Catholic - Orthodox Dialog

[Katholikos]

Has this been posted previously? If so, please delete.

Reza, this is old news, but not to me. Perhaps it will be news to you as well.

Since the thread was locked in which your post appeared that I have not yet answered, I'll use this as a platform for responding to you.

QUOTE

"A Shared "Ecclesial Patrimony Stemming From Apostolic Times"


VATICAN CITY, FEB. 12, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is the report issued at the conclusion of the fourth meeting of the International Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. The meeting took place Jan. 28-Feb. 3 in Rome.


* * *


The fourth meeting of the International Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches took place in Rome from Jan. 28 to Feb. 3, 2007, under the co-chairmanship of His Eminence Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and His Eminence Metropolitan Bishop of Damiette, secretary-general of the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church.


The meeting was originally scheduled to take place in Lebanon at the kind invitation of His Beatitude Patriarch Nasrallah Pierre Sfeir of the Maronite Church. Regrettably, the political situation in that country did not allow the members to meet there at this time. Instead, the meeting was held in Rome at the new offices of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.


The members were hosted at the Domus Romana Sacerdotalis. Joining the delegates from the Catholic Church were representatives of the following Oriental Orthodox Churches: Coptic Orthodox Church, Syrian Orthodox Church, Armenian Apostolic Church (Catholicosate of All Armenians), Armenian Apostolic Church (Holy See of Cilicia), Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and Eritrean Orthodox Church.


The Oriental Orthodox delegation met separately Jan. 29-30 in order to discuss themes in ecclesiology. During the course of these meetings, they produced a draft report that was later given to the Catholic members. The Catholic delegation met separately Jan. 30. The full International Joint Commission met on three consecutive days, from Jan. 31 to Feb 2. Each day began with a brief prayer service using material that had been produced for this year's Prayer for Christian Unity.


The members of the international commission were received in audience by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 1. His Eminence Anba Bishoy greeted His Holiness the Pope on behalf of the members of the dialogue and thanked him for his efforts to promote dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox. He also presented him with an icon hand painted by Coptic Orthodox nuns in Egypt.


Addressing the group, Pope Benedict said, "Your meeting concerning the constitution and mission of the Church is of great importance for our common journey toward the restoration of full communion. The Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches share an ecclesial patrimony stemming from apostolic times and the first centuries of Christianity. This 'heritage of experience' should shape our future 'guiding our common path toward the re-establishment of full communion' (cf. "Ut Unum Sint," 56)." The Pope also expressed his concern for the situation of Christians in the Middle East, calling upon them to be "courageous and steadfast in the power of the Spirit of Christ."


Following the plan for the dialogue that was adopted at the Preparatory Meeting in 2003, the following papers were presented during the course of the meeting:


"Mission, Witness, Service and the Problem of Proselytism," by Archbishop Khajag Barsamian


"The Mission of the Church," by Bishop Paul-Werner Scheele


The Salvation of Nonbelievers in the Patristic Period," by Father Mark Sheridan, O.S.B.


"The Church and the Salvation of Non-Christians in the Second Vatican Council and Afterward," by Monsignor Johan Bonny


"The Salvation of Nonbelievers," by Metropolitan Bishoy


"Marriage Between Catholics and Muslims: A Catholic Perspective," by Archbishop Peter Marayati


"Mixed Marriages With Non-Christians," by Metropolitan Bishoy.

Because of technical difficulties, the drafting committee that had been named at the third meeting of the dialogue in Etchmiadzin, Armenia, was not able to meet. Its membership was modified, and is now composed of Catholic members Father Frans Bouwen, Father Mark Sheridan, Monsignor Johan Bonny and Dietmar Winkler, and Oriental Orthodox members Metropolitan Bishoy, Metropolitan Theophilus George Saliba, Archbishop Mesrob Krikorian, and Bishoy Nareg Alemezian. The drafting committee will meet in Rome from May 29 to 30, 2007.

On the evening of Jan. 30, the members of the commission attended a vespers service at the Church of the Transfiguration, a Catholic parish in Rome that also hosts a Coptic Orthodox community.

The commission members later met with the parishioners and attended a festive meal provided by the parish. On the evening of Feb. 1, His Eminence Cardinal Kasper hosted a meal at the Domus Sanctae Marthae in the Vatican to welcome the members to Rome. They were joined by a number of officials of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and other dicasteries of the Roman Curia. Metropolitan Bishoy thanked Cardinal Kasper and the staff of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity for hosting the meeting.

The fifth meeting of the International Commission will take place at St. Ephrem Syrian Orthodox Monastery in Maarrat Saydnaya near Damascus, Syria, at the invitation of His Holiness Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch.

The Oriental Orthodox delegation will plan to arrive Jan. 27, and the Catholics on Jan. 28, 2008. The two delegations will meet separately, and have full joint sessions on Jan. 30, Jan. 31 and Feb. 1, with departure on Feb. 2. At this meeting the text prepared by the drafting committee will be considered, and one paper from each side will be presented on the goal of ecumenical dialogue.



