not just one rite that thinks it's superior but based it's so called truth about the Coptic Church on hersay. The truth is that it's the term "Catholic Church" is in reference to the church united, it isn't united, so Rome is the Roman Church, just as you refer to Copts as The Coptic Church.[/quote]Well, you have the monophysite church's interpretation, and I have the Catholic Church's view. The Catholic Church has at its head, the See of Rome, the successor to Saint Peter, Pope Benedict XVI. The primacy of the See of Rome has been established since the beginning. There are not four "popes." And there is certainly no historical proof that the See of Alexandria (currently held by Patriarch Antonios Naguib) is equal in authority to the successor to Saint Peter, Pope Benedict XVI. Christ has one bride: the Catholic Church. He is not a polygamist, with many theologically-distinct churches as brides. Only the Catholic Church has the four marks of being "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic." All the other churches fall short. If you want to present your alternative viewpoint of a confederation of churches without a head, feel free to start a new thread.

[quote name='Reza']If that's the case, then I'd like Copts to be known as The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Coptic Orthodox Church of the Holy See of St. Mark from now on, does that work for you?[/quote]Actually, it doesn't. Even in Oriental Orthodoxy, the Coptic Orthodox Church is just one of a confederation of Churches. As I mentioned above, it fails the mark of being "one." But, feel free to try again on a separate thread.

[quote name='Reza'][quote]As you may have noticed, I'm using quotes without problem. The limit is around ten. If you find yourself using more, you can always split your post.[/quote]No thanks[/quote]That's fine.[/quote]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote]What about in America? In America Islam is the fastest growing religion and of every 5 people, 4 of them are women.[/quote]I did say typically, threw out history Islam is spread by war. As of yet America maybe one case where this is not the typical spread of Islam.

[quote]I'd agree that even Orthodox have their problems, I mean I definately wouldn't subscribe to most of the actions of Byzintines but I'd have to disagree with you on the issue of Jihadists. Most of the so called "Jihadists" aren't doing so in the name of Islam but politics. As in Palestine, it's true that some people use religion to justify suicide bombers but it's a political move more then a religious one. Just as in Lebanon, Hezbollah was making a political statement with their war against Isreal, not nessessarily a religious one. Moreover, you've got to seperate the difference between people doing things in the name of Christianity and Islam that aren't nessessarily of those groups. Some of the greatest serial killers in America have done so in the name of God and Christianity but were they Christians? I wouldn't say so...[/quote]

I can say I want to believe that what you say is true, and I know in some cases it is very true many people do things "in the name of" but in reality only political means are truly intended. Yet history does seem to show that Islam as a whole typically spreads by warfare, whilst Christianity as a whole does not. Christ did not kill, His was killed, and rose again. Mohammad made war and killed many... and many of the "founding fathers" of Islam followed that same line.


[quote]Wrong according to you and other Romans, but again I'm not going to get into this. [/quote]Very well, yet I am not "Roman", I am a Catholic. The title "Roman Catholic" or "Roman" is an incorrect expression. Also it is a contradiction in terms to have a limiting adjective before a word meaning "universal." One cannot limit the unlimited, or localize the universal. ([url="http://www.catholicapologetics.net/rr2q415-427"]source[/url])


[quote]My point was simple, you don't like people lumping every action of the roman church with every person in the roman church, so you shouldn't do it with Islam.[/quote]

The Church condemned Nazism, I understand the point you make but it is flawed. True some fall away children of the Church may sin the Church does not. Islam is a false religion, and history seems to show it spreads by warfare, whilst Christianity as a whole does not.

[quote]My intentions were never to discuss the Roman Church during WWII, but to make the point that Romans have some dirt on their history, as do Muslims and that we should judge the religion according to its doctrines.[/quote]

Once the idea was injected into this discussion it was part of it. It can not simply be unquestioned if a claim is made that the Church did not condemn Nazism during WWII, when in fact it did. And Islam no doubt has elements of truth, but their doctrines are false. And the extremist Jihadists are a grave threat to Christianity, and anyone that is at least not their kind of muslim.

Edited April 6, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[RezaMikhaeil]

Mateo: As I'd stated [and given sources] for my claims. I'd even mentione official documents in which the Roman Church signed with Hitler's regime but I'm not interesting in discussing it further. You presume that your church sources are accurate then history, and that's fine.

