Catholic - Orthodox Dialog

[Jnorm888]

When did the Coptic Catholic church clone the Oriental Coptic Orthodox church? Was it at the council of Florence? Was that council in the 14 hundreds? I forgot when that council was.......but that is a huge gap don't you think?

I don't think there was a Roman Catholic Coptic Church shortly after the Council of Chalcedon. There was a Byzantine one......but not a Roman Catholic one.

Edited May 4, 2007 by jnorm888

[Apotheoun]

The Coptic Catholic Church was established in A.D. 1741, and was only given patriarchal dignity in A.D. 1895.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1264611' date='May 4 2007, 05:50 PM']The Coptic Catholic Church was established in A.D. 1741, and was only given patriarchal dignity in A.D. 1895.[/quote]

I'm glad someone knew for sure [because I didn't] the previous poster was correct that the Byzintines were the first to create a clone.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1264865' date='May 5 2007, 01:33 AM']I'm glad someone knew for sure [because I didn't] the previous poster was correct that the Byzintines were the first to create a clone.[/quote]
I do not agree of course with your response, which is of given only from the Oriental (i.e., the socalled [i]Miaphysite[/i]) Orthodox perspective, because -- as a Byzantine Catholic Christian -- I hold that the Council of Chalcedon was a true ecumenical council, and, as a consequence, that its deposition of Dioscoros as Patriarch of Alexandria (A.D. 444-451), and its appointment of Proterios as the new Patriarch (A.D. 451-457), was perfectly canonical and legitimate.

That said, the Eastern Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the Coptic Oriental Orthodox Church of Egypt have both had their own patriarchs since the time of the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451), and occasionally the two sides have even shared the same patriarch (i.e., since they were in communion with each other at certain times in history).

God bless,
Todd

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1264876' date='May 5 2007, 03:42 AM']I do not agree of course with your response, which is of given only from the Oriental (i.e., the socalled [i]Miaphysite[/i]) Orthodox perspective, because -- as a Byzantine Catholic Christian -- I hold that the Council of Chalcedon was a true ecumenical council, and, as a consequence, that its deposition of Dioscoros as Patriarch of Alexandria (A.D. 444-451), and its appointment of Proterios as the new Patriarch (A.D. 451-457), was perfectly canonical and legitimate.

[code]I figured you were in favor of the council of Chalcedon and I can respect your opinion, no doubt.[/code]

That said, the Eastern Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the Coptic Oriental Orthodox Church of Egypt have both had their own patriarchs since the time of the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451), and occasionally the two sides have even shared the same patriarch (i.e., since they were in communion with each other at certain times in history).

[code]The differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy really aren't that "different" these days and is primarily "phraseology", so I wouldn't be surprised to see them unite again.[/code]

God bless,
Todd

[code]Glad to see others participate in this discussion, Take care,
Reza[/code][/quote]

[goldenchild17]

Reza... I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly or not, so correct me if I'm not... But would you disagree that the Church at Rome claimed authority over the Churches in other parts of the world? Would you disagree that other Sees around the world acknowledged this authority? If so, maybe you could explain some of the following passages written (or spoken) before the Eastern Orthodox schism. And if they are out of context I apologize, I don't do so purposely and request that you explain how each is out of context. I know that these are a lot, but such a number is necessary to show that it is not simply an isolated opinion. And there are many more to come should these not be sufficient. Thanks:

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96) -
Seems that the Pope here in the 1st century is asserting his authority over the Church in Corinth and warns them of the danger of disobedience.


"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

This one is written by Ignatius from Antioch and praises the Church in Rome. May not prove assent to Roman authority but does signify high respect and love for the aforementioned.





"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

I suppose you can disregard this one if you wish, as I see you have already attempted to address it above. I am not familiar with Greek or Latin so I cannot attempt to argue the translation here, but I would ask that you explain your reasoning for saying that the context implies another meaning. I doubt that the translation is so bad that the meaning of the whole letter is in error so certainly we could go to another portion of the letter to determine the actual meaning.








"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour...Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).

Here's a nice one. Pope Victor asserts his authority over the parishes of Asia (meaning the Eastern Rite Churches) and excommunicates any church that does not accept the same observation day of Passover that was adopted by all the other Churches. How could Pope Victor do this if he had no authority over such matters in regards to the Churches in Asia?




"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

Interesting one from St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (not Rome), very clearly acknowledging the primacy of the chair of Peter.






”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).

Priests from EVERY province should report to their HEAD, the See of Peter.






"You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one." Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c. A.D. 367).







"For the good of unity Blessed Peter deserved to be preferred before the rest, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that he might communicate them to the rest." Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 7:3 (c.A.D. 367).










"…I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375).









"Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgments...For (Peter) himself has care over all the Churches, and above all that in which he sat nor does he suffer any of its privileges or decisions to be shaken" Pope Zosimus [regn A.D. 417-418 ],To Aurelius and the Council of Carthage, Epistle 12 (A.D. 418).