The members of the Commission were:


Representatives of the Oriental Orthodox Churches (in alphabetical order)

Antiochian Syrian Orthodox Church

Archbishop Mor Theophilus George Saliba of Mount Lebanon, secretary of the Holy Synod of the Syrian Orthodox Church

Metropolitan Kuriakose Theophilose of the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Theological Seminary, Kerala, India

Armenian Apostolic Church: Catholicosate of all Armenians

Archbishop Mesrob Krikorian of Vienna and patriarchal delegate for Central Europe and Scandinavia

Archbishop Khajag Barsamian of the Eastern Diocese of the United States

Armenian Apostolic Church: Holy See of Cilicia

Archbishop Oshagan Choloyan, Prelate of the Eastern Prelacy in the U.S.A.

Bishop Nareg Alemezian, Ecumenical Officer of the Holy See of Cilicia

Coptic Orthodox Church

Metropolitan Anba Bishoy of Damiette (co-chair), secretary-general of the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church

Father Shenouda Maher Ishak, West Henrietta, New York

Eritrean Orthodox Church

Father Kaleab Gebreselassie Gebru, coordinator for foreign affairs

Ethiopian Orthodox Church

Father Megabe Biluy Seife SeJassie Yohannes. Lique Hinlyan Getachew Guadie (prevented)

Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church

Metropolitan Philipos Mar Eusebios of Pathanamthitta

Father John Mathews (co-secretary), secretary of the Committee on InterChurch Relations (prevented; substituted by Father Abraham Thomas, London)

Representatives of the Catholic Church

Cardinal Walter Kasper (co-chair), president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
Bishop Paul-Werner Scheele, retired Bishop of Wurzburg (Germany)
Bishop Kyrillos Kamal William Samaan, Coptic Catholic bishop of Assiut, president of the Ecumenical Commission of the Catholic Church in Egypt
Archbishop Jules Mikhael AI-Jamil, procurator of the Syrian Catholic Patriarchate to the Holy See and apostolic visitator in Europe
Achbishop Peter Marayati, Armenian Catholic archbishop of Aleppo, president of the Ecumenical Commission of the Catholic Church in Syria
Bishop Woldetensaé Ghebreghiorghis, apostolic vicar of Harar (Ethiopia), president of the Ecumenical Commission of the Catholic Church in Ethiopia and Eritrea
Father Frans Bouwen M.Afr., consultant to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity; Jerusalem
Father Philippe Luisier, S.J., Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome
Father Ronald Roberson, C.S.P., associate director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, U.S. conference of Catholic bishops, Washington, D.C.
Father Paul Rouhana, O.L.M., University of the Holy Spirit, Kaslik, Jounieh, Lebanon
Father Mark Sheridan, O.S.B., rector, Pontifical Athenaeum of St. Anselm, Rome
Father Mathew VeUanickal, vicar general of the Archdiocese of Changanacherry, India
Father Boghos Levon Zekiyan, Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome
Professor Dietmar W. Winkler, Paris-London University, Salzburg, Austria
Secretariat: Monsignor Johan Bonny (co-secretary), staff-member of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
Rome, Feb. 2, 2007

[Report issued by the Vatican press office. Text adapted]
END QUOTE

Pray for the unity of Christendom.

Likos

[RezaMikhaeil]

Yeah I'd already started a new thread, as the other thread getting locked really wasn't a discussion between you and me, as much as others.

[Katholikos]

Reza, here's the answer I prepared for you. It's very long. It was too much work to answer one post and too laborious for you to read.

This is the response to our earlier conversation in the thread Catholicism vs. Orthodoxy - moral issues. which has been locked.

Part 1 of 3

[quote][color="red"]It could be that some are blind, but others have actual concerns and problems and can't be put into such a protestant box.[/color][/quote]

My point: Sola Scriptura, upon which all Protestantism is based, cannot be defended historically, biblically, or logically. Whatever my disagreements with them, the Orthodox do not profess Sola Scriptura.

[quote][color="red"]Depends on the church,[/color][/quote]

My point precisely, thank you. There is no one, united Orthodox Church. But there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, worshipping in many Rites, in many languages, but all professing the same Faith.

[quote][color="red"]the Coptic Catholic Church [for example] was affirmed to replace the Coptic Orthodox Church, for it's rejection of Chalcedon [which was proven to have been factually inaccurate of the doctrines of the Coptic Orthodox Church]. Therefore replacing it with a clone, is wrong. You can't replace the original church that St. Mark founded, just because everyone in Egypt [not just the clergy but nearly every] disagrees with you, and through military force you keep them from telling the truth, etc.[/color][/quote]

But, Reza, clones are identical. The Coptic Catholic Church is not a clone of its counterpart in Orthodoxy, though it celebrates the same Divine Liturgy and the same seven sacraments. It was Orthodox but became Catholic (again) -- a group of Coptics and their leaders who rightly believe that St. Peter and his successors are the God-appointed vicars of Christ and head of the One True Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world. So they’re now under the umbrella of St. Peter, along with other Orthodox who left the Catholic Church when the schisms occurred but have again come home to Rome. They’re the “reverts” par excellence.