Knight of Christ:

[quote]I did say typically, threw out history Islam is spread by war. As of yet America maybe one case where this is not the typical spread of Islam. [/quote]It's still difficult to say "typically" because that could be used for Christianity, Christianity was brought to a great amount of nations through force and political moves at points too. It's much more rampant in Islamic History, no doubt Muslims have some difficult moments but a grip of that is politics too. Let me give an example:

Syriac Orthodox Christians were once very the majority of Christians in the Middle East, during the era of the crusades, it was the Muslims and Crusaders [Byzintines] that were trying to conquer them, so they'd made a choice [which I wouldn't agree or disagree with] to fight with the Muslims against the Crusaders. I'd once heard it worded, "better the sword of Islam then the crown of byzintinism". Thou the Islamic Conquest was interested in taking that land, technically they were invited in to keep the Byzintines from Conquering and destroying the Syriac Orthodox Church. Now I'm not saying that I agree with the Syriacs or that the Muslims were "great people" [quite the opposite probably] but the Muslims were invited in by the Syriacs and so it was political. Now several years after the Crusades, after the Muslims outnumbered the Syriacs, the Syriacs became second class citizens and were persecuted by the sword but Islam wasn't spread to them through the Sword technically, it was a political move and the Muslims were invited.

[quote]I can say I want to believe that what you say is true, and I know in some cases it is very true many people do things "in the name of" but in reality only political means are truly intended. Yet history does seem to show that Islam as a whole typically spreads by warfare, whilst Christianity as a whole does not. Christ did not kill, His was killed, and rose again. Mohammad made war and killed many... and many of the "founding fathers" of Islam followed that same line.[/quote]

That's difficult, because I'm not going to say that Mohammed was this great fella because I don't believe that the man was... but some of the violence involved with him, wasn't completely his fault either. There were a great amount of pagans that were trying to kill him and his followers at times too, so some of the time it was self-defense. It's also important to note that Mecca had a grip of different tribes, Muhammeds tribe was the tribe of the "moon god", therefore some of the wars, had to do with his tribe [and infact alot of his religious decisions and different things written in the Quran were because of his tribe too]. We've got to seperate the difference between wars in the name of religion and those that were strictly political.

As I'd mentioned, thou I don't agree with every bit of theology of the Roman Catholic Church, it's history and/or every patriarch that has taken the thrown of the Roman Catholic Church, I'm not going to deny that His Holiness Pope John Paul II was a great man and I'm not going to deny that St. Therese was a Saint. Despite theology somethings are undeniable but I'm a believer that despite the human shortcomings, we should examine the doctrines because only that can be completely factual. History is often disputed from every angle, history is about having faith in those that wrote it, but what is written, is written [in regard to the Quran and Bible]. What is written in the Quran, is written, facts are facts and are rarely disputable.

What I find in the middle east is that Muslims use the Crusades and the 30 million different doctrinal stances of Protestants to "prove that Christians is false". Muslims don't even attempt to seek the history of Christianity, it's original doctrines, etc. because of what is seen right in front of them. What is the truth? Is the truth that if Christians aren't perfect then Christianity isn't true? Is the truth that everyone that refers to themselves as a Christian is a Christian? ... or is the truth that humans made poor choices and mistakes, did different things in the name of God, despite the mainline position of the church going in another direction? Is it true that Christianity has 30 million conflicting doctrinal stances? No, Christianity has but one stance, and the Protestant churches aren't the true church [from what I believe of course]. Do the crusades and other man made human flaws testify that the church is false? No, human beings make mistakes, but what is undeniable is that the church's doctrines don't speak of forcing people to convert to our religion but giving them the choice to chose. That's what makes us greater.

Sorry for the long post, I just couldn't find the words to say it shorter. It's late and I'm tried.

[quote]Once the idea was injected into this discussion it was part of it. It can not simply be unquestioned if a claim is made that the Church did not condemn Nazism during WWII, when in fact it did. And Islam no doubt has elements of truth, but their doctrines are false. And the extremist Jihadists are a grave threat to Christianity, and anyone that is at least not their kind of muslim.[/quote] The point though, was to address the post that was made [by you or somebody else] that Christianity doesn't have a violent history, that we've never used violence in the name of Christianity and that isn't true. The Jihadists don't represent the Religion of Islam, so we should take a look at the religion of Islam from it's official doctrinal stances and address those as such.