"Joining to yourself, therefore, the sovereign of our See, and assuming our place with authority, you will execute this sentence with accurate rigour: that within ten days, counted from the day of your notice, he shall condemn his [Nestorius'] false teachings in a written confession." Pope Celestine [regn. A.D. 422-432], To Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 11 (A.D. 430).

"The Holy Synod said: 'Since most impious Nestorius will not obey our citation, and has not received the most holy and God-fearing bishops whom we sent to him, we have necessarily betaken ourselves to the examination of his impieties; and having apprehended from his letters, and from his writings, and from his recent sayings in this metropolis, which have been reported, that his opinions and teachings are impious, we being necessarily compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and colleague, Celestine, bishop of the Roman Church, with many tears, have arrived at the following sentence against him:--'Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has been blasphemed by him, defines by this present most holy synod that the same Nestorius is deprived of episcopal dignity and of all sacredotal intercourse." Council of Ephesus, Session I (A.D. 431).





"Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place...Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present...Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church." Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

[Katholikos]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1264123' date='May 4 2007, 10:10 AM']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[/quote]

That Irenaeus didn't have the Coptic Orthodox (or any other Orthodox) in mind when he wrote [b]Adversus Heresies[/b] is obvious. No Orthodox church existed at the time! But it was true then and it's still true:

"For with this [Catholic] Church [of Rome], because of its superior origin [i.e., having been founded by Peter and Paul], [b]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[/b]."

I have said, and you have acknowledged, the Orthodox were all part of the unified, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, but broke off at various times for various reasons. To quote St. John Chrysostom again, [b]Schism is worse than heresy, because it wounds the Body of Christ.[/b] The Orthodox preferred schism. You are now split from Rome and from each other.

Peace be with you,

Likos

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1264890' date='May 5 2007, 06:06 AM']Reza... I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly or not, so correct me if I'm not... But would you disagree that the Church at Rome claimed authority over the Churches in other parts of the world?

[code]No I wouldn't assert that Rome had claimed authority over all the churches in the other parts of the world. Please read my previous posts [if you would], and you'll see my reasoning behind this and quotes from the early church, including St. Athanasius that wrote the Nicene Creed that say the opposite.[/code]

Would you disagree that other Sees around the world acknowledged this authority?

[code]It's important to note that the other Sees around the world do not acknowledge this authority. Alexandria, the See of St. Mark, is not the only other See that disagrees with Rome. Everyone of the original Sees of the Apostles disagree with Rome.[/code]

If so, maybe you could explain some of the following passages written (or spoken) before the Eastern Orthodox schism.

[code]I could go over some of them, I don't possibly have the time to do the research on everyone of them but I could go over a few of them.[/code]

And if they are out of context I apologize, I don't do so purposely and request that you explain how each is out of context.

[code]I don't hold grudges, it's just that if you intend on having a good discussion regarding this, it's important to know the full context of these quotes, not just post a billion quotes from various Roman Catholic leaning commentary websites [as Budge does but from the opposite perspective].[/code]

I know that these are a lot, but such a number is necessary to show that it is not simply an isolated opinion.

[code]If these quotes don't imply, what you're suggesting they imply, then it's definately an isolated opinion.[/code]

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96) -

[code]St. Clement of Rome was speaking of a Church inside of the Roman See's jurisdiction, he's urging them to bring unity back to their church, based upon the chaotic situation. In the letter St. Clement of Rome is urging the Corinthians to repent after the example of the Patriarchs, and to be humble like Christ himself. Notice that the proper context is that St. Clement was using every patriarch as an example for the Corinthians.[/code]


"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

[code]Reference again to Jurisdiction. Rather then go through the majority of these quotes that are taken out of context, I'm going to leave you with the notion that you should read the actual letters, and see the quotes inside the proper context, then post the select quotes that back your opinion best. As I'd mentioned, I could clutter this message board with quotes too [as Budge does with her hate speeches], but I'd rather just use a few that best support what I'd stated previously.

Reza[/code][/quote]

[goldenchild17]

I notice you only pick the letters written to those within the pope's jurisdiction. Those I could possibly see. You don't attempt to explain any of the ones written to those outside his jurisdiction. If you don't wish to address them all then I'll pick a couple select ones that I find more important. How about...:


"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour...Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).

How can the pope do this if he has no authority over the Asian churches?





”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).

Why is it that priests of every province have to report to their head which is the See of Peter? Why is their head whichever See they happen to reside in, or belong to?






"For the good of unity Blessed Peter deserved to be preferred before the rest, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that he might communicate them to the rest." Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 7:3 (c.A.D. 367).


Here a bishop of Milevis acknowledges Peter is preferred among the apostles and alone recieved the keys. What do we make of this?