[quote][color="red"]That's your interpretation of history, but not nearly universal [which is why Protestants have a huge problem with the Roman Catholic Church].[/color][/quote]

Protestants would have many of the same objections to Orthodoxy, but they don’t realize that we are so much alike. Orthodoxy does not have a united voice and consequently has not made much of a splash on the world religious scene, either in prestige or numbers. All most Protestants know about Orthodoxy is that it isn’t Catholic.

[quote][color="red"]Coptic Orthodox NEVER held to the supremacy of the Roman Catholic Patriarch.[/color][/quote]

The evidence convinces me of the historical petrine ministry.

[quote][color="red"]As I'd pointed out, St. Clement was the head dude of his era, and yet he was Coptic.[/color][/quote]

There was an earlier St. Clement – St. Clement of Rome, successor to St. Peter as Bishop of Rome, the fourth Pope -- who wrote a letter (c. 96, about the same time John’s Gospel and his Revelation were written) to the unruly Corinthians, asserting his authority and telling them to shape up, when St. John the Apostle was still alive and living in Ephesus. Do you have evidence that St. Clement of Alexandria had that kind of authority and influence over the entire unified Church? There are many other document which testify to the primacy of Peter.

I acknowledge St. Clement of Alexandria for his great contributions to the Church, but he was never leader of the Universal (Catholic) Church.

[quote]St. Anthanasious [who wrote the Nicene Creed] was also Coptic, among many others. The "Coptic Catholic" Church was a clone, created by Roman because the entire population of Egypt massively rejected Rome and the Council of Chalcedon.[/color][/quote]

Are you sure about who wrote the Nicene Creed? There is another creed named for St. Athanasius. I’ll check that out. But no matter. There was only one Church at that time.

History does not know of a church “created by Rome.” But I can understand why you wish to see it that way. The Churches of the Eastern Roman Empire, with the exception of the Maronites, left the unity of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and called themselves Orthodox.

[b]“… during the Middle Ages, the custom developed of referring more and more frequently to the ‘Orthodox Church’ in opposition to Western Roman ‘Catholicism’ “([i]The Orthodox Church,[/i] John Meyendorf, Pantheon, 1962, p. viii).

[/b]Twenty-two of them later split from the Orthodox at various times in history and returned home to Rome. They were accepted [i]sui juris[/i] – they are autonomous Churches, who brought with them their own cultures, languages, liturgies, and canon laws, But they are fully Catholic, professing the same Faith, united under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome. The Catechism of the Catholic Church covers us all – Latin, Byzantine, Coptic, Chaldean, and so on. “. . .that they may all be one . . .so that the world might believe that you sent me.” This is the prayer of Jesus in John 17 and it is my prayer.

(Continued)

[Katholikos]

Part 2 of 3

[quote][color="redI read Roman Catholics own Words and base it upon that but again why speculate with something such as baby#39s going to heaven or hell Jesus Christ made it very clear that little children could come to him why even use such a widespread speculation that suggests otherwise You might say that it was never an official doctrine of the church but it was wide spread enough that everyone knew what the Pope was talking about when he abolished it#33color"][/quote]

Yes, we all knew what the Pope was talking about. But Rome has always said that this is a question that was not answered in Divine Revelation. Theologians may speculate, but the Church does not. What the Pope just did was reject the theological speculations about Limbo and told theologians to knock it off. But they probably won’t. Just as the Pope (JPII the Great) said the subject of women’s ordinations is closed, but the chatter continues. But [i]Roma locuta est, causa finita est.[/i] Rome has spoken, the case is closed.

[quote][color=red]No Roman Catholic Church referrs to those that see the Roman Patriarch as "supreme" and follow such teaching. "The Church" is the united Church of Jesus Christ prior to the Schism. After the Schism, the Roman Church declared itself to be "supreme" and "the church" but definately isn't in agreement with the rest of the rites, including nearly every single one of the other rites that the Apostles themselves formed![/color][/quote]

One or more Apostles founded all of the churches in the undivided One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, truly, truly. But the Apostles did not intend them to be separated from St. Peter (and his successors), the head of the Church on earth, and from each other, as the Orthodox are. From the earliest days of the Church, Peter exercised his primary (not supremacy). Read Acts 15. Peter presided at the Council of Jerusalem, even though James was bishop of Jerusalem.

[quote][color="red"]Notice that St. Ignatius was also not Roman Catholic, didn't have Apostolic Succession of the Roman See and yet had considerable amount of "weight" regardless of Roman's thoughts at the time![/color][/quote]

St. Ignatius was a Catholic, pure and simple. The Church wasn’t divided up into all these national compartments that we have since the schisms. He was bishop of Antioch, having succeeded St. Peter in that position when Sts. Peter and Paul went to Rome. He was mentored by St. John, ordained a bishop by St. Peter, and friends with St. Paul. Yeah, he was a member of the undivided Catholic Church.

[quote][color="red"]I agree with the term "Catholic" and "The Church", I just don't agree with your defintion of Rome's supremacy. As I'd mentioned, I believe that Jesus Christ is the head of the church [as it's written in the orthodox doctrines]. I like that you say "he didn't use the word orthodox" because that was just a stab with not much theological backing. Just because he didn't use the term "orthodox" doesn't prove nothing, by St. Ignatious being Antiochian thou, it does prove that the Supremacy of the Roman Catholic Church wasn't always held. [/color][/quote]
Hmmmmmm. By referring to the Church as catholic, Ignatius was attesting to the one unified, universal (Catholic) Church. He wasn’t talking about a group of divided churches (plural). How does the fact that St, Ignatius was from Antioch prove that the primacy of St. Peter was not always held? I refer you to the book, Jesus, Peter and the Keys for the evidence that it was.