Reza

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]Well, you have the monophysite church's interpretation, and I have the Catholic Church's view. The Catholic Church has at its head, the See of Rome, the successor to Saint Peter, Pope Benedict XVI. The primacy of the See of Rome has been established since the beginning. There are not four "popes." And there is certainly no historical proof that the See of Alexandria (currently held by Patriarch Antonios Naguib) is equal in authority to the successor to Saint Peter, Pope Benedict XVI. Christ has one bride: the Catholic Church. He is not a polygamist, with many theologically-distinct churches as brides. Only the Catholic Church has the four marks of being "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic." All the other churches fall short. If you want to present your alternative viewpoint of a confederation of churches without a head, feel free to start a new thread.[/quote]Sorry but you're wrong about history. History clearly proves that there were 4 patriarches and God is the highest authority. Surely there were 4 rites but God was the head of those not a man. Therefore 4 different patriarches doesn't make God a polygimist.

In regards to your "monophysite" comment, as I'd mentioned Copts were never Monophysites but Miaphysites. Copts condemned monophysitism long before Romans ever thought of doing so, if you'd like to keep living a lie, proclaiming something that was never true about Copts, then I pity you.

Therefore I'm going to refer to you as "the Roman Church" or you're going to refer to Copts as The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Coptic Orthodox Church of the Holy See of St. Mark

[quote]Actually, it doesn't. Even in Oriental Orthodoxy, the Coptic Orthodox Church is just one of a confederation of Churches. As I mentioned above, it fails the mark of being "one." But, feel free to try again on a separate thread.[/quote] It doesn't fail, what fails is that the church [the original church of 4 rites] experienced a schism. Now you can put blame on whoever you'd like of "who's fault" that is but the fact is the fact and it was a fact that Copts were excommunicated as "heretics" based upon hersay, not factual truth and were kept by military force from attending the council to allow the truth to be heard. It's obvious that your knowledge about "oriental Orthodoxy" is severaly flawed. We aren't "several churches", we're one church.

Reza

[cmotherofpirl]

Kindly [i]stop[/i] referring to the Catholic Church as "Roman". That is insulting to the 21 other rites and usages of the Church.

[FullTruth]

Islam is having a huge impact on the world, and the reason for it is scriptural. They don't have the truth, that is for sure, but they practice holiness before the Lord. Think about it. Don't you admire them for praying 6 times a day?

Don't you admire them for their dedication to God?

The reason is -

[quote name='Hebrews 12:13-15' date=' KJV']And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;[/quote]

People see the dedication of Muslims in the first world, and they go - Wow - look at this man of honour, or woman of honour.

No Alcohol, and many other holiness standards regarding modesty.

They desire that, and see God in them.

The thing is God is moving in many of their lives, and many will come to the knowledge of the truth.

And the reason why is the Church doesn't want to live in holiness anymore. We don't follow peace with each other any more. One group fights another group, which fights another group. All the while, people hear about Christian Presidents who committ wars a large portion of the population don't agree with, and priests who defile young children, in RC and other churches.

Add onto that, people like Dan Brown spewing his evil and poison, people are starting to think Christianity is a sham, and see Islam a good religion to follow after.

Hence, the end game is on us, and it is not Islam we need to fight, but the real threat - the Nephilim.

I know many of you don't believe what I believe, but the Nephilim do exist, and the evil occult magicks they use on me every single day is proof enough for me. Once we get rid of them, there will be a revival of true holiness and true Christianity which will outshine Islam in every way, shape, and form. Praise God!

[Anomaly]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1232168' date='Apr 6 2007, 09:57 AM']Kindly [i]stop[/i] referring to the Catholic Church as "Roman". That is insulting to the 21 other rites and usages of the Church.[/quote]I don't understand the problem with that.
There are a number of 'Catholic Churches' that are not under the Supremacy and Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Using only "Catholic" is innaccurate and misleading.

Using Roman Catholic identifies specifically the Catholic Church that has the Roman Rite Bishop as Pope who holds the position of Supremacy and Primacy of Bishop over all the other Rites. If that's insulting to the other Rites, take it up with the Roman Catholics, their Clergy, and their Theologians..

Edited April 6, 2007 by Anomaly

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232133' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:27 AM']Sorry but you're wrong about history. History clearly proves that there were 4 patriarches and God is the highest authority. Surely there were 4 rites but God was the head of those not a man. Therefore 4 different patriarches doesn't make God a polygimist.[/quote]There is nothing set in stone about four patriarchs, unless you're frozen in time. In fact, it's not even clear to me "when" you were frozen. In the Council of Nicea, three patriarchs were mentioned (Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch). In the Council of Chalcedon (rejected by monophysites), five patriarchs were mentioned. All the time, the Primacy of Rome was maintained.