I'd at least appreciate an explanation for these three. I agree with the necessity to understand context. But if you are to use context to your advantage then it would be prudent for you to explain how the context shows a different meaning. I have read many (not all, but many) of the documents from which these quotes come from and would definitely appreciate any explanation you could give as to how the context shows something that I'm not seeing. I don't know if you intended the connection to budge as an insult, but note that I just want an explanation. I'm not here to get into ad hominem attacks. thank you.

[goldenchild17]

just one more for now that I am puzzled about. You can take all the time you want, but I'm curious as to its real meaning.


"Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed Apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others . . . the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head."

{Pope St. Leo the Great - Letter to Bishop Anastasius of Thessalonica, c.446 A.D., 14:11; in Jurgens, FEF, vol. 3, p. 270;}

This one seems pretty clear in explaining the difference between not only bishops, but the apostles themselves. Here Pope St. Leo is telling a Bishop of Thessalonica (who is of another see) that the See of Peter is the head.

[Katholikos]

Reza, I do not know why, since all I know about computers is how to turn 'em on and off, but when I click the "reply" mechanism, all of the text you have written in the post I want to respond to disappears. And this time, it's not in red.

Have a peaceful day,

Likos

[goldenchild17]

[quote]not just post a billion quotes from various Roman Catholic leaning commentary websites[/quote]


You may not recognize the significance of this, but note that I am not in communion with what is recognized as the Roman Catholic Church. I am considered in schism and most here would contend that I also do not recognize the authority of the Seat of Peter. So I do not quote from these catholic apologetics sites because I agree with everything they post. In fact I detest a good many things which they make an attempt to defend. But, I will use them, no matter from what source, unless its proven that they are proven seriously out of context and/or mistranslated. You have claimed that these quotes are such, but I ask that you explain how they are out of context and/or mistranslated. Please do not simply claim them as such and assume that I will just accept that as an explanation without proof of your assertion. thanks

Edited May 5, 2007 by goldenchild17

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1264876' date='May 5 2007, 01:33 AM'][quote name='Apotheoun' post='1264876' date='May 5 2007, 03:42 AM'][. . .]

That said, the Eastern Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the Coptic Oriental Orthodox Church of Egypt have both had their own patriarchs since the time of the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451), and occasionally the two sides have even shared the same patriarch (i.e., since they were in communion with each other at certain times in history).[/quote]
The differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy really aren't that "different" these days and is primarily "phraseology", so I wouldn't be surprised to see them unite again.[/quote]
I agree that the differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy are mainly semantical in nature. In fact, the "Greek Orthodox Theological Review" published a series of papers back in the 1960s that showed that the two sides really do agree on most Christological issues (with minor differences of emphasis and terminology), and that is the reason why I referred to your Church as "Miaphysite," and not as "Monophysite."

God bless,
Todd

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1264926' date='May 5 2007, 10:54 AM']Reza, I do not know why, since all I know about computers is how to turn 'em on and off, but when I click the "reply" mechanism, all of the text you have written in the post I want to respond to disappears. And this time, it's not in red.

Have a peaceful day,

Likos[/quote]
It's because he makes his responses within the quotes.

perhaps if you copy-pasted his entire post and responded to it from there?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1264928' date='May 5 2007, 08:00 AM']You may not recognize the significance of this, but note that I am not in communion with what is recognized as the Roman Catholic Church. I am considered in schism and most here would contend that I also do not recognize the authority of the Seat of Peter. So I do not quote from these catholic apologetics sites because I agree with everything they post. In fact I detest a good many things which they make an attempt to defend. But, I will use them, no matter from what source, unless its proven that they are proven seriously out of context and/or mistranslated. You have claimed that these quotes are such, but I ask that you explain how they are out of context and/or mistranslated. Please do not simply claim them as such and assume that I will just accept that as an explanation without proof of your assertion. thanks[/quote]

Here's the facts: I don't have time to go through every quote, in which you quoted without even checking the full context yourself! It's very easy to "copy and paste" 10 billion quotes from the internet, it's more difficult to fiind the actual articles and read them directly. If you'd like to specifically focus on a particular article by a particular saint [as has previously been done in this discussion] you're more then welcome to, but just copy and pasting articles from the internet and then expecting me to spend hrs researching the context, just to prove you wrong, isn't going to work for me.

[quote]I agree with the necessity to understand context. But if you are to use context to your advantage then it would be prudent for you to explain how the context shows a different meaning. [/quote]I don't use them for my advantage, you quoted them. I quoted St. Athansius and St. Gregory!

[quote]Reza, I do not know why, since all I know about computers is how to turn 'em on and off, but when I click the "reply" mechanism, all of the text you have written in the post I want to respond to disappears. And this time, it's not in red.[/quote]

Yeah I'm sorry my friend, I might have made it too confusing wit too many quotes [not on purpose of course]. I think Aloysius's advice might work, hopefully.

Reza

Edited May 5, 2007 by RezaLemmyng