Consider the Church Father Irenaeus:
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole word; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.

[color="red"][quote]The Roman Catholic Church didn't write the NT, didn't compile it, but rather the whole church pre-schism [in which Rome likes to take credit for but would be more properly credited to those in the Oriental Orthodox Church historically].[/color][/quote]

Reza, the Oriental Orthodox Churches didn’t exist in their present form when the NT was written, or at the end of the fourth century when the contents were selected and the OT and NT were canonized. The Church founded by St. Mark certainly existed, but there was only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of which all the Churches were a part. The decrees of Carthage II (397) were sent to Rome, since it was not a general council and the canon therefore required the Pope’s approval. Pope Innocent I reiterated the canon in 405 in his Epistle to Exuperius. Chalcedon was in 451.

The Copts should have taken St. Ignatius seriously when he pleased that there be no divisions. To the Philadelphians, “. . . and all those that may yet change their mind and return to the unity of the Church will likewise belong to God and thus lead a life acceptable to Jesus Christ. Do not be deceived, my brethren: if a man runs after a schismatic, he will not inherit the kingdom of God; if a man chooses to be a dissenter, he severs al connection with the Passion.” And to the Smyrnaeans, “He raised a banner for all time for his saints and faithful followers, whether among the Jews or the Gentiles, that they might be united in a single body, that is, His Church.”

(continued)

[Katholikos]

Part 3 of 3

[quote][color="red"]Read Isaiah 19![/color][/quote]

I read it. What should I get from it? It's about Egyptians, but I find no separate Orthodox Church there.

Isaiah 22:20-22: On that day I will send for my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will invest him with your robe, gird him with your sash, and hand over your authority to him. I will lay the key of the house of David on his shoulder; what he opens no man shall shut, and what he shuts no man shall open. This pertains to the prime minister being given the key as a symbol of his authority in the Davidic kingdom in the absence of the ruler and is the typology for Jesus giving the keys to St. Peter as a symbol of Peter’s authority over Jesus’ early kingdom, the Church, in His absence.

[/quote][color="red"]You're probably right, particularly in the past, that most typical protestants used to not know much, but you'd be surprised at the grips that is going to Protestant Bible Colleges, now... etc. that even after studying history don't agree with the Roman Catholic Church, etc.[/color][/quote]

One cannot be persuaded against one’s will. I, as an atheist, could not be persuaded of Christianity until I allowed grace into my heart in an unguarded moment. Faith is a gift; it is always given by God, but has to be received in order to take effect.

[quote][color="red"]That's almost my story, except that I didn't come to the same conclusion. I was Protestant [kinda thru force of my aunt and uncle] then rejected it [along with the rest of Christianity] because of the hypocracy [among other reasons], became Muslim [as was several of my sisters through foster] and then decided to study the Bible and Quran together, study history indepth [history of the compilation of the Bible, etc] and found that the Coptic Church was the path God had desired for me. I would probably never be Coptic Catholic because why would I want to be a clone, when I can be the real thing?[/color][/quote]

Being Orthodox is the next best thing to being Catholic. But if I weren’t Catholic, I’d be an Orthodox Jew. Being Protestant is totally illogical. You’re wrong about clones – again, a clone is an identical copy of the original. All Orthodox were once Catholic. Even the name “Orthodox” reveals who split from whom. The name dates from the Middle Ages as a designation for a Church (see Meyendorf’s earlier quote), whereas all the early Christians were called Catholic. “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” Ignatius of Antioch, A.D. 107. In the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, he is referred to as “a bishop of the Catholic Church at Smyrna. The Martyrdom is addressed: “The Church of God which resides as a stranger in Smyrna, to the Church of God residing at Philomelium, and to all the communities of the holy and Catholic Church residing in any place . . .”

[quote][color="red"]May God's mercy and blessings keep you. I just read your post about your leg situation and various medical problems... hope things are better now![/color][/quote]

How very kind of you. May the Lord bless you, may He make His face shine upon you, and give you peace. And may we one day be one as our Lord prayed we would. Our divisions are a grave scandal to Christianity and the scourge of missionaries. There’s plenty of blame on both sides. Pope John Paul II has publicly repented. I hope you and your
Egyptian friends find it in your heart to forgive and come home.

Likos

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1263381' date='May 3 2007, 02:34 PM']Reza, here's the answer I prepared for you. It's very long. It was too much work to answer one post and too laborious for you to read.

This is the response to our earlier conversation in the thread Catholicism vs. Orthodoxy - moral issues. which has been locked.

Part 1 of 3
My point: Sola Scriptura, upon which all Protestantism is based, cannot be defended historically, biblically, or logically. Whatever my disagreements with them, the Orthodox do not profess Sola Scriptura.