Further, your "4 rites" argument doesn't even work very well for the Oriental Orthodox Communion, because they include more than four rites. So, what universal church had the authority to establish or legitimize new patriarchs and rites? And, if you think your church has such authority (it clearly thinks it does), how could you complain when the Catholic Church does the same thing?

Unfortunately, your church's schism necessitates that its followers believe that the historic primacy of the See of Rome was somehow magically transferred to the Oriental Orthodox claimant in Alexandria. How one could argue that the See of Alexandria holds primacy is beyond me; worse, it's ahistorical.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232133' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:27 AM']In regards to your "monophysite" comment, as I'd mentioned Copts were never Monophysites but Miaphysites. Copts condemned monophysitism long before Romans ever thought of doing so, if you'd like to keep living a lie, proclaiming something that was never true about Copts, then I pity you.[/quote]That's great. So we can pity eachother all we want, or we can respect eachother by using the commonly used names of "Catholic Church" and "Coptic Orthodox Church." I'd prefer the latter.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232133' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:27 AM']Therefore I'm going to refer to you as "the Roman Church" or you're going to refer to Copts as The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Coptic Orthodox Church of the Holy See of St. Mark[/quote]As you say, "no thanks" and "it's theologically incorrect."

The problem for the Oriental Orthodox communion is that it includes a Syrian church who really was Monophysite. Lack of theological unity, failing the test of being "One" Church. It isn't proper to call something "One" when it isn't.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232133' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:27 AM']It doesn't fail, what fails is that the church [the original church of 4 rites] experienced a schism. Now you can put blame on whoever you'd like of "who's fault" that is but the fact is the fact and it was a fact that Copts were excommunicated as "heretics" based upon hersay, not factual truth and were kept by military force from attending the council to allow the truth to be heard. It's obvious that your knowledge about "oriental Orthodoxy" is severaly flawed. We aren't "several churches", we're one church.[/quote]So the differences of doctrine are acceptable within Oriental Orthodoxy?

As I mentioned, Eastern Catholics (particularly priests and monks) were slaughtered at the hands of Oriental Orthodox, in defense of monophysitism. Or were they murdering Catholics based on hearsay? As far as "military force" keeping Copts from Chalcedon, I'd love to see your proof of this. The Council documents I've already quoted (specifically canon 30) don't align well with your alternative view of history.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1232543' date='Apr 6 2007, 04:28 PM']I don't understand the problem with that.
There are a number of 'Catholic Churches' that are not under the Supremacy and Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Using only "Catholic" is innaccurate and misleading.[/quote]It isn't any more misleading than the Greeks using the term "Orthodox" by itself. Heck, even the term "Oriental Orthodox" and "Coptic Orthodox" could be rejected on such a basis. Let's stick to the real-world's terms when possible and not try to invent an alternative universe of names.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1232543' date='Apr 6 2007, 04:28 PM']Using Roman Catholic identifies specifically the Catholic Church that has the Roman Rite Bishop as Pope who holds the position of Supremacy and Primacy of Bishop over all the other Rites. If that's insulting to the other Rites, take it up with the Roman Catholics, their Clergy, and their Theologians..[/quote]You may want to read the documents of Vatican II, among many other Church documents, in which it is clear that this issue was "taken up" a while ago.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1232552' date='Apr 6 2007, 05:00 PM']It isn't any more misleading than the Greeks using the term "Orthodox" by itself. Heck, even the term "Oriental Orthodox" and "Coptic Orthodox" could be rejected on such a basis. Let's stick to the real-world's terms when possible and not try to invent an alternative universe of names.[/quote]So two wrongs make it right?
[quote]You may want to read the documents of Vatican II, among many other Church documents, in which it is clear that this issue was "taken up" a while ago.[/quote]What issue? I don't see how identifying which Catholic Church by the Pimary and Supreme Rite is insulting to the Primary and Supreme Rite. Obviously the other Rites that agree to be subservient to the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome don't have an issue with it.

It's really a fuss about nothing so that Roman Catholics can claim to be Catholic alone. That's fine if Roman Catholics are discussing things amongst themselves. Else it's just a tempest in a tea-cup.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1232594' date='Apr 6 2007, 05:39 PM']So two wrongs make it right?[/quote]I'm afraid I'm not following you.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1232594' date='Apr 6 2007, 05:39 PM']What issue? I don't see how identifying which Catholic Church by the Pimary and Supreme Rite is insulting to the Primary and Supreme Rite. Obviously the other Rites that agree to be subservient to the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome don't have an issue with it.

It's really a fuss about nothing so that Roman Catholics can claim to be Catholic alone. That's fine if Roman Catholics are discussing things amongst themselves. Else it's just a tempest in a tea-cup. [/quote]The primacy of Rome hasn't changed over the course of the centuries, yet the Catholic Church wasn't called "Roman" by the Oriental Orthodox until their schism. Quoting St. Augustine ([url="http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Catholic_Means.asp"]link[/url]):[quote]"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is catholic and which is called catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard" (The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]).

"We believe in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God, and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor" (Faith and Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).

...

""If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so" (ibid., 5:6).

In the Catholic Church . . . a few spiritual men attain [wisdom] in this life, in such a way that . . . they know it without any doubting, while the rest of the multitude finds [its] greatest safety not in lively understanding but in the simplicity of believing. . . . [T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in her bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority,
inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. [b]And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house"[/b] (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).[/quote]These quotes predates both the Coptic schism and the Greek schism.

It just doesn't make any sense to believe that the Catholic Church can be in schism with itself, which seems to be the theory of Reza, based on his Coptic point of view.

[Anomaly]

Dude,
Why get caught up in some theological debate over nuance when it's just an identifier to specifically address the Catholic Church headquartered in Rome and led by the Roman Rite Bishop? Jimney. Roman Catholic or RC is soooooo offensive!

If you want to get into some issues of importance, why don't you try identfiying, applying, and analyzing some Christian moral principles concerning some real life issues such as Iraq, Darfu, or the Congo where people are dying instead of getting all worked up over the exact nomenclature used to name your Religion?

Edited April 6, 2007 by Anomaly

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1232545' date='Apr 6 2007, 01:42 PM']There is nothing set in stone about four patriarchs, unless you're frozen in time. In fact, it's not even clear to me "when" you were frozen. In the Council of Nicea, three patriarchs were mentioned (Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch). In the Council of Chalcedon (rejected by monophysites), five patriarchs were mentioned. All the time, the Primacy of Rome was maintained.

[color="#FF0000"]1.) the Council of Chalcedon wasn't rejected by monophysites, this is a proven fact that no monophysites even attended or responded. Miaphysites were kept from going to the council and falsely labeled as monophysites, seriously you say that I say false truths about the Roman Church, check yourself. The history that I disagree with you on is debatable, this however isn't.

2.) St. Peter and St. Mark founded the Roman Church and the Antiochian [Syriac Orthodox] Church and St. Mark went on to found the Coptic Church. That's three of the original 4 rites. Before Jesus was crucified his words were to spread the gospel to the four corners of the world, therefore 4 rites were created to minister to those parts of the world. Those were the original 4 rites. Check your history bud.[/color]

Further, your "4 rites" argument doesn't even work very well for the Oriental Orthodox Communion, because they include more than four rites. So, what universal church had the authority to establish or legitimize new patriarchs and rites? And, if you think your church has such authority (it clearly thinks it does), how could you complain when the Catholic Church does the same thing?

[color="#FF0000"]Here's what's great, just as was mentioned by others here in this group, the Roman Church has other rites within it also, but what I'm talking about is the original four rites. As I'd mentioned, Rome was the rite who's responsiblity it was to minister to the west, Antioch from Lebanon to the far east, Egypt to the south, and so on and so fourth. This is a historical fact, undisputed except by you. Why were four rites created? To bring the gospel to the four corners of the earth! If you don't believe that, then you don't believe that St. Mark affirmed the Coptic Church which is idiotic as even secular sources proclaim that St. Mark affirmed the Coptic Church, it's undisputable.[/color]

Unfortunately, your church's schism necessitates that its followers believe that the historic primacy of the See of Rome was somehow magically transferred to the Oriental Orthodox claimant in Alexandria. How one could argue that the See of Alexandria holds primacy is beyond me; worse, it's ahistorical.