[code]I'm not sure what this was in response to, I never mentioned sola scriptures?[/code]



My point precisely, thank you. There is no one, united Orthodox Church. But there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, worshipping in many Rites, in many languages, but all professing the same Faith.

[code]That's true but don't forget, that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that Jesus Christ founded involved the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. Just as Copts and Roman Catholics aren't united, neither are Copts and Russian Orthodox. What you're trying to say is that because several different rites use the name "orthodox" that somehow it proves that every orthodox church is wrong, because they aren't united, which is historically inaccurate. Just because a particular church uses a name or label, doesn't mean that they should be united. We as Copts, use the name "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Coptic Orthodox Church" but does that mean that we should be united with both Orthodox and Catholics in order to validate or invalidate? NO! Because this title just testifies that we were once one church and have since been divided [and as His Holiness Pope John Paul II said, there's faults on both sides for the great schism].[/code]

But, Reza, clones are identical. The Coptic Catholic Church is not a clone of its counterpart in Orthodoxy, though it celebrates the same Divine Liturgy and the same seven sacraments. It was Orthodox but became Catholic (again) -- a group of Coptics and their leaders who rightly believe that St. Peter and his successors are the God-appointed vicars of Christ and head of the One True Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world. So they’re now under the umbrella of St. Peter, along with other Orthodox who left the Catholic Church when the schisms occurred but have again come home to Rome. They’re the “reverts” par excellence.

[code]No No No No No my friend, after Chalcedon, everyone in Egypt rejected Chalcedon and didn't go along with the Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics decided to appoint another bishop to Egypt, to "replace" the See of St. Mark, because the See of St. Mark's refusal to go along with Chalcedon. The truth be told [and it's been proven] is that the Copts were kept by force from attending the council of Chalcedon and were persecuted based solely upon hersay. Chalcedon proclaimed that Copts were Monophysites, but the truth is that Copts were Miaphysites [and even condemned Monophysitism long before Roman Catholics did], it was the jealousy of the Roman Pope at the time that caused the problems. Copts were more then willing to set the record straight, and the Roman Pope of that time knew the truth about Copts but refused to listen and decided to spread slanderous lies about the church. Following Chalcedon Copts were massively slaughtered too. It's a historical fact that no Copts [none, absolutely NONE!] adhered to Chalcedon, rather the "Coptic Catholics" was a church set up by Romans, to replace the See of St. Mark, which is irreplaceable.[/code]

There was an earlier St. Clement – St. Clement of Rome, successor to St. Peter as Bishop of Rome, the fourth Pope -- who wrote a letter (c. 96, about the same time John’s Gospel and his Revelation were written) to the unruly Corinthians, asserting his authority and telling them to shape up, when St. John the Apostle was still alive and living in Ephesus. Do you have evidence that St. Clement of Alexandria had that kind of authority and influence over the entire unified Church? There are many other document which testify to the primacy of Peter.

[code]I have documents partaining to St. Athanasius the Copt [that wrote the Nicene Creed and was the head dude in charge at Nicene]:[/code]

[code]St. Athanasius the Apostolic [Copt] said, "When the Fathers at Nicea issued their judgment in the matter of the Feast of the Holy Resurrection, they said 'this is what we find is good,' because this was the first time a Canon Law was enacted on this matter, the day for the Feast of the Holy Resurrection. But when they spoke of the Faith, the Fathers did not say, 'this is what we find is good,' but they said, 'this is what the universal church believes.' Then, they publically declared their belief to show that their faith is not the talk of the time but the same Apostolic faith and that what was written by the hands of these Fathers was not their work but the Faith itself that was handed over by the Apostles to the Church"[/code]

[code]Here's another quote that I have, which was published by St. Antony's Monestary in CA:[/code]

[code]What was said about the Council of Nicea was also said about the Council of Constantinople. It was formed of 150 Eastern Fathers and the Bishop of Rome was not part of it. When he was invited to attend like the other Bishops he apologized and did not even send a representative. The council was held without him and he had no connection with it whatsoever, and history can witness that Damasus the Roman Bishop at the time wrote to the 150 Fathers of the Council of Constantinople to go to Rome to join a large Western Church Council he claimed will be held... The Council of Constantinople issued its decree regarding the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, basing it not on the Vote of the Roman Church which knew nothing of the Council but on the general vote of the Church, as witnessed by St. Gregory of Nazianzus, one of the members of the Council who said regarding the equality of the Holy Spirit in Essence with the Father and Son, "The Traditional proof handed over to us by our Fathers who had recieved it from the Apostles is sufficient for us." St. Basil said to Macedonius before the Council of Constantinople, "Before that the Holy Spirit might be detached from the Father and the Son, for tradition prevents you from this for this was what the Lord taught, this was how he anointed the Apostles, this was what the Fathers learned and this was what the martyrs confessed and it's sufficent that you declare what you have learned."[/code]


I acknowledge St. Clement of Alexandria for his great contributions to the Church, but he was never leader of the Universal (Catholic) Church.

[code]As I have proven, never was the Roman Patriarch![/code]

Are you sure about who wrote the Nicene Creed? There is another creed named for St. Athanasius. I’ll check that out. But no matter. There was only one Church at that time.