[color="#FF0000"]What's historical is that God is the head of the church, not a man. You're interpreting history as you'd like it to be interpreted but the truth is that Rome was never superior to the other three original rites, you're attempting to change history because it doesn't fit your theology. Let's take a closer look at history:

1.) The other churches used to look to Alexandria for the proper time to celebrate easter
2.) St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Athaniasious, among others were those that were sought to the most at those times. They weren't Roman but they were Coptic. St. Athaniasious is credited by many scholars to be the one that wrote the Nicene Creed, yet he was Coptic not Roman. Before the council rejected Arius somebody came to St. Athanasious and said "everyone in the church is against you" and St. Athanasious said, "then I'm against everyone else". This shows the relationship between the rites, that no rite was superior and no patriarch was infallible.

If you'd like to believe otherwise, that's your choice but I'm talking history here.[/color]

That's great. So we can pity eachother all we want, or we can respect eachother by using the commonly used names of "Catholic Church" and "Coptic Orthodox Church." I'd prefer the latter.

[color="#FF0000"]I never said that, what I said is that you can refer to the Coptic Church as , "The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Coptic Orthodox Church of the See of St. Mark", everytime that you reference our church if you'd like me to stop using "Roman Church".[/color]

As you say, "no thanks" and "it's theologically incorrect."

[color="#FF0000"]No it's theologically correct, it just doesn't fit with your agenda.[/color]

The problem for the Oriental Orthodox communion is that it includes a Syrian church who really was Monophysite. Lack of theological unity, failing the test of being "One" Church. It isn't proper to call something "One" when it isn't.

[color="#FF0000"]The Syriac Orthodox Church was never Monophysite but rather Miaphysite, this is a proven fact. I know that you're having trouble getting it into that thick skull of yours but it's a proven fact and always has been, it was rumored that they were monophysites but just as the Copts, they were against monophysitism long before the Romans were, so to say that they are monophysites, is ignorant and completely ignoring history.[/color]

So the differences of doctrine are acceptable within Oriental Orthodoxy?

[color="#FF0000"]That's what's funny about you, you don't know anything about Oriental Orthodoxy to say that we have conflictions of doctrine. There are no conflictions of doctrine, and you obviously know nothing abot Oriental Orthodoxy to suggest something as such. Everyone of your "Monophysite" arguments has been lost, so you resort to just remaining in the dark, despite the undisputed facts that Oriental Orthodox were never monophysites but Miaphysites.[/color]

As I mentioned, Eastern Catholics (particularly priests and monks) were slaughtered at the hands of Oriental Orthodox, in defense of monophysitism.

[color="#FF0000"]This is highly disputed actually but it has nothing to do with the Oriental Orthodoxy. As a matter of fact, the Roman Catholics slaughtered far more Copts then the Syriac Orthodox were ever accused of killing.[/color]

Or were they murdering Catholics based on hearsay? As far as "military force" keeping Copts from Chalcedon, I'd love to see your proof of this. The Council documents I've already quoted (specifically canon 30) don't align well with your alternative view of history.

[color="#FF0000"]There's lots of proof, check the simple fact that the council was moved at the last minute, so that the military of "an an unknown patrarch" could keep the Copts from attending. As I'd mentioned, they were basing their condemnation of Copts on Hersay, not fact. Seriously, you don't want to talk about militantcy in the church, the Romans murdered a grip of Copts for rejecting Chalcedon but the Copts remained non-violent and turned the other cheek. You know I didn't want it to turn into this but apparently you got some serious self-confidence issues.[/color][/quote]

[quote]I don't understand the problem with that.
There are a number of 'Catholic Churches' that are not under the Supremacy and Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Using only "Catholic" is innaccurate and misleading.[/quote][color="#FF0000"]Exactly! [/color]

[quote]Dude,
Why get caught up in some theological debate over nuance when it's just an identifier to specifically address the Catholic Church headquartered in Rome and led by the Roman Rite Bishop? Jimney. Roman Catholic or RC is soooooo offensive!