[code]Yes I'm very sure, it's a proven fact. St. Athansius was fighting Arius, and Arius had gained much traction in support of this theology, but right before going before the council had pooped his intestines out, and the council took it as a sign from God that Arius was wrong, and subsequently adhered to the doctrine of St. Athansius, who wrote the Nicene Creed. Let me quote the Scholar Stanley that wrote the Biography of St. Athansius the Apostolic:

"After the Council of Nicea, the Patriarch of Alexandria became an advocate of Christianity in the world world. His judgements were obeyed in all Christendom, in all scientific matters, worldly and religious matters."[/code]

[code]Let me quote St Gregory of Nazianzus:

"The Head of the Church of Alexandria is the Head of the World. If St. Athanasius becomes Archbishop of Alexandria he would be trusted with the leading of people and their leaders. In one word, he would be trusted for all Christendom".[/code]

History does not know of a church “created by Rome.” But I can understand why you wish to see it that way. The Churches of the Eastern Roman Empire, with the exception of the Maronites, left the unity of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and called themselves Orthodox.

[code]No this is false, clearly false as stated by the Saints of the Church themselves and the history of the Nicene and Constantinople councils. Originally Iraq, and other areas that know have Roman Catholic rites, were once under control of the Syriac Orthodox Church. Historically their jurisdiction was from Lebanon/Isreal as far east as Japan.[/code]

[b]“… during the Middle Ages, the custom developed of referring more and more frequently to the ‘Orthodox Church’ in opposition to Western Roman ‘Catholicism’ “([i]The Orthodox Church,[/i] John Meyendorf, Pantheon, 1962, p. viii).

[code]Sorry but your Roman Catholic source is... ummm. Wrong.[/code]

[/b]Twenty-two of them later split from the Orthodox at various times in history and returned home to Rome. They were accepted [i]sui juris[/i] – they are autonomous Churches, who brought with them their own cultures, languages, liturgies, and canon laws, But they are fully Catholic, professing the same Faith, united under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome. The Catechism of the Catholic Church covers us all – Latin, Byzantine, Coptic, Chaldean, and so on. “. . .that they may all be one . . .so that the world might believe that you sent me.” This is the prayer of Jesus in John 17 and it is my prayer.

[code]No this isn't the prayer of Jesus, this is Roman Catholic Doctrine but isn't supported by the evidence that I provided above, which is directly from the horses mouth.[/code]

[color="#FF0000"]I havn't the time to respond to all your posts yet, but I'll try to get to them one at a time.[/color]

(Continued)[/quote]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1263387' date='May 3 2007, 02:39 PM']Part 2 of 3
Yes, we all knew what the Pope was talking about. But Rome has always said that this is a question that was not answered in Divine Revelation. Theologians may speculate, but the Church does not. What the Pope just did was reject the theological speculations about Limbo and told theologians to knock it off. But they probably won’t. Just as the Pope (JPII the Great) said the subject of women’s ordinations is closed, but the chatter continues. But [i]Roma locuta est, causa finita est.[/i] Rome has spoken, the case is closed.

[code]Limbo wasn't just chatter thou, it was what Roman Catholic Priests and Bishops were teaching to their people! Former Pope's even spoke about the matter in favor of the tradition of Limbo![/code]

One or more Apostles founded all of the churches in the undivided One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, truly, truly. But the Apostles did not intend them to be separated from St. Peter (and his successors), the head of the Church on earth, and from each other, as the Orthodox are.

[code]As I had proven in my citings above [which you can go back and read] the Roman Pope was NEVER considered "the head of the Church" but Jesus Christ was the head of the church and the only head, as it written about throughout the Bible! It's true that the Apostles never intended for the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church to be divided, but as His Holiness Pope John Paul II said, there is blame on both sides for the Great Schism, the Roman Catholic Church definately isn't blameless.[/code]

From the earliest days of the Church, Peter exercised his primary (not supremacy). Read Acts 15. Peter presided at the Council of Jerusalem, even though James was bishop of Jerusalem.

[code]This is selective interpretation, St. Paul also is written about in the scriptures rebuking Peter at one time, which proves that he wasn't kept from correction. Moreover, you'd have to reject thoughs at the Council of Nicene and Constantinople in order to believe that Rome had a supremacy above the other Bishops/Patriarchs![/code]

St. Ignatius was a Catholic, pure and simple.

[code]I'm not denying that, what I am denying is that he was a Roman Catholic, which is proven![/code]

How does the fact that St, Ignatius was from Antioch prove that the primacy of St. Peter was not always held?

[code]Antioch was Syriac Orthodox Jursidiction, historically. He would have been under the guidience of their Patriarch/Bishop.[/code]

Consider the Church Father Irenaeus:
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole word; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.

[code]If you could, please state the source where you got this, so I might be able to find the original document and do my own research[/code]

Reza, the Oriental Orthodox Churches didn’t exist in their present form when the NT was written, or at the end of the fourth century when the contents were selected and the OT and NT were canonized.

[code]It's true that the term: Oriental Orthodox was given to them by Chalcedonians, but in regards to their present form, they were the same and always have been the same. If you don't believe so, please provide proof, not just claims that can't be supported.[/code]

The Church founded by St. Mark certainly existed, but there was only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of which all the Churches were a part.

[code]You've gotta be joking right? His Holiness Pope John Paul II even stated that the Coptic Church is the See of St. Mark! What you're saying isn't even historical! Why do you think that His Holiness Pope John Paul II returned the stolen Relics of St. Mark [that were stolen by the Crusaders, during the Crusades]? Because those relics belong to the Coptic Orthodox Church, the true See of St. Mark!

In welcoming His Holiness to Rome, the late Pope Paul VI said, "You are indeed the head of a church whose origin goes back to the Evangelist Mark and which had in Saint Athanasius...the invincible defender of our common Nicene faith, that is, faith in the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ."[/code]

The decrees of Carthage II (397) were sent to Rome, since it was not a general council and the canon therefore required the Pope’s approval. Pope Innocent I reiterated the canon in 405 in his Epistle to Exuperius. Chalcedon was in 451.

[code]Notice that at the Council of Constantinople thou, no bishops from Rome even were present, and notice the Saints actual words, which proclaim that the Roman Pope didn't have supremacy! I would even question the information that you posted, but to keep these responses from getting any longer, I will let it rest.[/code]

The Copts should have taken St. Ignatius seriously when he pleased that there be no divisions.

[code]It wasn't the Copts that caused the divisions, they were ousted and proclaimed heretics without even speaking a word, based upon the Roman Pope at the time's slanderous lies [which were proven to be lies] and were being slaughtered because of those lies. As Pope John Paul II said [which I genuinely consider to be a Holy Man, even if I don't agree with all of his theology], the faults for the division is on both sides.[/code]

(continued)[/quote]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1263402' date='May 3 2007, 02:48 PM']Part 3 of 3
I read it. What should I get from it? It's about Egyptians, but I find no separate Orthodox Church there.

[code]What are you talking about Seperate Orthodox Church? You definately should read some more history about the Orthodox church before you go making these outrageous claims. Honestly, I'm questining weather to keep this dialog going with you because we're definately missing each other, because of your lack of understanding regarding the early church and particularly the Coptic Orthodox Church. I mean, you consider the Coptic Church to not be the See of St. Mark and even your own Patriarch's recognize this, you should do some more reading my friend.

Isaiah 19: Prophesies that YHWH will create an alter dedicated to him, that will never cease to be, that there will be a close connection between Egypt, Syria and Jerusalem [which exists today] and will be indestructable. It's clearly prophesied about in the scriptures, recognized by not only Orthodox but also Roman Catholics that know the history of God. Desert Woman just told me that she met a Roman Catholic woman that just visited Egypt and Jerusalem and even pointed this out, as it's not just known by Copts but universally.[/code]

Being Orthodox is the next best thing to being Catholic.

[code]That's your choice, thou I highly disagree, I respect your right to say it.[/code]

How very kind of you. May the Lord bless you, may He make His face shine upon you, and give you peace. And may we one day be one as our Lord prayed we would. Our divisions are a grave scandal to Christianity and the scourge of missionaries. There’s plenty of blame on both sides. Pope John Paul II has publicly repented. I hope you and your
Egyptian friends find it in your heart to forgive and come home.

[code]Pope John Paul II has publically repented as has His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, but that doesn't mean that the theological differences just cease to exist either. Note: I didn't say the above comment about you needing to read more about our church, as an insult. Just that it's difficult sometimems to touch basis with you, when you suggest that Copts don't possess the See of St. Mark and his Apostolic Succession because even your own patriarchs admit that... may God keep you safe and I hope the best for you.

Reza[/code]

Likos

[code]How's the eye by the way?[/code][/quote]

[Katholikos]

Reza, I heard an interestig interview on EWTn's Journey Home program of an Orthodox deacon named Pasqualle who had come home to Rome. The reasons he gave were the same reasons I did not become Orthodox, but chose to be Catholic. Right now it's listed as #1, because the interview was just last Monday. The numbers change as new interviews are added.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=-6892289&T1=journey+home"]http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/series...T1=journey+home[/url]

My eye is doing well, thank you for asking. I see the doctor tomorrow.

Likos

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Reza'][quote name='Katholikos']Are you sure about who wrote the Nicene Creed? There is another creed named for St. Athanasius. I’ll check that out. But no matter. There was only one Church at that time.[/quote]Yes I'm very sure, it's a proven fact. St. Athansius was fighting Arius, and Arius had gained much traction in support of this theology, but right before going before the council had pooped his intestines out, and the council took it as a sign from God that Arius was wrong, and subsequently adhered to the doctrine of St. Athansius, who wrote the Nicene Creed. Let me quote the Scholar Stanley that wrote the Biography of St. Athansius the Apostolic:

"After the Council of Nicea, the Patriarch of Alexandria became an advocate of Christianity in the world world. His judgements were obeyed in all Christendom, in all scientific matters, worldly and religious matters."[/quote]According to Wikipedia, there is a Coptic tradition that the Nicene Creed was authored by St. Athanasius:[quote name='Wiki']The original Nicene Creed was first adopted in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea. At that time, the text ended after the words "We believe in the Holy Spirit", after which an anathema was added.