If you want to get into some issues of importance, why don't you try identfiying, applying, and analyzing some Christian moral principles concerning some real life issues such as Iraq, Darfu, or the Congo where people are dying instead of getting all worked up over the exact nomenclature used to name your Religion?[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]That's for sure... [/color]

Edited April 6, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Mateo'][quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232749' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:59 PM']1.) the Council of Chalcedon wasn't rejected by monophysites, this is a proven fact that no monophysites even attended or responded. Miaphysites were kept from going to the council and falsely labeled as monophysites, seriously you say that I say false truths about the Roman Church, check yourself. The history that I disagree with you on is debatable, this however isn't.[/quote]I'd say that the penchant for the original Oriental Orthodox to inflict bloodshed on Catholics is sufficient proof that they rejected Chalcedon.
[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232749' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:59 PM']2.) St. Peter and St. Mark founded the Roman Church and the Antiochian [Syriac Orthodox] Church and St. Mark went on to found the Coptic Church. That's three of the original 4 rites. Before Jesus was crucified his words were to spread the gospel to the four corners of the world, therefore 4 rites were created to minister to those parts of the world. Those were the original 4 rites. Check your history bud.[/quote]Again, you'll have to remind me why "four rites" and "four patriarchs" isn't even set in stone by your own church. So how many patriarchs does it take to make an authoritative statement in the Oriental Orthodox Church? One? Four? Six? Who knows.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232749' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:59 PM']Here's what's great, just as was mentioned by others here in this group, the Roman Church has other rites within it also, but what I'm talking about is the original four rites. As I'd mentioned, Rome was the rite who's responsiblity it was to minister to the west, Antioch from Lebanon to the far east, Egypt to the south, and so on and so fourth. This is a historical fact, undisputed except by you. Why were four rites created? To bring the gospel to the four corners of the earth! If you don't believe that, then you don't believe that St. Mark affirmed the Coptic Church which is idiotic as even secular sources proclaim that St. Mark affirmed the Coptic Church, it's undisputable.[/quote]It's almost as if you think Christ himself wanted four churches. He wanted one. Not four churches in schism with one another.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232749' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:59 PM']What's historical is that God is the head of the church, not a man.[/quote]What is Biblical is that Our Lord himself appointed St. Peter as the "rock" upon which His Church would be built. And despite St. Peter's establishing other Sees, the pope who sits at the See of Rome has always been seen as the unique successor of St. Peter.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232749' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:59 PM']1.) The other churches used to look to Alexandria for the proper time to celebrate easter[/quote]This is about as compelling as saying that Greenwich England holds some special authority over the world because time zones are based on their location. The "Easter Contoversy" is a very weak way to claim Alexandrian primacy.
[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232749' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:59 PM']2.) St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Athaniasious, among others were those that were sought to the most at those times. They weren't Roman but they were Coptic. St. Athaniasious is credited by many scholars to be the one that wrote the Nicene Creed, yet he was Coptic not Roman. Before the council rejected Arius somebody came to St. Athanasious and said "everyone in the church is against you" and St. Athanasious said, "then I'm against everyone else". This shows the relationship between the rites, that no rite was superior and no patriarch was infallible.[/quote]Yet, without the authority of the pope, who was St. Athanasius? While we're at it, how do you think he and other Eastern bishops dealt with the Arians after the declarations of Nicea were made? When the Arians were persecuted by the Copts, was this somehow morally different than the Copts themselves being recipients of the same treatment they had dished out?

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232749' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:59 PM']I never said that, what I said is that you can refer to the Coptic Church as , "The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Coptic Orthodox Church of the See of St. Mark", everytime that you reference our church if you'd like me to stop using "Roman Church".[/quote]Now the name's getting longer. The O.H.C.A.C.O.C.? Wow. That's a mouthful. How about, we are Catholic, you are Coptic Orthodox? Simple enough.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232749' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:59 PM']The Syriac Orthodox Church was never Monophysite but rather Miaphysite, this is a proven fact.[/quote]They may have re-defined their beliefs to align themselves with the Copts, but they were persecuting the Catholics who defended Chalcedon for a reason.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232749' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:59 PM']That's what's funny about you, you don't know anything about Oriental Orthodoxy to say that we have conflictions of doctrine. There are no conflictions of doctrine, and you obviously know nothing abot Oriental Orthodoxy to suggest something as such. Everyone of your "Monophysite" arguments has been lost, so you resort to just remaining in the dark, despite the undisputed facts that Oriental Orthodox were never monophysites but Miaphysites.[/quote]For someone who uses little to no citations to support his claims, I find it odd that you suggest I'm "keeping myself in the dark." In contrast, I've actually quoted historical documents in order to contradict the Coptic propoganda you have been fed. As you can imagine, there have been innumerable schisms and heresies in the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church, so you'll have to forgive me if I ask you to provide details and hard evidence to support the claims of your own church's schism.[/quote]