[u]The Coptic Church has the tradition that the original creed was authored by Athanasius.[/u] F.J.A. Hort and Adolf Harnack argued that the Nicene creed was the local creed of Caesarea brought to the council by Eusebius of Caesarea. J.N.D. Kelly sees as its basis a baptismal creed of the Syro-Phoenician family, related to (but not dependent on) the creed cited by Cyril of Jerusalem and to the creed of Eusebius.

Soon after the Council of Nicaea, new formulas of faith were composed, most of them variations of the Nicene Symbol, to counter new phases of Arianism. The Catholic Encyclopedia identifies at least four before the Council of Sardica (341), where a new form was presented and inserted in the Acts of the Council, though it was not agreed on.[/quote]So, there are a few theories about authorship. At the beginning of Fr. Norman Tanner's "Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol I", a variety of other theories regarding its origin are discussed.

Responding to Katholikos question: the Athanasian Creed, which mistakenly bears his name, dates to pre-500 AD. It has both Latin and Alexandrian influences (as far as I can tell from my reading). Up until a few hundred years ago, it was thought that the author was St. Athanasius of Alexandria. Current theories include attributing authorship of this "Creed" to St. Ambrose of Milan.

I found it interesting that this Creed has explicit support for the Filioque over half a millenium before the Great Schism.[quote]Latin: [i]Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus: sed procedens.[/i]

English: The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten: but proceeding.[/quote]There is no evidence that this Creed's statements were controversial in the East (note: the Athanasian Creed was available in both Latin and Greek). It may even have been used in a Liturgical setting in both the East and the West. See Denzinger's "Sources of Catholic Dogma", page 15 for more information.

Edited May 4, 2007 by Mateo el Feo

[RezaMikhaeil]

Notice thou that St. Gregory testified of St. Athansius at Nicea [see one of my previous quotes]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1263387' date='May 3 2007, 02:39 PM']Consider the Church Father Irenaeus:
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole word; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.[/quote]

I dont know if I asked you already but could you please provide citation for where you got this information. A friend of mine owns an actual book regarding this quote, and the context is quite different then you're implying it. In the book "against heresies" St. Irenaeus goes over a variety of heresies, particularly this quote that you've provided is a bad translation, and is taken out of context. It's found in "book 3, chapter 5" of the writing of St. Irenaeus. St. Irenaeus is addressing the point of gnostics having "secret" knowledge. Saying that the apostles had successors and made no such attempt to have secret knowledged passed. This is the context of the passage. he also goes on to talk about the churches of asia... and how they have teachings from the apostles also... so in other words, you've ripped it out of context to fit your agenda and provided a bad translation.

Here's also a footnote from the book:

[code]The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, "Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse
est omnem convenire ecclesiam." Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say
with certainty of what words in the Greek original "potiorem principalitatem" may be the translation. We are far from sure that
the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It
would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: "For to
this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful)
resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles."
(Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters.
She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the
glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap. xii. of Dr.
Wordsworth's St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome.[/code]

[Katholikos]

[quote]I dont know if I asked you already but could you please provide citation for where you got this information.[/quote]

Yes, Reza, you asked for it in the thread where it was originally posted. The source is in my original post, right after the quotation. Guess you missed it.

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=67653"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=67653[/url]

It is also quoted in [i]Jesus, Peter and the Keys[/i], in a different translation with a different source: [i]Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus[/i], (n.p.: Christian Literature Pub. Co., 1885, repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994, 415-416.

[i]Jesus, Peter and the Keys[/i], Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, Rev. Mr. David Hess, Queenship Publishing, 1996, p. 175-176, is a book that reproduces all or most of the evidence for the primacy of Peter. Deacon Joseph Pasqualle in his interview on the Journey Home mentioned this book as instrumental in his conversion to Rome.

Deacon Pasqualle also quoted Saint John Chrysostom: A schism is worse than heresy, because it tears the Body of Christ. (paraphrased)

You should be able to find [i]Adversus Heresies[/i] anywhere on the Net where the Church Fathers are offered. One source is newadvent.org. (I haven't read it there, but I know the Church Fathers are provided at this site.)

Likos

Edited May 4, 2007 by Katholikos

[RezaMikhaeil]

As I'd posted thou, you took his words out of context, as later in the same writing he goes on to say that the Eastern Church is supremacy in that area, [ultimately concluding that the church is superior over gnosticism].

Reza

[Oik]

Katholikos,

Consider the statement on the unity of the Church: The Holy Apostolic Church is One. This is alos the claim of the Holy Orthodox Church. Whoever, unity infers a multiplicity (only in the sense of disticntion). God is One God is Trinity. Three distinct Person One Essence.

The Church, is not merely many rites worshipping in One Church. The Church is the Communion of Churches worshipping in differnent tradiions/rites. A sui iuris Church is not a rite, it uses a rite.

As Patriarch Gregory III of the Melkite Church said: I am not sub Petro, I am cum Petro.

Also, the See of Anitoch was founded by Saint Peter. It is a Petrine see.

The Church is One and so is the Community. As Vatician II pointed out in regards to the Orthodox, there is an imperfect unity.